chenGOD
-
Posts
20,672 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by chenGOD
-
-
1 hour ago, cichlisuite said:
In this case (and at this point in time) it's more about the West (cough USA cough) fighting Russia by Ukraine's proxy. It's an ad-hoc experiment with the ultimate goal to weaken Russia. Bidet rejected all of Zelenskyy's proposals for a peace settlement. Talks are off the table (for now at least) One can see how the grim reality of international politics hit Zelensky like a train; since Bidet chinwagged with the EU coalition, his energy visibly lowered. Again, opportunistic play by USA, who tries to do another Russia vs. USA via Afghanistan 2.0. And Russia will not back down. It's despicable. Nothing ever changes on the big stage. It's all power play.
So Russia invaded the Ukraine to aide the US in this ad-hoc experiment? That's awfully generous of Vlad.
-
3
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Satans Little Helper said:
Reducing the risk of catching while the new variants spread faster (more easily transmissible) than older variants? That's too tough of an expectation to meet.
Yeah that's a good point. High expectations of science!
2 minutes ago, Satans Little Helper said:Nevertheless, congrats with your superbooster. The vaccine, virus combo works best, I've heard. (read: congrats with your new and updated superpowers!)
I've always wanted a superpower!
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Satans Little Helper said:
vaccines help against serious disease in the first place. so it seems to have done its job...? no hospital or long term effects = victory!
Oh yeah definitely happy about that, but I meant in terms of reducing the risk of catching it.
-
Well, Uncle Rona finally came to town. 1 day of feeling like absolute dogshit, 4 days of the runs and low energy, and finally almost back to normal. No brain fog or anything like that - I suppose my last booster had been about 4 months ago, so it was probably waning a bit in effectiveness, and I had got a bit lax wearing masks (given it was summer and all). I figure in another 4 days I should be ok to go out (wearing masks of course!) again.
-
4
-
-
51 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:
he's again mad at the word "deadnaming" and says it "doesn't exist" accept in the minds of the "insane."
"except" bro, sorry this is insane.
-
1
-
-
Dems in hoods? Am I in the metaverse?
Also twerking senators is pretty dope I guess? What's like the founding father equivalent?
-
23 hours ago, Nebraska said:
no cap: senator mack's got cake
Is that a sitting legislator...twerking upside down?
-
23 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:
Goddamn that is hard to watch, you hate to see it
Yeah but make it at least to 3:25 or so.
-
That whole thread is great.
-
2
-
-
14 minutes of pure meme material, you sons of bitches.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Everyone who thinks crypto as an investment is a good idea should read this interview (or listen to it if you prefer):
QuoteSam Bankman-Fried Described Yield Farming and Left Matt Levine Stunned
It’s no secret that the world of cryptocurrency has split into two very different visions, with one group of fundamentalists seeing some coins (especially Bitcoin) as unchanging static lines of code that can act as stores of value, and another group experimenting at an increasingly frenetic pace with new ways to make money in the world of decentralized finance.
Within Defi, some of the most creative money-making seems to take place in “yield-farming,” where some cryptocurrency traders are making double, or even triple-digit yields just by lending or borrowing various coins. The source of this money has long been questioned, with plenty of Internet commentators calling it the equivalent of shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic, or worse.
On the most recent episode of the Odd Lots podcast, we reunited FTX Chief Executive Officer and crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried with Bloomberg Opinion columnist Matt Levine, to talk about how people are making money in crypto right now. Matt asked Sam exactly how yield farming actually works.
Here’s what was said:
Matt Levine: (21:17)
Can you give me an intuitive understanding of farming? I mean, like to me, farming is like you sell some structured puts and collect premium, but perhaps there's a more sophisticated understanding than that.
Sam Bankman-Fried: (21:28)
Let me give you sort of like a really toy model of it, which I actually think has a surprising amount of legitimacy for what farming could mean. You know, where do you start? You start with a company that builds a box and in practice this box, they probably dress it up to look like a life-changing, you know, world-altering protocol that's gonna replace all the big banks in 38 days or whatever. Maybe for now actually ignore what it does or pretend it does literally nothing. It's just a box. So what this protocol is, it's called ‘Protocol X,’ it's a box, and you take a token. You can take ethereum, you can put it in the box and you take it out of the box. Alright so, you put it into the box and you get like, you know, an IOU for having put it in the box and then you can redeem that IOU back out for the token.
