Harsha Goli

Founder @magnolia_rails | banking 🤝 crypto 🤝 fintech

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

@endowment_eddie Great advice for raising in general.

Always more class (and confidence) in respecting your competitor’s game

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

@mikulaja It’s not normal for lenders to have access to company financials when they’re buying debt of that company with no backstop?

What else could they use to underwrite

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

@jaypatel 100%, except by California somehow

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

What if instead of monopoly busting the DOJ funded direct competitors.

AWS controls 90% of data centers? Inject Digital Ocean with some cash.

Adobe/Figma merger super anticompetitive? Buy out figma for the taxpayers

4 companies control all meat packing? Start a government run 5th with competitive prices.

It’d lower prices and cultivate innovation (instead of destroying value)

Congress should start the next venture fund

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

@Leishman @dariosats @River You can easily accomplish this your existing bank and mitigate risk with plaid (to verify pull bank name belongs to kyc data) + astrafi

Or you could partner with @magnolia_rails :)

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

@csuwildcat We’re entering a new generation of techno luddites.

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

@CorySwan @brian_armstrong @CagedSings It is even a bcash site anymore? Looks like they scrubbed every logo automatically off the whole thing and replaced it with tether

Kind of interesting!

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

The bank partner for @bridge everyone.

You’re all crazy, debanking isn’t real

[daniel mottice @mottice]

uh. major major miss.

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

@_pretyflaco Yea, I tweet exclusively from my phone during travel so excuse my occasional mistake 🙏

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

There can never be a world where your savings device makes good money.

Never.

As long as the economy grows (which is has to to support a growing population) money needs to be slightly deflationary.

Why? Because if money gained value over time no one would spend anything (anyone remember the pizza purchase?)

That is direct friction against money’s main purpose, to be interchange between assets.

The second it’s an asset is the second it’s not money anymore.

Hodling stablecoins should be just as stupid (if not more) as hodling cash.

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

@_pretyflaco Worked on it for over a decade!

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

My issue with fiat is government politics.

Money should be an expressive device free of meddling of politicians, unfair incentives, and rigging to win elections.

But I’ve also learned to challenge every assumption I once had.

So I have to ask, what is better for a blustering economy? Inflationary currency or deflationary currency?

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

Gladstein mentioned this and I don’t think I addressed it.

It’s interesting because of how many depreciating, in/deflating forces there could be.

Why buy iPhone today instead of next year’s model?

With inflationary currency:
- socially relevant features newly available (buy)
- dollar worth less than next year (buy)
- hopefully make more money next year to offset costs (buy)
- current iPhone worth less next year (don’t buy)

With deflationary currency:
- socially relevant features newly available (buy)
- btc worth more next year (don’t buy)
- hopefully make more money next year to offset costs (buy)
- current iPhone worth less next year (don’t buy)

So thinking through this, you’d be more enticed to buy the iPhone in an inflationary system than in a deflationary system no?

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

@bergealex4 Where my head is going. Defending consumer spend. One example of negatives introduced by this trade off

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

In 2) the economy would contract pretty significantly (which is a bad thing). If spend is only for expediently necessary things, and consumerism shrinks dramatically, is this not only a bad thing?

Less consumer spend for the economy means less money moving throughout the system.

Less money movement means less sitting deposits in payment infrastructure, which is ultimately reinvested while sitting into anything from houses to data centers.

With less investment capital our ability to expand long term risky investments diminishes, along with the appetite dismissing as well (since a data center will be “cheaper” in the future instead of today)

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

In 2) the economy would contract pretty significantly (which is a bad thing). If spend is only for expediently necessary things, and consumerism shrinks dramatically, is this not only a bad thing?

Less consumer spend for the economy means less money moving throughout the system.

Less money movement means less sitting deposits in payment infrastructure, which is ultimately reinvested while sitting into anything from houses to data centers.

With less investment capital our ability to expand long term risky investments diminishes, along with the appetite dismissing as well (since a data center will be “cheaper” in the future instead of today)

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

I really pissed them off this time

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

Never read this, wild format but I take the point.

It sounds like we agree that discretionary spend would evaporate, but you and author would agree that this is a good thing and spend becomes logical.

Let me simmer on it. My knee jerk reaction is a discretionary spend is a net good thing but it’s worth thinking about.

Thank you for the link!

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

1. I don’t follow, why would stablecoins be denominated in usd, please explain

2. Large scale economic denomination in btc (true flippening) is interesting but doesn’t solve the “why buy a ps5 for 400 today when tomorrow it could likely be 380”

ala breakdown of discretionary spending which is necessary for functioning expansionist economy

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

@bergealex4 Always open to changing my mind

[Harsha Goli @arshbot]

As more services drop fiat 🔁 stablecoin conversions down to zero, interesting patterns and problems emerge.

Stablecoin 🔁 fiat requires liquidity management, expensive licenses, and is still at risk to chargebacks (for fiat -> stable).

These costs aren’t negligible. Who bears them?

What’s even more interesting is how low margin all stablecoin service products tend to be.

Stablecoin issueance for example may sound glam, but is actually low margin/loss leader for many.

Liquidity management while maintaining yield is complex, especially for smaller stables that could experience sharp spikes of activity.

If you investigate where dedicated, licensed issuers are now, they’ve expanded product offerings to try to capitalize on their stablecoin clients.

All this to say, there’s a lot of cost here for something that’s dropped down to no fee in less than a year (rightfully so).

So where’s the margin?

Are stablecoins doomed to become CAC?

[Miles 🌞 @milessuter]

@arshbot zero