You ever run into a situation with SQL where you're trying to do something that's sorta tree shaped, and it makes the code awkward even if you use say vendor extensions for recursive queries? Datalog excels at those sort of problems.
Would you want to use a Prolog/Datalog for things like authorizing users in a RBAC system? I give the engine a bunch of rules and properties of things, and the engine figures out whether or not the user is authorized to perform some specific action.
Maybe I'm missing something but is it a problem if SHIB is 20% of their reserves if 20% of what users are keeping on the exchange is SHIB? Of course we don't want what people actually deposited since it's a centralized exchange with no transparency. But by itself this isn't really a red flag...
Potentially destabilising is what I said. In a similar fashion to how 20% of my diet consisting of Taco Bell would carry a greater destabilising potential than a the same share of FDA recommended diet conforming home-cooked meals would.
> If 20% of depositor funds are SHIB then 20% of reserves should be SHIB.
You're the one bringing this up, not me. Not refuting it though.
"I feel for every single person, every single family. But one thing I'm really excited about is that they are really smart people... they will surely buy this token that I've just invested in"
This. I wonder how this site can get it so wrong and I hope this wrong interpretation doesn't spread. As a native German speaker, "Eierlegende Wollmilchsau" has a clear negative connotation, not a positive one, and means feature bloat.
"This site" is the blog of the German Embassy in Washington. They know what the word means, even if they might have given insufficient emphasis to the negative connotation.
I don't see the negative connotation in "Eierlegende Wollmilchsau". It's more a "It has so many features and is the nonplusultra so it just can't be real"
Maybe it is understood differently depending on the part of germany you're from.
I'm curious what happens if you look at your returns and other metrics at different time scales, i.e. monthly and weekly, in addition to yearly. You can't make any argument based on a sample size of 2.
As someone who used to work in the industry, I am 99.99% confident that you cannot have any alpha with a system like this, you are basically flipping coins, as some other commenters have pointed out.
Many smart people are drawn to solving intellectually challenging problems. That's why many end up in academia doing research even though the research may never be useful in the real world. There are many challenging cryptographic, game-theoretic, and economic problems in the blockchain space. This, and of course the money, is probably what attracts people.
I'm really sad our culture is encouraging this. I know this is an unpopular opinion and may be seen as gatekeeping by some, but I believe that these "learn X in Y weeks" for deeply technical topics (it's totally fine for X framework) do more harm than good. People who rely on these usually have no real understanding, and just slap something on their resume. As someone involved in hiring, I actively treat anything like this on a resume as a big red flag. If you say you know ML but list some short-term course, I know that you're exaggerating and likely don't have a real understanding. This also tells me that you are likely exaggerating in other parts of your resume and profile too [0]. The same goes for projects. If your "projects" consist of simply calling X library with new data and doing nothing novel, that's a red flag more than anything else. I see this a ton: Just fork some Github project and make a few tiny changes and put it on your resume.
On the other hand, I respect people who are willing to spend the time and effort to truly learn something from scratch. Start with a basic math and ML course, then go on more difficult ones, read papers, implement papers and projects, and so on. The same goes for other topics such as distributed systems, compilers and programming languages, etc. There are no "learn X in Y weeks" shortcuts. I understand that not everyone may be able to do this and many will give up along the way, and I don't think that's a bad thing. It's a great filter.
That's how you end up with Google, Apple, and Facebook, Twitter, etc. They may start out as providing a service that works, but over time as they get bigger the incentive structure pushes them towards monetizing your data, locking you in, building boundaries around who can access what (e.g.Twitter APIs), and sharing data with parties you don't want to share it with.
One way to avoid this lock-in is to change the underlying incentive structure. That's what the blockchain does. The fundamental difference is not about centralized vs. decentralized, it's about the incentives that are a result of centralization vs decentralization.
The other way of changing the underlying incentive structure is have the centralised service provided publicly by a government rather than privately by a corporation. That's what traditional currencies do, and there's no reason that this model couldn't work for digitalised currencies too.
