Mr.DeepBlue

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

I don’t agree, because the concept of „Every new technology actually creates more work“ was true when human labor and human intelligence was scarce.

That will not be true in the future, because we are now heading into a direction where AI will be smarter than most/all human beings.
Combine that with robotics and we are looking at a future where robots are more intelligent and more capable than a (very) big part of humans. On top of that, they can scale quick and cheap.

The way it looks now, at some point in the future we will have a certain percentage of people (whatever that number may be) that can be used for nothing because a robot will do everything they can do better and cheaper.

Robot labor and machine intelligence can be scaled fast and cheap based on what is required.
Humans are only useful if there is actually a thing that they can do better, faster or cheaper than a robot or an AI.

I can not see what kind of work will be available in the future for which you actually need the bottom X percent of the population and which can not be done cheaper/faster/better by robots or AI.

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

You don’t understand the concept.
It has nothing to do with nihilism.

The main thesis is that our self being separated from other beings and god is an illusion.

What Buddhism teaches, that all living is suffering, is true. That does not mean there are not also enjoyable phases, but at the end or the day living life as humans on earth and being subjected to the cycle of reincarnation means you are stuck in a circle of suffering in which you are staying due to your karma which basically means desire for earthly experiences.

Buddhism teaches a way to exit the cycle of reincarnation which leads you to Nirvana. Nirvana means being one with god and shed the illusion of „self“, basically going back to where you originally came from.

The typical western person can not grasp that concept unfortunately, leading to such misconceptions.

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

@BitcoinMagazine When has an announcement of an upcoming announcement ever led to anything substantial…🥱

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

@per_arneng @mamboitaliano__ You don’t do risky dives with people you believe may panic. As you said, they can put everyone else at risk.

You especially do not enter a cave system, large ship wreck or similar with someone you think could panic. That’s an absolute no-go.

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

The recovery diver died from decompression sickness which is actually crazy.
The only explanation for that is, that authorities pushed the recovery divers over their limits.
Aparrently he had already done a few dives to the cave that day and then did yet another one, which did lead to his decompression sickness which somehow ended deadly.

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

What he wrote is not true.
Entering a cave at that depth is not automatically suicide.
It very much depends how deep you actually intend to go in.
If it is a big cave and you intend to swim in a little bit, have a look around and then swim out again, the risk is not too high.
If it is a narrow cave with junctions and you decide to go deep inside, then obviously it’s extremely stupid.
Given that they were experienced divers this is rather unlikely.

Fact is that we don’t know what their actual intentions were with this dive.
Personally I think it is quite likely that some strong current was involved that prevented them from getting out.

Under normal conditions, given that they were experienced divers and were not set up for deep cave penetration it would be unlikely for all of them to die down there.

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

Which part that I wrote goes against pure science???

It is clearly possible to enter a cave at that depth with recreational gear. Maybe it’s not the smartest thing to do, but certainly not an automatic death sentence.
We don’t know what their actual intention was and most likely they did not intend to do a deep cave penetration for obvious reasons.
Maybe they only intended to swim into the cave a small way and then turn around.
Since this seems to not be a well explored cave, maybe there was a strong current inside the cave which pulled them further in.
We don’t know.

However the guy above posted stuff that is simply not true and made it look like diving below 140-150 feet is in itself almost suicidal, which is absolute nonsense.

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

The advantage of TAO is that you can participate in the upside without having to take on the risk with individual subnets.

Yes you need large money investors to pump up TAO. Or you think 5 figure retail guys can pump TAO to 100 billion?

If they buy TAO and stake in root it will pump up TAO price and with it the subnet valuations.

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

BTC has no yield and that makes it a non productive asset which tradfi investors often don’t like.
So what’s the point you’re trying to make?

I‘m not saying TAO will not rise in price without root yield. I‘m saying root yield will help with TAO adoption from traditional big money investors.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

I agree it feels really odd.
One factor we should not forget though is how many big accounts on X and their followers are still convinced that we will see 30-40k Bitcoins because... "4 year cycle" and "have to correct 70+%" as if that's a hardcoded rule.

So while institutional money has been buying the whole time, retail is bearish and waiting for lower prices.
I fully believe that they are wrong, but I think it's potentially playing a big role in the underperformance of Bitcoin as well.

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

"Proponents of 0% ROOT APY seem to assume people in your position would rotate that 1945 $TAO into subnets if root yield disappeared."

Yes, that's the fundamental flaw in my opinion.
I hold a large position in TAO and I have zero position in subnets, because I consider the investment in TAO to be risky enough and have no time to research subnets.
I believe that TAO will substantially increase and that is enough for me. I don't need to take on extra risk by playing with subnets.
For people with 5 figure positions it may be appealing to play with subnets in the hope to further increase their potential return.
But once you deploy a few millions, if TAO does a 20x that's more than enough anyway. Why would you then take on more risk to invest into subnets. The thing is, that for large investments you need to have conviction. I have conviction in TAO for different reasons, but I have no conviction in any of the subnets for the simple reason that I don't have enough knowledge on any of them and don't have the time and interest to start researching deeply into 100 subnets.
Therefore it would be idiotic for me to put any kind of serious money into any of the subnets as I'm not here to gamble.

