> There's a reason private money was outlawed in the 1900s.
And the reason is probably a bit more nuanced than this sentence projects. Furthermore, reasoning in the 1900s should not be used to justify government monopoly on money in 2019.
You created your account 3 hours ago, with a creative name and then annonymously post you work on money laundering cases ... As if that is supposed to add credit or show some sort of background. You are anonymous, don't try and take some high ground to reinforce an invalid argument.
My point is the issue is not as black and white as you are making it out to be (hence, don't be an alarmist). All things are subject to interpretation and your position attempts to definitively categorize this activity as fraudulent behavior based on a 1000 word essay by a developer.
Standing on the side lines, indirectly referring to participants as animals (crypto-zoo), shaking your head from your percieved superior position, generalizing participation as gambling / speculating demonstrates you are squarely in the biased 50% camp.
My Disclaimer: I have positions in several crypto projects (not IOTA specifically b/c I don't like some of the decisions they've made). I make no predictions as to which (if any) cryto projects will succeed but ultimately I think that the long term outlook is positive for a few.
I know this will get down votes (but I'm generally a sarcastic guy so please take this in that spirit): if half are biased and half are morons what camp do you fall in? :)
Great comment, thank you. I love the idea of education as a differentiating factor, so my question would be, "from a customer's perspective, does the educational material have to be original content or would it be better to reference 'non biased / not affiliated' material?
Agreed, that growth hacking was the wrong terminology, I think I was being to aggressive with the description.
Yes, an RRSP is not a fund and like you said, a vehicle to hold an investment position. I was not trying to insinuate that an RRSP was a fund and I will edit my previous comment.
I don't want to get in a debate about what a hedge fund is, but while the term "Hedging" is the practice of reducing risk, the goal of most hedge funds is to maximize ROI. The term hedge fund comes from the historical tendency of the first "hedge funds" to hedge against the downside risk of the market by shorting the market (as where mutual funds can not usually take a short positions). In today's terms, hedge funds employee many different investment strategies so it isn't accurate to say hedge funds just hedge risk. Hedge fund managers usually make speculative investments and can sometimes carry more risk.
The funds is bench marked to Credit Suisee HF Index, Citibank Prime +5%, S&P 500. It is beating the bench mark since inception and that historical statement is verified by our auditors. Your point regarding "attracting huge amounts of capital" holds true when a fund reaches a certain size, typically greater than $120M, getting to that point is where a lot of the work happens. The point from start to autonomous growth must be managed with extreme care and diligence, it is imperative that a growing fund manages their growth to not try and grow faster than their operations can support. -- Which is what I'm asking HN, I am soliciting opinions and experiences from smart people, maybe growth hack is the wrong term.
I agree that as a fund grows it definitely gets harder to scale, and at this time, we haven't begun to scale at our full potential, so that point remains in the central view of the risk committee.
The fund is a RRSP eligible investment in Canada (I think the equivalent of 401K in USA?). We are not currently serving the American market, sorry, I should have mentioned that but I think the growth management would be similar in both markets.
Great project. It would be cool if you added work from other sources, I'm thinking - Twitter, Reddit, GitHub, LinkedIn. Maybe add a ranking algo based on 3rd party engagement of your contributions. I wish I could find some time to contribute to this.
As a customer, that is literally of no concern to me. I'm not taking a position on who is right or wrong. I don't care who did what and to who, the only thing that matters to me is how my service(s) are interrupted. As the customer, I will first choose the provider that I perceive as providing me with greater benefit and then remove any resistance to that provider services. Anything outside of the equation ultimately doesn't matter and therefore won't enter into my individual purchasing power.
As an Apple and Spotify customer I will quickly stop being an Apple customer if they try to control / influence Spotify. I use it all day at work and at home on my Sonos. I never knew that if challenged I would be more loyal to a music streaming company then my main hardware providing company, but, it would be a non negotiable issue for me.
What about businesses? Should they expect all their computers to be public and if so, doesn't that have serious ramifications for data protection and the prosecution of hackers?
I would say that a positive effect of sex robots could be the reduction (and possibly elimination) of female human trafficking. Overall, I don't think people will just abandon human contact, but the underserved segment of people who already struggle with those social norms will have a better outlet - rather than providing a market to a horrible and dehumanizing industry.
And the reason is probably a bit more nuanced than this sentence projects. Furthermore, reasoning in the 1900s should not be used to justify government monopoly on money in 2019.