So far what we've described is the world's dumbest ETF or ADR or something like that. It doesn't do anything but let you put things in it if you so choose. And then this protocol issues a token, we'll call it whatever, ‘X token.’ And X token promises that anything cool that happens because of this box is going to ultimately be usable by, you know, governance vote of holders of the X tokens. They can vote on what to do with any proceeds or other cool things that happen from this box. And of course, so far, we haven't exactly given a compelling reason for why there ever would be any proceeds from this box, but I don't know, you know, maybe there will be, so that's sort of where you start.
And then you say, alright, well, you’ve got this box and you’ve got X token and the box protocol declares, or maybe votes by on-chain governance, or, you know, something like that, that what they're gonna do is they are going to take half of all the X tokens that were re-minted. Maybe two thirds will, two thirds will offer X tokens, and they're going to give them away for free to whoever uses the box. So anyone who goes, takes some money, puts in the box, each day they're gonna airdrop, you know, 1% of the X token pro rata amongst everyone who's put money in the box. That's for now, what X token does, it gets given away to the box people. And now what happens? Well, X token has some market cap, right? It's probably not zero. Let say it's, you know, a $20 million market …Matt: (23:56)
Wait, wait, wait, from like first principles, it should be zero, but okay.
SBF: (23:59)
Uh, sure. Okay. Completely reasonable comments.
Matt: (24:04)
I mean, that's not quite true, but, like, when you describe it in this totally cynical way, it sounds like it should be zero, but go on.
SBF: (24:10)
Describe it this way, you might think, for instance, that in like five minutes with an internet connection, you could create such a box and such a token, and that it should reflect like, you know, it should be worth like $180 or something market cap for like that, you know, that effort that you put into it. In the world that we're in, if you do this, everyone's gonna be like, ‘Ooh, box token. Maybe it's cool. If you buy in box token,’ you know, that's gonna appear on Twitter and it’ll have a $20 million market cap. And of course, one thing that you could do is you could like make the float very low and whatever, you know, maybe there haven't been $20 million dollars that have flowed into it yet. Maybe that's sort of like, is it, you know, mark to market fully diluted valuation or something, but I acknowledge that it's not totally clear that this thing should have market cap, but empirically I claim it would have market cap.
Matt: (24:57)
I agree.
Joe: (24:59)
It shouldn't have any market cap in theory, but it practice, they always do. Okay.
SBF: (25:03)
That's right. So, and obviously already we're sort of hiding some of the magic impact, right? Like some of the magic is in like, how do you get that market cap to start with, but, you know, whatever we're gonna move on from that for a second. So, you know, X tokens [are] being given out each day, all these like sophisticated firms are like, huh, that's interesting. Like if the total amount of money in the box is a hundred million dollars, then it's going to yield $16 million this year in X tokens being given out for it. That's a 16% return. That's pretty good. We'll put a little bit more in, right? And maybe that happens until there are $200 million dollars in the box. So, you know, sophisticated traders and/or people on Crypto Twitter, or other sort of similar parties, go and put $200 million in the box collectively and they start getting these X tokens for it.
And now all of a sudden everyone's like, wow, people just decide to put $200 million in the box. This is a pretty cool box, right? Like this is a valuable box as demonstrated by all the money that people have apparently decided should be in the box. And who are we to say that they're wrong about that? Like, you know, this is, I mean boxes can be great. Look, I love boxes as much as the next guy. And so what happens now? All of a sudden people are kind of recalibrating like, well, $20 million, that's it? Like that market cap for this box? And it's been like 48 hours and it already is $200 million, including from like sophisticated players in it. They're like, come on, that's too low. And they look at these ratios, TVL, total value locked in the box, you know, as a ratio to market cap of the box’s token.
