Luna Founder Requests Police Protection as Investors Are Visiting His House(news.mt.co.kr)
news.mt.co.kr
Luna Founder Requests Police Protection as Investors Are Visiting His House
https://news.mt.co.kr/mtview.php?no=2022051308574726920
214 comments
>[0][1][2]
It seems like these people do not understand what LUNA even is.
>[1][2]
These people should not have gone "all in" on a risky investment. Even without the hindsight we have currently algorithmic stablecoins are very risky. LUNA grows in value when demand for UST increases, but if people want to exit the ecosystem that is going to mean that the value for it is going to go down. If a lot of people want to exit at once it will be even worse.
>guaranteed 20% APY
Anchor is just one dapp in the terra ecosystem and at it doesn't offer a guaranteed 20% APY. Also if you are looking for high APY in defi with stablecoins, Anchor isn't the only place to find it. I can easily find ~30% APY in an different algostable right now. Algostables are risky to hold so they incentivize you to provide liquidity with good rates. I also see 50% APY for supplying liquidity between a BUSD and USDT trading pair which is fairly safe, but the rates for this one will drop soon once more people take advantage of this.
It seems like these people do not understand what LUNA even is.
>[1][2]
These people should not have gone "all in" on a risky investment. Even without the hindsight we have currently algorithmic stablecoins are very risky. LUNA grows in value when demand for UST increases, but if people want to exit the ecosystem that is going to mean that the value for it is going to go down. If a lot of people want to exit at once it will be even worse.
>guaranteed 20% APY
Anchor is just one dapp in the terra ecosystem and at it doesn't offer a guaranteed 20% APY. Also if you are looking for high APY in defi with stablecoins, Anchor isn't the only place to find it. I can easily find ~30% APY in an different algostable right now. Algostables are risky to hold so they incentivize you to provide liquidity with good rates. I also see 50% APY for supplying liquidity between a BUSD and USDT trading pair which is fairly safe, but the rates for this one will drop soon once more people take advantage of this.
>These people should not have gone "all in" on a risky investment
People shouldn't go to a casino either thinking it's a money maker. They see a high risk/high reward investment option and are not properly educated about the risk or significantly misinformed with statements like it being "fairly safe". You encouraging people to look for similar ponzi schemes to invest in even though you seem to know a fair bit about how it works, just proves that point.
People shouldn't go to a casino either thinking it's a money maker. They see a high risk/high reward investment option and are not properly educated about the risk or significantly misinformed with statements like it being "fairly safe". You encouraging people to look for similar ponzi schemes to invest in even though you seem to know a fair bit about how it works, just proves that point.
[deleted]
>significantly misinformed with statements like it being "fairly safe"
I agree that you should DYOR, do your own research, and not just trust what others are saying so that you know what you are actually getting yourself into. My point of that comment was that high APR does not necessarily mean that there is high risk.
>You encouraging people to look for similar ponzi schemes to invest in
I am not trying to encourage people and these are not ponzi schemes. If I was trying to encourage people I would link directly to where you can find it. I also tried to be clear in saying that there is always risk in doing this. The fact is projects are looking for liquidity and are willing to pay you for it. This doesn't guarantee that doing so will be profitable for you though.
I agree that you should DYOR, do your own research, and not just trust what others are saying so that you know what you are actually getting yourself into. My point of that comment was that high APR does not necessarily mean that there is high risk.
>You encouraging people to look for similar ponzi schemes to invest in
I am not trying to encourage people and these are not ponzi schemes. If I was trying to encourage people I would link directly to where you can find it. I also tried to be clear in saying that there is always risk in doing this. The fact is projects are looking for liquidity and are willing to pay you for it. This doesn't guarantee that doing so will be profitable for you though.
At least Madoff's victims got 90% of their money back.
