Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Post Hoc fallacy:

>Short for “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” a Latin phrase meaning “after this, therefore because of this.” The phrase expresses the logical fallacy of assuming that one thing caused another merely because the first thing preceded the other.

(edited as I incorrectly called it ergo proctor hoc fallacy before)




Silvergate and Signature went down because they did crypto. SVB did not. (Cross River and Customers are under pressure.)


What evidence do you have to support your claim?

I read the article and it never establishes a causal chain.


Both lost significant deposits from crypto blow-ups, reducing their liquidity and tanking their stock prices [1]. That left them uniquely vulnerable to both perceptions [2] and rates (as they sold the short-dated, liquid, low-duration assets first to plug the crypto hole).

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-03-09/silver...

[2] https://www.barrons.com/articles/crypto-silvergate-signature...


@JumpCrisscross is there a way to email or signal you?


From TFA:

"The bank’s digital-asset clients represented more than a fifth of its deposit base, and Signature’s executives said in December it would work to shrink that without leaving the space entirely. Earlier this month, the company reported it had pushed out $1.5 billion in funds from crypto platforms in the year’s first two months, while taking in $682 million in regular deposits. By then it was touting all the ways it wasn’t handling crypto in a presentation.


It's the first part, post hoc.

You omit the words ergo propter hoc.


Thanks!




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: