imho for most folks trading crypto who aren’t professional traders, trading with super high leverage is more like the second bet. Even if your EV is positive, if you’re not managing your risk very, very carefully, in the long run you should expect to get rekt. 5/5
Great thread — IMO the most important takeaway is that simply having a a positive EV is not enough. Median value and Time Average is important too, perhaps even more so than EV in some cases. 1/5
I throw the term "expected value" (EV for short) around a lot. What is it, and, more important, why is it the thing that matters?
A thread about the median and the mean.
For the second offer, though the EV is +2.5%, the time average is negative. This means that with a large number of repeated rounds, my expected return approaches -99.99%. 4/5
@RoseAnnRabiolaM@ptcherneva The Job Guarantee can be a vehicle for humanistic social policies. Under the current system, ‘the market’ is almost the sole institution determining what activities society values. JG can redefine valuable work by validating activities not considered of value by the market.
Giving away $1000 of Ethereum $ETH 🚀
All you have to do is retweet and be following @JRNYcrypto and @TonySparkOG
One random winner will be selected in 24 hours
A lot of people like to singularly blame central banks (rates and QE) for wealth concentration since it's easy, but the problem runs a lot deeper and more structural than that.
It's more of a monetary structure, fiscal, trade, and geopolitical problem.
https://t.co/UN1xCkWZcW
Left-liberal opposition to Bitcoin is based on the same mentality as support for NSA during the Snowden reporting was: if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide. Privacy is needed only for criminals. There's no valid reason not to submit to centralized control:
So many interesting potential criticisms to raise and NR chooses *customer service*? Seriously disappointing. “The internet is just like an electronic library, right? But won’t the average consumer be disadvantaged by having a library with no librarians?” smh. 2/2
There are worthwhile problems about bitcoin to be discussed. But comically bad takes like this don’t contribute to a productive conversation, and also make it harder to take lefties seriously. 1/2
For vast majority of people, Bitcoin is a totally worthless innovation. The average consumer is disadvantaged, not advantaged, by not having a company with customer service. I’ve used Bitcoin and it’s just far more inconvenient than dollars. There’s no reason I’d use it again.
Regarding ‘fractional reserve’ banking, that doesn’t seem as much a problem to me, especially if the banks are run more like credit unions or in a more decentralised manner. Adding liquidity when it’s needed is not a bad thing in itself, though of course it can be misused. 5/5
An interesting argument. This definitely seems like a problem to be tackled. But also a good reason why we need other blockchains with large transaction capacities. 1/5
I think the real scarce resource in Bitcoin isn’t created by the the 21 million coin limit, but by the 7 transactions per second limit.
The real money will be in controlling that resource.
A thought experiment...
Wrapped versions of btc on other chains might also help. I don’t fully understand the details here, but won’t cross-chain transactions eventually have to be settled? If so, is this final settlement subject to the same transaction constraints? 4/5
@Idrisinvestor@JRNYcrypto It wasn’t a company. This person called laszlo made a post online telling people that he’d send them 10k bitcoin if they (using their personal credit card or whatever) ordered him pizza. I think several people took him up on this iirc
@rettlerb Do you have good reasons to think Btc volatility will remain reliably low enough to serve as a unit of account? I’ve been curious about this but haven’t been able to find examples of fixed-supply assets/currencies that aren’t volatile. Or is there evidence btc is a special case?