If root apy is removed, I will not take a position in subnets and may reduce my exposure to TAO.
Not because I need the root yield, but simply because I believe it is a wrong decision which may negatively impact the price performance as it will make TAO less attractive to big money investors as they then classify it as a "non productive asset"

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

No root yield turns Bittensor into a "non productive asset".
Big money often does not like "non productive assets".
If you want to attract big money, offering a yield is very helpful.
Will people also buy TAO if there is no root yield? Yes
Will root yield make it easier for big money to hold positions in TAO? Yes

Will the removal of root yield speed up any kind of progress subnets make to drive Bittensor adoption forward? Highly questionable to me.
That's why my position is that removing root yield is a net negative for TAO price performance.

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

Of course people are not retarded.

But you need to understand that there are two categories of people.
On is the normal guy who has a 5 figure investment position and tries to maximise his return by going into subnets and has time and dedication to research this and take on a lot of risk in his hope to have a massive return.

The other is the big money investor who deploys millions of dollars into single positions.
You really think these guys have any kind of interest to research subnets?? They have far better things to do.
For them, putting a few million USD into TAO is already risky enough, they have ZERO interest in subnets in order to boost their return. If TAO does a 10x over whatever timeframe, that's great enough for them.
So for such a person, the question if they receive a yield as root stakers or not 100% matters and may make the difference between him deploying 10 million or 15 million into TAO.

If you want TAO to 30x, you need these people and if you offer them root yield, you make yourself more attractive to that kind of money, compared to other projects.

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

Look, what I‘m saying is that large scale investors like to deploy fund into positions where they also get a yield.
Ever heard the term „non productive asset“. Many large scale investors don’t like non productive assets.

Try to NOT see it only from your perspective, but from the perspective of the people we all need to dramatically increase the price of TAO.

Yes big money people will still put money into TAO even if there is no root staking, but it will most likely lead to a reduction of potential flows and they may be less determined to let the funds sit in TAO for longer without any yield. That’s the point I‘m making.

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

Sorry, but you don't understand how big money works. If you think that the majority of big investers will put their funds into subnets when you remove root yield, you think wrong. Subnets, especially in early stages are far too complex and complicated to value. In addition to that, they are priced in TAO, but valuation by investors is done in USD.
So a subnet that appears to be undervalued today, can easily be overvalued when TAO does a 4x.
That adds another big level of complexity for subnet investment.
If a subnet has a breakthrough and people want to invest into that specific subnet, then they will do so anyway. But the idea that significant amounts of funds will flow into subnets when root staking is involved is wrong in my opinion.
For many people, the idea of being able to invest in TAO and NOT have to invest in subnets is appealing, because some subnets will most likely have a break through sooner or later, but many others will not.
That's why people invest into an index of stocks and not into specific stocks, if they don't have the time or experience/knowledge to be a good stock picker.

What we all want at the end of the day is for the TAO price to go up. When TAO price goes up, TAO holders and subnet holders both make money.

What I'm saying is that TAO is much more appealing for investors when they can get a yield. Can it be lower than it is now, that can obviously be discussed. However removing the yield completely is a bad idea.

"Investors were the only ones getting paid to do nothing." seems you are not a serious money investor, otherwise you would not have written this. Putting serious money into TAO is risky and people who take risk want to be rewarded. That's the way the world works. If investors get rewarded by yield, beside potential price appreciation of the token itself, it is easier for them to deploy money.
Not sure how long you are in crypto already, but if you talk with traditional investors, the biggest problem for all of them is, that Bitcoin for example pays no yield.
Believe it or not, but for the people we need to 30x TAO yield is extremely important. Take away the yield and you make adoption and therefore price increase much more difficult.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Je veux présenter mes excuses, au nom des Français, pour avoir enfanté la French Theory (qui a enfanté la pire des merdes idéologiques : le wokisme).

Nous avons donné au monde Descartes, Pascal, Tocqueville. Et puis, dans les ruines intellectuelles de l'après-68, nous avons donné Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. Trois hommes brillants qui ont fabriqué, dans l'élégance de notre langue, l'arme idéologique qui paralyse aujourd'hui l'Occident.

Il faut comprendre ce qu'ils ont fait. Foucault a enseigné que la vérité n'existe pas, qu'il n'y a que des rapports de pouvoir déguisés en savoir. Que la science, la raison, la justice, l'institution médicale, l'école, la prison, la sexualité, tout n'est qu'une mise en scène de la domination. Derrida a enseigné que les textes n'ont pas de sens stable, que tout signifiant glisse, que toute lecture est une trahison, que l'auteur est mort et que le lecteur règne. Deleuze a enseigné qu'il fallait préférer le rhizome à l'arbre, le nomade au sédentaire, le désir à la loi, le devenir à l'être, la différence à l'identité.

