Thoughts on how online markets will scale when they aren’t operated by humans. Thoughts on how human participation in markets will be impacted by LLMs.
It really is that easy. The trade-offs are no less annoying then answering customers emails or calls. In some cases you don't even have any sort of "checking in" arrangements if you've demonstrated good profitability.
Like I'm not sure why you are so upset and sarcastic here. I get that the author doesn't care and thats fine. But there are already many scaling their existing revenues coming in and then tradeoff is small bit of your equity for 100x MRR which is common with SaaS where multiplies in its sales pipelines is very easy once you've identified where your customers are!
I think they're being sarcastic because reducing the tradeoff to "a small bit of your equity" in exchange for "100x MRR" is misleading, to the extent that it reads as sarcastic ignorance.
FWIW, I vouched your original comment because I think your comment represents an authentic view shared by other people on HN / in tech.
My question for you: how do you price the stress-potential of hiring, managing, and firing / being fired by (1) a board (2) employees (3) cofounders / other executives; each with their own set of competing incentives and accompanied principal-agent problems?
It's certainly not zero. For many people, it's more expensive than the hypothetical marginal increase in MRR.
All those things you listed are natural result of adding more minds to an organization and cannot be modelled.
But I will concede that you do give up some freedom as a result of having to police and regulate individuals in the best interest of the company. ex) James Damore
Interesting how many different offerings they have now outside of just spending the initial ~$1000 on the ipad itself. Purchasing the pencil, usb-c, key board, smart folio, logic pro (subscription), final cut (subscription), etc...
I'd be curious to know the average age of an ipad in circulation is now. I used an ipad for school from 2012-2017, never used the apple pencil, but it always worked great for my needs. My girlfriend got one for med school and uses it with the pencil especially when shes not at home.
IMO the only things you need are a screen protector and an actual protective case like the otterbox one. I would think people have old Bluetooth mice and keyboards laying around
If a listed firm does something bad (anything, really), but doesn't immediately disclose it (as is usually the case), it can then be sued later - not directly for doing the bad thing, but indirectly for not having disclosed it (that being the securities fraud).
There is no accusation of fraud here. What seems to be happening is, as with similar enforcement actions, Robinhood is being dinged for trading securities improperly, without ticking off the legal requirements for notification, tracking, authentication, etc...
The idea that crypto assets aren't "securities" and thus not subject to SEC regulation is, and always has been, laughable. Virtually everyone trading these things is doing so to engage in arbitrage of fungible assets to make money. I mean, come on.
The vast majority of arbitrage of fungible assets happens in commodities, not securities. The SEC regulates securities. The CFTC regulates commodities.
> Bitcoin is considered a commodity and is the underlying asset in bitcoin futures contracts… Bitcoin futures contracts — like other commodity futures contracts such as corn futures, market index futures, or gold futures — are regulated by the CFTC and must trade on CFTC-regulated exchanges.
Why not? It is highly litigated and still abundantly unclear whether certain cryptocurrencies are securities or commodities. That's the whole point of these legal battles. If it was clear, they would not be ongoing.
based on the definition of what a security and what a commodity, it should be abundantly clear to anyone over the age of 5 what crypto falls under:
Commodities are consumable goods that get transformed through usage in industrial or commercial processes. Gold and silver can be transformed into jewelry. Securities, on the other hand, grant holders the right to periodic benefits like dividends, coupons, principal repayments and potential profit shares.
How are you consuming crypto? What commercial or industrial process are being used?
> Commodities are consumable goods that get transformed through usage in industrial or commercial processes. Gold and silver can be transformed into jewelry. Securities, on the other hand, grant holders the right to periodic benefits like dividends, coupons, principal repayments and potential profit shares.
> How are you consuming crypto? What commercial or industrial process are being used?
What rights does holding bitcoin confer to the holder? I get no dividends, coupons, principle repayments or potential profit shares.
We’ve nicely entered why this argument still rages on. It doesn’t fit cleanly into either definition.