Since hn is so negative on crypto, it likely missed the interesting details of the technical attack. Terra was doing a migration from a 3-token curve liquidity pool to a 4-token curve liquidity pool. During this migration their reserves are vulnerable, at at this point a well-capitalized attacker borrowed 100k BTC, converted it into UST and started attacking the peg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqW4-FGA9j4
Its related to the curve wars which itself is an interesting walk through game theory. https://every.to/almanack/curve-wars
Its related to the curve wars which itself is an interesting walk through game theory. https://every.to/almanack/curve-wars
Sidenote (and i am going to be negative on crypto) but the first 10 minutes of this video are pretty wild to me?
They keep saying how this is normal, happens, you will recover, it happened to all of us. Really? 50bilion dollars get hacked and response is "invest more money you will recover".
Then there are multiple crypto ads about protecting your "hard earned money" (wtf whats less hard earned than investing) and about wierd investment tools that will automatically invest into some esoteric assets the host gets stuck reading because even he doesn't know them.
Finally they explain some really complicated mechanism this tech was using. That left me wondering what is this even for?
From outside it all seems quite crazy.
They keep saying how this is normal, happens, you will recover, it happened to all of us. Really? 50bilion dollars get hacked and response is "invest more money you will recover".
Then there are multiple crypto ads about protecting your "hard earned money" (wtf whats less hard earned than investing) and about wierd investment tools that will automatically invest into some esoteric assets the host gets stuck reading because even he doesn't know them.
Finally they explain some really complicated mechanism this tech was using. That left me wondering what is this even for?
From outside it all seems quite crazy.
While looking into this, I also ran into the "DegenBox UST MiM strategy" which allegedly gave 100% returns (until it didn't), but atm I don't understand the mechanism; I think it will make an interesting addendum to the story for the intrepid reader/rabbit hole explorer.
Further addendum includes this attack;
"As the LUNA price continued to plummet, the Chainlink price feed used by the protocols became inaccurate, allowing funds to be borrowed against vastly overpriced LUNA collateral."
https://rekt.news/venus-blizz-rekt/
"As the LUNA price continued to plummet, the Chainlink price feed used by the protocols became inaccurate, allowing funds to be borrowed against vastly overpriced LUNA collateral."
https://rekt.news/venus-blizz-rekt/
The entire point of defi is to circumvent the establishment/regulation. It makes little to no sense to say "but it was attacked"... Yea, that's the fucking point. That's why we have regulations, FDIC insurance, and reserve limits.
George soros attacked the pound in a similar manner, so you points dont exclude traditional finance. Of course, pound wasnt susceptible to a death spiral
You're missing the point. As these things are regulated, the holes get plugged by the authority regulating them. This is not so much the case in the crypto space. They see regulation as an ineffeciency, that needs to be disrupted
Meanwhile they're discovering that these regulations were actually safeguards, and they're not solving any problem. They're just reinventing the wheels of the finance sector.
Meanwhile they're discovering that these regulations were actually safeguards, and they're not solving any problem. They're just reinventing the wheels of the finance sector.
I guess that invisible hand of the free market can't install a security system. :-D
Can someone explain what happened with Luna? I'm not aware of it. People here are calling it a ponzi scheme, but I can't find any explanation of what the deal was. (there is this forbes article that only talks about it tanking[0])
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2022/05/11/luna-n...
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2022/05/11/luna-n...
It's not really a ponzi scheme.
More like an algorithm gone wrong.
On basic: if ust coin(pegged to one dollar, so the target was to keep it at one dollar) lost value(under one dollar) new luna coins were created to buy ust coins.
So.. As long ust coin was under one dollar, it created more and more luna coins to buy ust coins.
I think luna started with like a few million coins and ended with something like 7 or 8 trillion coins, now the network is officially shutdown.
It was a horrible idea.
No matter how good your algorithm is, people will manipulate the open! Book of upcoming trades to make profits, and destroying the coin with it.
Its like knowing what vanguard bak will do, before they even start trading on top of that you can force them to trade im certain ways, because you know how they will react, with hundred percent accuracy!
It was doomed from the beginning.
More like an algorithm gone wrong.