SBF: (26:43)
And they’re like ‘10X’ that's insane. 1X is the norm.’ And so then, you know, X token price goes way up. And now it's $130 million market cap token because of, you know, the bullishness of people's usage of the box. And now all of a sudden of course, the smart money's like, oh, wow, this thing's now yielding like 60% a year in X tokens. Of course I'll take my 60% yield, right? So they go and pour another $300 million in the box and you get a psych and then it goes to infinity. And then everyone makes money.
Matt: (27:13)
I think of myself as like a fairly cynical person. And that was so much more cynical than how I would've described farming. You're just like, well, I'm in the Ponzi business and it's pretty good.
Joe Weisenthal: (27:27)
At no point did any of this require any sort of like economic case, it’s just like other people put money in the box. And so I'm going to too, and then it's more valuable. So they're gonna put more money in, and at no point in the cycle, did it seem to like, describe any sort of like economic purpose?
SBF: (27:42)
So on the one hand, I think that’s a pretty reasonable response, but let me play around with this a little bit. Because that's one framing of this. And I think there's like a sort of depressing amount of validity…
Matt: (27:53)
Can you comment on like the sustainability of that? Because, you know, on the one hand you're like, well, a trillion dollars of institutional money is going to come into Bitcoin. And on the other hand you're like basically there are a lot of Ponzis that have done really well.
SBF: (28:06)
Right. So let me, okay, cool. I'll stay on the cynical route, think about like cynically, what could happen here? Well, okay. So you've got this boxes and it’s kind of dumb, but like what's the end game, right? This box is worth zero obviously. And like that, you know, you can't like keep this smart cap or something. But on the other hand, if everyone kind of now thinks that this box token is worth about a billion dollar market cap, that's what people are pricing it at and sort of has that market cap. Everyone's gonna mark to market. In fact, you can even finance this, right? You put X token in a borrow lending protocol and borrow dollars with it. If you think it's worth like less than two thirds of that, you could even just like put some in there, take the dollars out. Never, you know, give the dollars back. You just get liquidated eventually. And it is sort of like real monetizable stuff in some senses. And you know, at some point if the world never decides that we are wrong about this in like a coordinated way, right? Like you're kind of the guy calling and saying, no, this thing's actually worthless, but in what sense are you right?
Tracy Alloway: (29:15)
Can I just ask on this point, I mean, so are you saying that the value has to derive from everyone agreeing that it's worth something? And I know like on the one hand, that seems like a simple point about crypto, but on the other hand, throughout crypto's history, there have been these different arguments about how it actually gets value, you know, use cases for the underlying technology — for blockchain. Everyone's gonna start migrating stuff on blockchain, and then you're gonna have a real economic use attached to these assets. And that's where the value's gonna come from. But are you saying that it depends more on everyone just agreeing that these are worth something?
SBF: (29:53)
So really what I'd say is that it could come in theory from either. You can sort of get a market cap either because of cash flow and then Warren Buffett's like f*ck this. Like, I'm going to buy this if it's at too cheap of a price, because I'll just buy it and own it and get cashflow from it. And that's great. Or you could see something get market cap in the way that, I don't know, Doge coin or SHIB coin have, where people are just kinda like ‘ha ha’ and then they buy it. And if you're like, that's dumb, it has no cashflow flow. I'm gonna short sell it. You lose all your money. And, you know, those like, at least like over the last few years, those have both been ways that assets have gotten market cap. And I sort of like think that this starts to hint at like, at least some interesting angles on this, because it's not just cryptocurrencies that have had this dynamic, right? How about like, you know, AMC or Hertz or GameStop or meme stocks in general have like a very similar pattern to this and the sort of concept of maybe people will pay something for it even though it doesn't seem traditionally valuable, is not a crypto specific concept. Although it certainly has become like…One takeaway from this whole conversation is that DeFi might be more similar to Bitcoin than a lot of people thought, deriving its value from collective agreement that the ‘thing’ (in this case the box, or yield-farming protocol) is worth something rather than deriving value from a fundamental usefulness.
-
I just started "For All Mankind". Heard good things, so hope I'm not too disappointed.