> In economics, a commodity is an economic good, usually a resource, that specifically has full or substantial fungibility: that is, the market treats instances of the good as equivalent or nearly so with no regard to who produced them.
I am pretty sure you can get BTC from any exchange and sell it on any other exchange. Whereas, with stocks, you generally cannot as a retail investor.
That is, I suppose, what makes crypto a commodity at its core.
The fact that you can create a crypto more easily today has nothing to do with whether or not crypto is a commodity (though I suspect that point is not really why you made this comment).
It's the fact that there's an overwhelming number of exchanges that willingly accept crypto from other exchanges coupled with the fact that anyone can mine/produce crypto. The moment that there were two places to get BTC that accept BTC from each other in exchange for money, it was a commodity.
> The vast majority of arbitrage of fungible assets happens in commodities, not securities.
Yeah, I'm gonna say no to that. I don't have numbers but if total trading volume on commodities is anything more than a tiny fraction of stock/derivatives trading on any given day I eat my proverbial hat.
Regardless, "The CFTC needs to sue us, not the SEC" isn't the argument being made by Robinhood either.
I should have said "the derivatives in question" instead of simply "derivatives".
My point stands: OP claimed that most trading volume happens in securities and it simply does not. I highly doubt securities amount to more than the $20 quadrillion settled in the CFTC's realm last week.
I'm not claiming the jurisdictions of the CFTC and SEC are mutually exclusive. My point stands.
Again, that's wrong. The CFTC absolutely does not handle regulation of options and bond funds and ETFs, etc... You seem to be invoking this "commodities" thing as a trick, and that's not how it works. We've seen this repeatably now where the SEC has to come at crypto outfits with a cluebat and explain to them (in court!) that yes: crypto assets are securities. Why do you really think it's going to be different this time?
"The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent U.S. government agency that regulates the U.S. derivatives markets, including futures, options, and swaps."
Also from their official website: 20 quadrillion per week in settled trades. Too lazy to look up the equities numbers, but I would bet everything I own it's lower.
Also from the CFTC's website:
"Bitcoin is considered a commodity and is the underlying asset in bitcoin futures contracts… Bitcoin futures contracts — like other commodity futures contracts such as corn futures, market index futures, or gold futures — are regulated by the CFTC and must trade on CFTC-regulated exchanges."
Does it SELECT * by default if I never define a SELECT below my FROM? ... Continuing to encourage folks by allowing them to SELECT * easier is would not be fun for me... I could be wrong?
Agreed, just parsing out the formatting so its "fewer lines" than traditional SQL soured me.
The expressions example is ridiculous, in Redshift I can do this all day??
SELECT 1 + 2 AS num1
, num1 * 2 AS num2 -- Literally no difference
I know SQL, and I imagine the authors of PRQL know it better than I do.
Doesn't it seem weird that dozens of application languages have become popular since the 1970s, but we're still using dialects of the same old database query language? If it had a really elegant syntax, perhaps it wouldn't, but SQL's syntax is anything but. Some of the semantics can be awkward as well.
I, for one welcome attempts to move things forward (which is different from saying I'm going to run out and use PRQL in production tomorrow).
> Doesn't it seem weird that dozens of application languages have become popular since the 1970s, but we're still using dialects of the same old database query language?
Indeed. Do you honestly believe that a half-century of data storage professionals and vendors are blindly moving forward with a hobbled tool?
Or maybe there are aspects of SQL as a set-oriented 4th generation programming language that aren't apparent to folks who are intimately tied to an imperative or functional programming paradigm as opposed to a declarative DSL for set theory.
Within popular application languages, for any given paradigm, there are almost always several languages that aren't merely dialects of each other. C# isn't a dialect of Java. Ruby isn't a dialect of Python. Rust isn't a dialect of C++.
PRQL demonstrates that a set-oriented declarative language need not be a dialect of SQL and isn't the first language to do so (QUEL appeared in the 1970s). It seems odd to me these alternatives haven't gained much popularity.
