Many of us have mentioned how the stablecoin yield debate playing out in Clarity, and the arguments made against yield by the bank trades, mirror the battle over money market funds in the 1970s. Well here's some proof.
Here's a letter submitted by the Independent Bankers Association of America (a predecessor to the ICBA) in a 1980 hearing of the Senate Banking committee on money market funds.
As you can see, many of their arguments against stablecoins are almost verbatim a copy from what they argued back then: threat to deposits, harms lending, uniquely dangerous for smaller banks.
And we know today that argument was dead wrong. Money market balances grew parabolically into the trillions, and yet banks remain flush with deposits.
Clarity Act was preview as to how our politicians will vote on any artificial intelligence regulation btw…
Not sure how we ended up here.
There’s always a balance b/w regulation & innovation… and that balance is a good thing.
But something is broken right now.
US has historically championed innovation.
Now we seem content to cede innovation to other countries.
This solo legal SaaS makes ~$200K by reviewing documents.
Upload a contract, ask questions, and get answers with citations back to the exact source.
100% bootstrapped business:
> $199K TTM revenue
> $139K TTM profit
> $136K ARR
Love startups that solve simple problems like this!
Full listing: https://t.co/9irZvWQkmU
This startup makes ~$170K by fixing prompts of people.
50,000+ people use this too!
You don't need to over complicate your startup idea.
> $148K TTM profit
> 200+ 5-star reviews
Crazy little SAAS now live on @acquiredotcom.
Full listing: https://t.co/C0AU2CD60B
I genuinely can't imagine a more destructive immigration hill to die on than "it's fine if they're immediately on welfare." but it's good they're saying it out loud.
I am genuinely asking because I do not understand:
If we "pace AI" and China does not.
What happens then?
Not a trick question, legitimately do not understand how this can end well.
@AlexanderTw33ts Engagement farming off a colleague's labor is a poor signal for leadership. She will not do it again if the only reward is your vanity metrics.
There are two ways AI progress could go very badly and that we must avoid.
First, we could lose control of the future to AI. This is unacceptable; we are unapologetically on Team Humanity, and AI must always serve people. To ensure that, we need ways to ensure that alignment and safety techniques stay ahead of progress in model capabilities.
Second, we could end up in a world with too much concentration of power. If an extraordinarily powerful AI is used by one person or company to impress their worldview onto everyone else, the results could be extremely dystopian.
Avoiding these two threats requires walking a narrow middle path; for example, one country could gain too much power. Another example is one lab ending up with too much power.
it’s a weird question, because this isn’t how nationalization works. in such a scenario it wouldn’t matter what a private company wanted. in bernie’s scenario, they wouldn’t even be compensated. no idea what the right’s version would look like, but certainly not international.
Our Smart Wallet is nearly ready for rollout! 🦄
It was a fullstack effort that took coordination across nearly all of the eng teams at @Uniswap
Since we maintain a dapp, wallet, and protocol (and a chain!) we really had to think through the end-to-end experience
Latest models can pinpoint pretty much any photo to a location within 100-200m - ive tried a few incredibly random places in greece and its actually super good
id reconsider any public location social media posting - def never at real time
@lovezihuatanejo Halo margins don't scale. Watch if the supply chain actually ships units or just burns cash on theater. Liquidity follows volume, not thrust.
Incredible timeline where the anti-monopoly fanatics, the a16z accelerationists, and the stochastic-parrot people are all aligned against letting the frontier labs decide not to destroy the world