Pris isolément, ce sont des thèses discutables. Combinées, exportées, vulgarisées, elles forment un système. Et ce système est un poison.

Car voici ce qui s'est passé. Ces textes, illisibles en France, ont traversé l'Atlantique. Les départements de Yale, de Berkeley, de Columbia les ont absorbés dans les années 80. Ils y ont trouvé un terreau qui n'existait pas chez nous : le puritanisme américain, sa culpabilité raciale, son obsession identitaire. La French Theory s'est mariée à ce substrat, et l'enfant de ce mariage s'appelle le wokisme.

Judith Butler lit Foucault et invente le genre performatif. Edward Said lit Foucault et invente le post-colonialisme académique. Kimberlé Crenshaw hérite du cadre et invente l'intersectionnalité. À chaque étape, la matrice est française : il n'y a pas de vérité, il n'y a que du pouvoir, donc toute hiérarchie est suspecte, toute institution est oppressive, toute norme est violence, toute identité est construite donc négociable, toute majorité est coupable.

Voilà comment trois philosophes parisiens, qui n'ont probablement jamais imaginé leurs conséquences pratiques, ont fourni le logiciel d'exploitation à une génération entière d'activistes, de bureaucrates universitaires, de DRH, de journalistes, de législateurs. Voilà comment on a obtenu une civilisation qui ne sait plus dire si une femme est une femme, si sa propre histoire mérite d'être défendue, si le mérite existe, si la vérité se distingue de l'opinion.

C'est de la merde pour une raison simple, et il faut la dire calmement. Une civilisation se tient debout sur trois piliers : la croyance qu'il existe une vérité accessible à la raison, la croyance qu'il existe un bien distinct du mal, la croyance qu'il existe un héritage à transmettre. La French Theory a entrepris de dynamiter les trois. Pas par méchanceté. Par jeu intellectuel, par fascination du soupçon, par haine de la bourgeoisie qui les avait nourris. Mais le résultat est là. Une génération entière a appris à déconstruire et n'a jamais appris à construire. Une génération entière sait soupçonner et ne sait plus admirer. Une génération entière voit le pouvoir partout et la beauté nulle part.

Je m'excuse parce que nous, Français, avons une responsabilité particulière. C'est notre langue, nos universités, nos éditeurs, notre prestige qui ont donné à ce nihilisme son emballage chic. Sans la légitimité de la Sorbonne et de Vincennes, ces idées n'auraient jamais traversé l'océan. Nous avons exporté le doute comme d'autres exportent des armes.

Ce qui se construit maintenant, en silicon valley, dans les labos d'IA, dans les startups, dans les ateliers, dans tous les lieux où des gens fabriquent encore des choses au lieu de les déconstruire, c'est la réponse. Une civilisation se reconstruit par les bâtisseurs, pas par les commentateurs. Par ceux qui croient que la vérité existe et qu'elle vaut qu'on s'y consacre. Par ceux qui assument une hiérarchie du beau, du vrai, du bon, et qui n'ont pas honte de la transmettre.

Alors pardon. Et au travail.

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

But if people don’t invest in subnets but simply buy TAO, the price of TAO goes up and therefore the valuation of the subnets also goes up as they are priced relative to TAO.
There is no need to force people into subnets for subnet values go up.
TAO on its own is already almost too complex for most normal investors.
Assuming that a majority of them will go further into subnet investing is naive in my opinion.
For the average investor, putting big money into TAO is more than risky enough, but I can see them doing it as it can be explained as kind of an AI fund investment. They buy TAO and therefore get exposure so all the subnets. But to assume any normal big money guy to buy TAO and then go into subnets, that’s not gonna happen. Far too complex and risky for them.

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

@bittensorism @decoding_things @Pop_Collapse My view is similar to yours that it is not a good idea to stop root staking.
I would be okay with them reducing the yield, but the fact that you can get a yield on root staking is very important for big capital, which we need if we want to massively increase the market cap of TAO

[Mr.DeepBlue @MrDeepBlue2]

I get where you‘re coming from.
However Bitcoin was never designed for stakers to get yield. It was always designed for all emissions to go to the miners.
In TAO it’s different and up until now, it was clearly designed to incentivize TAO holders with yield as well. A Bitcoin miner has no subnet token that will appreciate in value if they are successful. So Bitcoin emissions is the only revenue source for a Bitcoin miner.
TAO subnets however have their own tokens and when the subnet is successful, their tokens will have price appreciation, which is where the value creation occurs.
So it is a fundamentally different system and can not be compared to Bitcoin directly.

If we want billions of investment capital to flow into TAO, it is extremely important to offer them a yield on root level.
That’s simply a fact and when this function gets removed, it has a big potential to slow adoption.
It does not matter how you or other people deep in TAO think about this, because the people that are needed to 40x TAO do not think like you.
It’s also an obstacle for Bitcoin adoption that it „does not offer any yield“.

I‘m obviously not saying this change would break TAO adoption, but it’s certainly not helping.