-
-
44 minutes ago, perunamuusi said:
Stranger things is, and always has been, dogshit. If you watch it and enjoy it, then you are probably an idiot
S1 good, very good even. S2. Good. S3 wtf. S4 good so far. But I am a confirmed idiot.
-
2
-
-
On 6/25/2022 at 6:47 PM, Wunderbar said:
Im on god's side on this debate and think we should follow his lead and because of that i think we should kill babies.
God has no problems killing babies, indeed with genocide.
God's prophet Samuel tells Saul to kill 'em all.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Samuel-15-3/
Quote“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
And the explanation for it is even worse:
QuoteWesley's Notes for 1 Samuel 15:3
15:3 Destroy - Both persons and goods, kill all that live, and consume all things without life, for I will have no name nor remnant of that people left, whom long since I have devoted to utter destruction. Spare not - Shew no compassion or favour to any of them. The same thing repeated to prevent mistake, and oblige Saul to the exact performance hereof. Slay, &c. - Which was not unjust, because God is the supreme Lord of life, and can require his own when he pleaseth; infants likewise are born in sin, and therefore liable to God's wrath. Their death also was rather a mercy than a curse, as being the occasion of preventing their sin and punishment. Ox, &c. - Which being all made for man's benefit, it is not strange if they suffer with him, for the instruction of mankind.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Deuteronomy-20-17/
Quote16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
and of course, the infamous flood in Genesis - https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-7-4/
Quote“For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.”
So yeah I dunno why conservatives are all bent out of shape about it.
-
Sigh…I’m not big on physical media, but these would be very nice to have. A terrible time to have a “liquidity crisis”.
-
Peter Thiel is a true piece of shit. Like Musk is a comical bad guy, but Thiel is both smart enough and has the resources to actually do the bad shit.
-
4
-
-
8 hours ago, zkom said:
Finland's and Sweden's NATO applications are stuck now because Erdoğan is blocking them. There's a ton of news articles about this but here's a relatively new one https://yle.fi/news/3-12495782
Erdogan is such a self-serving bastard.
-
Didn't see anything on this yet, but a lovely new(ish) work from Kelly Lee Owens. Definitely different from her previous outings, but full of lush.
-
1
-
-
-
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20220615/p2g/00m/0in/043000c
Kishida to be 1st Japan leader to attend NATO summit
-
1
-
-
Speaking of dark shit, S3 of The Boys is fucking twisted. Excellent viewing.
-
2
-
-
On 6/9/2022 at 9:12 AM, joshuatxuk said:
Anyone watching Outer Range?
I watched it - first half I had high hopes, but man they rushed through the second half, and the season finale was a hot mess - should have been two episodes. It wasn't bad per se, you know what I mean, but it could have been executed a lot better.
-
1
-
Russia is now bombing Ukraine
in General Banter
Posted
What would you have proposed the "west" do with this intelligence?
There were issues raised by the EU and US over Nord Stream 2 long before this illegal invasion: https://www.dw.com/en/us-sees-gas-exports-to-germany-by-2022/a-45516432 (that's from 2018). EU also purchases gas and oil from the middle east. What the illegal invasion has done is speed up German plans to increase the use of renewables for energy sources: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-present-renewable-energy-expansion-measures-2022-04-05/ (in the works since last year).
Zelenskyy, during negotiations, said in February (so a month before the US team visited Ukraine) that "effective negotiations cannot happen while invading forces from Russia continue their assault". He reiterated that it is "harder to negotiate with Russia in the face of their [Russian] war crimes" in early April. And of course, the most-recent quote is that Ukraine won't cede any territory for peace with Russia.
The US is selling weapons to Germany because of NATO compatibility and interoperability. Yes the Russian invasion created some urgency, but this is hardly the ad-hoc, opportunistic approach that you seem to be insinuating. This is systemic planning that has undoubtedly been undertaken over a number of years.
The US is selling weapons to Ukraine because Zelenskyy has been calling for an increase in aid in the form of lethal weapons since virtually Day 1 of the illegal invasion.