I was just about to say the same thing. He postulates everything in the book to be true. With all due respect to Graeber, there are some serious issues with the book. Especially given the liberal bias.
What motivated him to do that? Came across as immature, glib and nitpicky. Neither btc nor eth are close to being ready for mass use.
Looking at this makes me wonder if he has made his money and is just cruising.
Would add that Debt is not the authoritative source on money. Some good points but equal parts flabby.
He's also flat wrong about shenzhen vs hk. HK developed as a colony with decidedly British regulations around trade. China is a financial wild west, comparable with 19th century America. Shenzhen is in fact a far more economically "free"zone.
> Looking at this makes me wonder if he has made his money and is just cruising.
There's a lot of possible criticism to level at the space already, but I don't think this bit is valid.
Besides, that guy had made his money long before all of this. He could have been sipping tropical drinks on some tropical beach not hanging out in Canada and China during the winters.
I only loosely follow his activity, but he seems to keep busy, and be sincerely interested in what he's doing.
He resides in Asia now. Singapore iirc. Some of the other ETH foundation people are in Bangkok. As someone involved in crypto lets just say you have to look deeper than that.
Frankly 2017 made him. Without massive liquidity 20bn crypto space exploding to 700+BN, he'd be mostly holding something that could not be spent.
What motivated Vitalik, as creator of the #2 cryptocurrency by market cap, to "do that" aka respond to a discussion by leaders of the #1 and #4 cryptocurrencies by market cap on the topics of mass adoption and scaling of cryptocurrency?
>Neither btc nor eth are close to being ready for mass use.
You answered your own question, or what was your point here?
There is a lot of controversy on the subject matter being discussed and there is a lot at stake, so Vitalik being aware that there is a need and demand for additional commentary from an influential and knowledgeable outside observer, much less from the creator of arguably the (so-far) greatest innovation in crypto since Bitcoin itself and voluntarily contributing his thoughts to the conversation...
>Came across as immature, glib and nitpicky
How exactly?
>Looking at this makes me wonder if he has made his money and is just cruising.
Him doing the opposite would make me think that. He is taking an active role in the conversation, and by expressing himself and presenting his thoughts to the public he is taking a risk. Sounds like the opposite of "cruising."
Compare to "satoshi" who used to do the same thing on the bitcointalk forums but who eventually disappeared and has never shown his face or identity, not that I blame him (or them)...
>Would add that Debt is not the authoritative source on money
This seems like an obtuse point since he never said it was "authoritative source on money", and kinda missing what I took as his argument which was that credit/debt should be included when speaking of the history of conceptual forms of currency. I think he is just providing a basis for his argument and you are taking it the wrong way.
>He's also flat wrong about shenzhen vs hk
He is not wrong that including Shenzhen adds nuance and more of a challenge to the argument about western "free market" economies vs. communist style "controlled/planned" economies. You are nitpicking this addition of China and missed the point entirely.
>China is a financial wild west, comparable with 19th century America. Shenzhen is in fact a far more economically "free"zone.
China is a communist state with a centrally controlled economic system, one that saw the benefits of the American system of nationalist/protectionist "free trade" and was successful in their implementation on a macro-economic level. I still think you are reaching to say that Shenzhen is factually a more free economic zone than HK, especially since that can be taken away at a moments notice, but none of that has anything to do with the economic freedom of the average person within China vs Hong Kong, which I would think has more to do with property rights and non-state-authorized entrepreneurship than state policy on what industries are allowed to engage with whatever international trades and how...
13 comments
[ 10.7 ms ] story [ 49.8 ms ] threadI feel like these notes would have suffered significantly if put into an essay format.
Looking at this makes me wonder if he has made his money and is just cruising.
Would add that Debt is not the authoritative source on money. Some good points but equal parts flabby.
He's also flat wrong about shenzhen vs hk. HK developed as a colony with decidedly British regulations around trade. China is a financial wild west, comparable with 19th century America. Shenzhen is in fact a far more economically "free"zone.
There's a lot of possible criticism to level at the space already, but I don't think this bit is valid.
Besides, that guy had made his money long before all of this. He could have been sipping tropical drinks on some tropical beach not hanging out in Canada and China during the winters.
I only loosely follow his activity, but he seems to keep busy, and be sincerely interested in what he's doing.
Frankly 2017 made him. Without massive liquidity 20bn crypto space exploding to 700+BN, he'd be mostly holding something that could not be spent.
>Neither btc nor eth are close to being ready for mass use.
You answered your own question, or what was your point here?
There is a lot of controversy on the subject matter being discussed and there is a lot at stake, so Vitalik being aware that there is a need and demand for additional commentary from an influential and knowledgeable outside observer, much less from the creator of arguably the (so-far) greatest innovation in crypto since Bitcoin itself and voluntarily contributing his thoughts to the conversation...
>Came across as immature, glib and nitpicky
How exactly?
>Looking at this makes me wonder if he has made his money and is just cruising.
Him doing the opposite would make me think that. He is taking an active role in the conversation, and by expressing himself and presenting his thoughts to the public he is taking a risk. Sounds like the opposite of "cruising."
Compare to "satoshi" who used to do the same thing on the bitcointalk forums but who eventually disappeared and has never shown his face or identity, not that I blame him (or them)...
>Would add that Debt is not the authoritative source on money
This seems like an obtuse point since he never said it was "authoritative source on money", and kinda missing what I took as his argument which was that credit/debt should be included when speaking of the history of conceptual forms of currency. I think he is just providing a basis for his argument and you are taking it the wrong way.
>He's also flat wrong about shenzhen vs hk
He is not wrong that including Shenzhen adds nuance and more of a challenge to the argument about western "free market" economies vs. communist style "controlled/planned" economies. You are nitpicking this addition of China and missed the point entirely.
>China is a financial wild west, comparable with 19th century America. Shenzhen is in fact a far more economically "free"zone.
China is a communist state with a centrally controlled economic system, one that saw the benefits of the American system of nationalist/protectionist "free trade" and was successful in their implementation on a macro-economic level. I still think you are reaching to say that Shenzhen is factually a more free economic zone than HK, especially since that can be taken away at a moments notice, but none of that has anything to do with the economic freedom of the average person within China vs Hong Kong, which I would think has more to do with property rights and non-state-authorized entrepreneurship than state policy on what industries are allowed to engage with whatever international trades and how...