the producers won't have the issue, I was thinking just speculators that have over/unexpected exposure to the wrong direction of the oil/gas derivatives market
13,016 karma · joined April 16, 2020
Running VMs inside of VMs. VM Inception
vmception00 [at] gmail.com
k
Given that the Federal Reserve wants unemployment numbers to rise, they're specifically trying to make share capital worth less, and borrowing capabilities cost more, making revenue-poor corporations stop being so optimistic. so I would just expect lower valuations with much lower revenue multiples (or price to equity ratios), for that reason alone.
Slowed growth in China is always a threat because thats a key revenue driver for many large western companies. Then sure, there is the leverage and accountability problem with Chinese real estate, but I don't get the impression that contagion is that big because nobody thinks that is a safe bet and also avoid too much exposure to the domestic chinese lenders involved. The rumors behind Tether just aren't big enough to matter for this, could only be a slight sting to the commercial paper market and a moderate "finally" for the crypto market as a tether implosion would probably increase confidence there after steep selloffs.
Oil/gas volatility is probably going to have some casualties.
Every product in 2008 was completely viable which is why the Federal Reserve bought everything.
Only 7% of the borrowers defaulted by then, there wasnt mass irresponsibility on the people with mortgages as suggested, this alone blew up some institutions because they were leveraged nearly 50x and one month of missed mortgage payments would cause a massive drawdown on their portfolio.
Without leverage, a portfolio where 93% is going to pay a lot in interest over 5-30 years is a good portfolio.
So there is no reason to get uncomfortable or anxious by seeing the words “subprime” “CDOs” or more, as it comes down to whether the accounting is done properly and the leverage is low. Which, I believe is being done. The "big crash" always comes from a different and unexpected (or less expected) angle, where some completely different sector has too much leverage and flimsy accounting.
The second time was after some professional and speculative successes, and I realized that people expected me to be accredited. That was nice. So I “self certified” that I was accredited and got to participate in the rounds. No need to bother with extremely low float assets, although still an option.
All subsequent times I continued to self certify regardless of the economic reality, periodically it’s above the threshold in pure liquid assets, otherwise it was a stretch of the imagination and pure financial engineering. There are also much higher monetary thresholds like “qualified investor”. Everything higher is also a self certification. Its a dumb caste system so I have dumb solutions for it, its super effective. I took it waaay too seriously when I was younger, I just didn’t know the consequences and expected to be treated as a joke by super serious people, turns out nobody cares and capital games are all casual entertainment to the wealthy, show up if you’re interested, bring your own capital.
You still have to actually have the cash to invest. If you can’t come up with $25k minimum it’s going to be weird.
Both offer levels of privacy, Wyoming’s aren't codified they just dont care (and will help you), there all you have to do is just have anyone else sign the organization documents. Your registered agent or your lawyer can.
The thinnest rationale I've seen was that Florida Federal district judge that gutted the CDC order one month before it was going to expire anyway, in that case she spent a comical amount of time defining the word "sanitation" after finding a couple dictionaries from 1944, when the act was passed, specifically because Congress neglected to define and codify what sanitation meant for the purpose of the CDC's authority. I'm like "okay. thats low key hilarious" and I would love to see how this pans out on appeal.
I just am not finding the court system to be doing out of character things. I can independently find some outcomes to be shocking or inconvenient, but surprised based on my analysis of how I expect them to act? No. Nothing surprising occurring.
It just so happens that all my causes and grudges are from creatures of the New Deal, and I'm not in a position to bring them before the courts yet. Imagine my excitement when I realized how flimsy that era's legislative flurry really was.
> According to the Supreme Court’s more recent formulations of that longstanding rule, Congress may grant regulatory power to another entity only if it provides an “intelligible principle” by which the recipient of the power can exercise it.
But then the hits just keep on coming
> We first conclude that Congress has delegated to the SEC what would be legislative power absent a guiding intelligible principle.
>cue laugh track<
Usually not just a single thing, but if you go to some main ones its easy to get caught up in a string of things with other people that think its normal to keep going.
