I hate to gatekeep, but I find it pretty impossible that you are "in the crypto space" in any meaningful sense but somehow have not heard of FTX. That's like being "in the crypto space" but not knowing what Ethereum is.
Unfortunately I can echo the crypto space sentiment for as long as such an expression can exist
I’ve never touched Bitfinex/FTX/Binance or any exchange that allows options or leverage. I am a US citizen. Bitstamp Gemini or Coinbase are the only ones I’ll touch
And I’m pissed off that coinbase removed the BTC/USDC trading pair because it had low volume
Why will I not touch them? That’s a long story but I see history repeating itself - fractional reserve Bitcoin banks paying ponzi interest
Kraken I trust but I've never used. For perspective, I've traded roughly a million dollars worth of BTC specifically. Most of that was as the knife was falling after the 2017/2018 ATH.
DCA-ing since then, selloff at the top in 2021, pull my limit sell orders, let it crash.
Doing it again now, kinda hard not to take advantage of deflationary 4-year super cycles
Never heard of FTX either until this whole implosion happened. I’m certainly not super active in crypto, but it seems to me there are worlds between Binance and FTX.
Well, the NSA and CIA and the State Department have long claimed that their cyber-espionage activities have nothing to do with securing economic information for the advantage of say, US oil companies, right?
Those claims seem to be false. Engaging in cyber-espionage (and indeed, going to war) for economic advantage seems to be the name of the game. Why not just be honest about it, instead of spouting all this pablum about 'defending democracy and human rights'?
No, they mean that they control for 'career length' ... e.g. an academic with 5 years of history is likely to have a better score than one with 2 years of history.
So they effectively compare women-with-1-year vs men-with-1-year, etc. etc, rather than 'women with h-index 5' vs 'men with h-index 5'
edit: should be "Women with h-index of X after Y years" rather than just "Women with h-index of X" (e.g. they control for Y years' publishing between men and women, assuming that time-in-academia is correlated with h-index. Quick glance at the paper suggests that time-in-academia has R2 of 0.62 with h-index)
As someone who has gone through quite a few application processes in academia, I can say the results of this (subjective) survey:
> We followed up our research with a survey of 231 academics, asking for their attitudes towards discrimination in hiring to editorial boards. Although two-thirds of academics supported no bias, for every 1 academic who supported discrimination in favour of men, 11 supported discrimination in favour of women. Our results were consistent with the hypothesis that academics and journal editors are biased in favour of women, rather than against women
Do not surprise me at all, and qualitatively the bias favoring women has seemed to be true in my experience.
HOWEVER, it's very hard to give this paper any credibility when the authors are willing to casually drop a statement like
> As mentioned, the variance in intelligence is higher amongst males, and their
average also seems to be somewhat higher
On the third page. I'm aware there have been one or two studies to this effect, but a quality like "intelligence" is so amorphous, and any attempts to measure it are surely met with confounding variables, and even if treated statistically carefully is such a controversial topic, it really just makes me feel like the authors performed this study with a certain agenda / chip on their shoulder. You may notice that both authors are men.
I’m not very familiar with the reasoning behind Wikipedia’s decisions. In this case, the controversies seem highly relevant to the papers being churned up. I appreciate the effort the authors of the rationwiki article put forth. It’s distributed citizen journalism.
> it really just makes me feel like the authors performed this study with a certain agenda / chip on their shoulder. You may notice that both authors are men.
I highly recommend you look up OpenPsych and Kirkegaard, and even the Ulster Institute of Social Research (and its president Richard Lynn). You will see the extremely obvious bias of the authors
But you could have that upside by owning the collateral.
If I own the collateral, I own the upside and downside of the collateral. If I own a stablecoin pegged to the collateral, I own the upside and downside of the collateral, plus the risk of the stablecoin collapsing.
The stablecoin doesn't offer me any upside compensating for the risk, so we are left arguing that the risk of collapse is negligible, or arguing that there is some other benefit of owning the stablecoin to compensate for the additional risk of owning stablecoins instead of owning the collateral.
You can do other things with the stablecoin. You own the upside and downside of the collateral, and you also own the downside of the collateral, and the upside of whatever you bought with the collateral.
Stablecoins are not meant to be an investment; they're for leverage. I agree it is probably a terrible idea to borrow a bunch of stablecoins and then just sit on them.
But by borrowing against the collateral (in this manner), you get some optionality along with the collateral's upside: if it crashes, you get to keep the amount you borrowed[1], thus hedging the loss. Plus any interest earned on it.
[1] Depending on the stablecoin's dependencies you might want to have converted it to dollars outside their platform first.
Very true, that case parallels non-crypto assets like index funds. You own the upside and downside of the collateral, and you are also exposed to some risk that the company managing the funds does something extremely stupid and/or malicious.
I said above:
> we are left arguing that the risk of collapse is negligible, or arguing that there is some other benefit of owning the stablecoin to compensate for the additional risk of owning stablecoins instead of owning the collateral
In the case of an index fund, the typical purchaser is motivated by both a belief that the risk is negligible based on the reputation and track record of the fund manager, plus the "other benefit" of the convenience of investing in a single mutual fund rather than trying to purchase the same basket of stocks at small scale.
I agree that an automated stablecoin might offer sufficient convenience to be attractive to some investors, provided they consider the risk of collapse to be negligible.
You're right and my above comment is wrong, but I still think the downside risk is bigger than the upside risk. It's ETH with 100% leverage, except beyond the risk of collapse of ETH there is also the risk of the collapse of RAI. Either of those happening would result in severe losses.
There is a litany of research showing that proportional representation leads to more representative and stable democracies, both in terms of empirical outcomes and normative political theory. Saying we don't have enough data just because some borderline-crackpot blogger doesn't like it is pretty disingenuous.
A. The research compares proportional (PR) methods to plurality voting, the worst single-winner voting method there is. But superior methods like score voting and approval voting roughly double the accuracy (i.e. group welfare) compared to plurality voting. So no, there's no research showing the superiority of PR to these methods.
B. Even in that limited comparison, of PR to plurality voting, the data still is actually not that clear. For instance, Canada uses plurality voting rather than PR, and is rated as one of the most high functioning democracies by The Economist. Meanwhile lots of proportional democracies are far worse than plurality countries. Compare proportional Brazil (and several other Latin countries) to non-proportional UK, Canada, and USA.
AV is great for a single winner. As you have noticed, if you elect multiple winners the "naive" way then you can get unproportional outcomes. However, there are simple ways to use approval to elect winners proportionally! One easy example is this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_proportional_approv...
