GC

work in progress

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@TweetsOfSteve_ @electionsjoe @grok how much bigger is 7.8 than 6.3

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@PassionAndLuck Source on the June 11 date?

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@PeterHegarty17 @pmarca It's a joke

https://t.co/7fp8FnuROx

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@EconChrisClarke Taleb wrote his books and then started calling everyone stupid

deranged behavior tbf

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@cesifoti @nntaleb @instrumenthull @pmarca https://t.co/7fp8FnuROx

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@EconChrisClarke Taleb wrote his books and then started calling everyone stupid

deranged behavior tbf

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@peer_rich And make what, $10?

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@GoKanni1 @levelsio What's wrong with inequality if everyone is richer, unless you really only care about status

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@0xAIMGU @maybema2000 @PixOnChain Yeah but markets easily swayed by a single entity won't rationally garner sufficient liquidity for that paradox to be created in the first place. Hence no paradox.

[GC @GC_of_QC]

43% of people are confused

[Crémieux @cremieuxrecueil]

Is AI right now better described as a bubble or a transformative industry?

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@ijaack94 assuming 2% deleg fee & an 8% take rate, they could go to 10% + 8% and still be half of what coinbase charges

lsts are stickier than you're giving them credit for.
again, many jurisdictions treat staking rewards as income, with a top marginal tax rate >>35%

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@ijaack94 Yes

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@ijaack94 Also you're saying it'd be so good for validators it'd force people to run validators, & that'd be bad for validators. I don't follow the logic

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@ijaack94 I'm referring to the min delegation fee (2%), should be 10%. Risks aside, the economic advantage to use LSTs is already much superior: liquid, composable & tax friendly. They should pay more than 2%

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@ReturnSharia @batcow1239 @aswren Yes, but that's a different point.

[GC @GC_of_QC]

It's not the argument I'm making. If I buy a painting for $1 billion there's no waste relative to me not buying the painting. Instead of sitting in my bank account it sits in the sellers bank account.

If I sit on money it simply reduces monetary velocity. It reduces the supply/demand imbalance in the market, and banks lend more to adapt. Meaning, if I sit on $10 trillion for long enough, the monetary system will simply create more money to compensate. If I start using the funds, banks will lend less, money supply shrinks.

Back to your point, if you use otherwise idle capital to build/feed, you increase inflation. It (potentially) makes sense to reroute billionaire spending, not billionaire wealth.

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@GravyVampire812 @fkfasc @batcow1239 @aswren Not sure what you mean here, if they're building it & operating it then there's taxes throughout. If you mean a simple deed change from purchasing an existing stadium, then there's no cost to society

[GC @GC_of_QC]

Your concept of money is flawed. There's no waste in buying a sports team, it's a transfer of assets, no cost to society. If I had $5 trillion cash in my couch and burnt it, it would have no impact. If I used it, I'd inflate the money supply (inflation) by that much (which FED notes or treasury debt can already do). Stocks (and most wealth) fall in that category too, art pieces, etc.

Housing is different, since it uses resources. Private plane goes here.

You can tax spending, taxing wealth makes no sense. Together your organs are worth 6-7 figures, should they be taxed?

[GC @GC_of_QC]

@naval @thounameis >Off-chain assets might gain some very small tracking / accounting benefits from being wrapped on-chain, but that’s it.

Not small. Standardized, composable, tooling compatibility, lower counterparty risks, global liquidity.