Art Basel in Miami last December was 1 week long, and surrounded by multiple other festivals. The energy stays there for some time, and next thing you know its New Years which has its own surge again.
Cannes Film Festivals is two weeks and goes right into the Monaco Grand Prix, and the opening parties in the party areas (St Tropez, Ibiza).
SXSW is the same way.
Oh, the seasonal Fashion Week's are actually the best example. NYFW goes into London Fashion Week, into Paris, into Milan. Then a month has definitely gone by. This happens in both February and in September.
There are a bunch of bullshit tech conferences if thats more your speed, just excuses to go to some cities with other people that want to party, or are kind of looking for deal flow, or are in sales at a big company. A lot of VC people wind up at those for their endless excuses to get on a stage and talk amongst themselves in a "fire side chat". You can invite them out more easily when you don't seem like someone that needs them.
Some entrepreneurial things worked out, some speculative things worked out, they're not mutually exclusive to me.
(When I do an entrepreneurial thing, I think of the shares I create as being part of my portfolio just like shares I bought from someone else. Its the same buy low, sell high mentality to me. Pocketing some/alot of the revenue is an option as well, if there is any revenue, ha.)
Also, turns out accredited investor status (and similar wealth thresholds for financial products) are "self-certifications", which is a euphemism for lying. Took me longer than it should have to catch on to that. The only exception being a Reg D 506(c) offerings, which require proof of accredited investor status. It also took me a while to understand that the consequence isn't on the individual, its on the person selling shares. And they want your money, they just need to check a box. The government says "you can check that box, if they say so". So, no sanction on them as long as they ask (for the most part), and you don't act like a poor person scrounging around for the money you said you had. Maybe one of those private investments hit, and never look back. Better than wasting 4-8 years of your life being paid in lottery tickets across a handful of companies, lottery tickets that have worse odds than the investors of the same company have purchased.
If they can't, then they have to rely on Congress, if they can't then national government cant be involved.
Simple order of operations.
There is a major lack of oversight on Executive Orders.
BUT for the most part they are an accurate use from what I can tell. Usually they are merely aspirational goals for agencies to implement, much more similar to a CEO's quarterly goals for subdivisions. The President is a dual office role of being head of the executive branch, and being head of the military.
I don't really see that much straight up unilateral ordering of specific actions, and those would be the only constitutionally questionable ones.
Additional context on that threat of court packing is that the Supreme Court was already invalidating and gutting the New Deal! Its such an important story to me because my grade school history books all upheld the New Deal as this monumental and amazing thing.
From what I can tell, 75% of it (or 75% of the programs it created) was declared unconstitutional, and everything else just hasn't been challenged yet!
And of the things that were challenged and declared constitutional, it was under the threat of court packing! Now, 3-5 generations later, the Supreme Court just can't imagine how society functions by ruling accurately to begin with! I'm pretty interested in any court unwinding this incongruency.
I love this. I hope this trend catches on, I can't wait to gut these bloated agencies and force Congress to get back to work at the risk of a completely paralyzed society if they don't.
Any supreme court ruling, and court ruling, and any agency ruling or even from the White House, that acts as a Super Legislature instead of some other rationale, is going to get gutted, no matter how old or "settled" the case masquerades to be. Find a different rationale to reach the same desired goal, or rely on Congress, or the government cant be involved.
There are other circuits across this vast land that get even less action. All circuits operate within a silo of case law within that circuit, with a much lower weighting towards precedent in other circuits, and an even lower weighting towards rulings further removed.
Just need inspiration to try!
there were a lot of barriers to this occurring though, which is a bigger issue.
For me, it was not fulfilling to be shut out of the private equity markets because I made too little as a wage slave. It was not fulfilling for me to not have the choice of hopping out to month long festivals, because I was merely earning UP TO 2 weeks of time off, or the unlimited vacation policy was just 2 weeks of time because the expectations from the manager were the same.
