Great investments allow you to minimize your bets.
E.g. with Stripe, you bet on the growth of e-commerce. And Stripe’s APIs further de-risk that bet.
#Chainlink and $Link allow you to bet on smart contracts w/o picking a winner (while also improving the rate of SC adoption)
@ChainLinkGod thanks for all the great content!
One question I had on staking that I thought you might be able to answer: how do you think the implementation will work for slashing $Link for inaccurate data? Essentially, how will what’s “inaccurate” be adjudicated?
There is a ton of bullshit in this space, so it’s understandable that people are skeptical of less well known projects.
This is how I felt originally with $LINK and $SNX, but am very happy CT forced me to dig deeper.
How do we get people that aren’t on CT to do this research?
@The_Law_Boy The game theoretics on this have always confused me. Seems like Warren is a better outcome than a lot of the anti-rich sentiment that could be around the corner if the wealth gap continues to widen
@PeterSchiff Not a completely unfair criticism, but she did secure profound protections for consumers.
What have you done aside from speculate? (Not saying I’m much better, but lots of wealth did not add value)
@nic_carter@surferjimw @_ConnerBrown_ Wow, very interesting. With that in mind, am I wrong to think that the S2F model’s veracity could largely end up depending upon whether miners believe in that price target? @100trillionUSD
Would love to see a survey of their expectations for the halvening
@100trillionUSD I generally agree. $LINK is one of the few exceptions in my mind.
Still requires more speculation than $BTC but the use case is just so damn necessary for smart contracts (and $ETH for that matter) to reach their potential
(3/) Finally, while it doesn’t fit as neatly in Schiff’s framework, the religiosity around Bitcoin is a feature, not a bug, in that shock scenario.
IMO, there’s an immovable group of BTC believers that would stabilize price because it’s “cheap” and prevent a 100% drawdown.
.@APompliano (1/ ) interesting podcast with @PeterSchiff — seems Schiff’s definition of value actually fits very well with #Bitcoin.
In that exogenous shock scenario, Peter points out that Gold’s utility in jewelry, equipment, etc. provides a buffer against going to zero.
(2/) Bitcoin’s utility is censorship-resistant money and communication. That’s Bitcoin’s buffer against zero. Even if there was a price shock, BTC has value for:
-Escape hatch: Ppl emigrating from failed economies (and, unfortunately, dictators’ nest eggs)
-Open comms protocol
Read through the Coinlist hackathon entries fo #Chainlink and try to contain your excitement: https://t.co/odymws8tqI
Guess I’m buying some more $LINK tonight...