For others, wage work subsidizing some local recreational activities and eventual downpayment on a home is enough. Thats perfectly fine.
So for you, relationships are fulfilling, and maybe creativity is. But maybe wage work is too. In your situation, I would at least be prioritizing finding out (maybe by making a post like this as a start). But its better for me to know, than to not know. and I will do that at the expense of personal and professional relationships if a choice needed to be made.
One thing to know about both the entrepreneurial and creative side, is that the people you are inspired by always had a choice. They did not need a job to exchange time for food and shelter. Failure would not impact their life. Whereas for people reliant on wage-based professional attainment, the stakes are much higher and its not just a casual decision or path to take. If you fail at the entrepreneurial pursuit, you might actually be reliant on the wage work for the next decade - hoping - that nothing goes wrong to make you further reliant. Whereas the "fun" entrepreneurs have a survivorship bias in their favor because they can try and try and try again, in quick and simultaneous succession.
The LLC (and other entity types) increases the deterrent of this ever affecting you.
The LLC specifically has some theoretical weaknesses, but the reason it is a deterrent is because it deters people from spending more money to find out about those weakenesses, and it also increases the odds that people won't be able to know where you are or serve you properly. The more expensive it is to find out anything, the less potential aggrieved people will bother, and "finding out" for them could mean "even harder to create liability and a payout", so they get bounced, or deterred, from trying.
All your costs are tax deductions, whether you incorporate or not. The incorporation cost is negligible and you can ignore everything about a local/foreign llc registration simply because the consequences are improbable and inconsequential, just make the llc in the best states. If your employer is withholding any taxes, you’ll get so much more of it back because you have so many deductions now.
If you make any revenue its easy to count.
Your standing in society is based on gross revenue, your tax footprint is a fraction of net revenues. Its low key perfect. Net operating losses are the greatest of all time.
In addition, You get massively disproportionate security and anonymity by operating under entities you created. And you can prove product market fit in private and then inherit all the credit for it when it works.
At the individual contributor level the manager is always pushing for “personal OKRs” too
And I’ve never been able to be honest or “authentic” about that
Nobody could ever explain if it was professional development goals, extra responsibility or goals within the company or coding project, or actual personal. Other ICs would be excited to write their actual personal.
There are many people that feel like their data should be valuable, so that sentiment allows for us to relate to Meta and Robinhood’s “take-rate” being 100%, because they arent giving us a cut of the data. That slidedeck was merely hopping on that sentiment.
Only reason I noticed was because a compiler used in the tutorial issued a warning about this happening, and I had to investigate the tutorial doubly hard to see if this was indeed one of the problematic ones. It sadly was.
Its not academia, the grade is getting fast funding or revenue because any language is fine and any performance is good enough because the bottlenecks are somewhere else or irrelevant
are there any mystery hacks occurring yet?
is this database known to have been spread anywhere?
Yes, that deck has the dual purpose of "rationalizing" their investments in web3, which don't need rationalizing at all because they are insanely profitable, as they pump their prior rounds with new investor money in future rounds, as they really leverage the anti-dilution provisions of their OpenSea investment hard.
Every rebuttal written web2 in that article applies to web3 as well:
> YouTube gets to charge 45% because they’ve built a platform that directs billions of users to watch videos they’re likely to be interested in. If you don’t need your video-hosting platform to help you acquire viewer traffic, then you don’t need to share as much of your revenue.
OpenSea gets to charge 2.5% because they've built a platform that directs hundreds of thousands of users to browse NFTs they're likely to be interested in. If you don't need your NFT marketplace platform to help you acquire viewer traffic, then you don't need to share as much of your revenue.
Its whatever. I'm glad they released the deck. It is worth scrutinizing simply by questioning the source, but treat it as an informative piece to dig a little deeper in. "Oh no some figures in a slide deck couldn't be compared 1:1" eh, okay. that's all that is.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-17/powell-sa...
"rise in the unemployment rate, [is] a cost worth paying in order to achieve [lower inflation]"