On basic: if ust coin(pegged to one dollar, so the target was to keep it at one dollar) lost value(under one dollar) new luna coins were created to buy ust coins.
So.. As long ust coin was under one dollar, it created more and more luna coins to buy ust coins.
I think luna started with like a few million coins and ended with something like 7 or 8 trillion coins, now the network is officially shutdown.
It was a horrible idea.
No matter how good your algorithm is, people will manipulate the open! Book of upcoming trades to make profits, and destroying the coin with it.
Its like knowing what vanguard bak will do, before they even start trading on top of that you can force them to trade im certain ways, because you know how they will react, with hundred percent accuracy!
It was doomed from the beginning.
> It's not really a ponzi scheme.
They were paying existing holders a ridiculously high rate for staking. Where was this coming from if not from new buyers?
They were paying existing holders a ridiculously high rate for staking. Where was this coming from if not from new buyers?
It is not a ponzi. The 20% they were paying out should be considered a cost of user acquisition paid out by the team themselves. If paying incentives to attract users is a crime, we’d have to shutter most startups.
I’m not defending Terra, but we should be precise with our words lest we escape reality ourselves.
I’m not defending Terra, but we should be precise with our words lest we escape reality ourselves.
Cost of acquisition?! Were the holders investors or customers? Again, how were they funding the 20%?
The source of funding was the initial LUNA tokens that were allocated to Terra (or Do Kwon personally?).
I think it was broadly understood that 20% yield wasn't going to be sustainable, but was a tool for short-term user acquisition.
I think it was broadly understood that 20% yield wasn't going to be sustainable, but was a tool for short-term user acquisition.
>Where was this coming from if not from new buyers?
Anchor generated revenue in 2 ways. The first is that it collects staking rewards for collateral that was deposited. The second is that it collected interest on the loans it lent to people. Some of what it was able to collect can be attributed to new buyers because an increase demand for UST increases the value of Luna. This combined with more gas fees means that bLuna holders will be paid out more. bLuna is one of the assets which can be used as collateral on Anchor. Even without new buyers there would still be profit that could be awarded to depositors.
Anchor generated revenue in 2 ways. The first is that it collects staking rewards for collateral that was deposited. The second is that it collected interest on the loans it lent to people. Some of what it was able to collect can be attributed to new buyers because an increase demand for UST increases the value of Luna. This combined with more gas fees means that bLuna holders will be paid out more. bLuna is one of the assets which can be used as collateral on Anchor. Even without new buyers there would still be profit that could be awarded to depositors.
Even if that part were a Ponzi, it wasn't related to the core problem with the stablecoin peg algorithm, which was what actually brought Terra down, and which could/would have been targeted regardless of this high yield staking program.
I'd imagine the Ponzi part is what drove the demand for Terra in the first place. Why else would you buy it instead of USDT or USDC?
Paying with luna, right? That's more like a stock split than a ponzi. They weren't going to run out.
Again, why did the price of Luna keep going up if not for new buyers?
The trading price can be based on a lot of factors and/or tiny volumes of trades.
The price of a stock can change drastically with almost no money changing hands compared to the market cap. Which would then not be a Ponzi.
The price of a stock can change drastically with almost no money changing hands compared to the market cap. Which would then not be a Ponzi.
1. The supply of Luna kept going up
2. The price of Luna kept going up
3. Volumes were massive
2. The price of Luna kept going up
3. Volumes were massive
When the algorithm was coded, they didn't know those things. It could have worked equally well with minuscule volume. Supply and price could have multipled by a million with no new investment.
A Ponzi uses new investments to pay interest. If it doesn't get exponentially increasing revenue it collapses. Paying someone in more tokens or stock is different. If it collapses, it's for different reasons under different circumstances.
It's a lot easier to fabricate market cap than to fabricate cash.
A Ponzi uses new investments to pay interest. If it doesn't get exponentially increasing revenue it collapses. Paying someone in more tokens or stock is different. If it collapses, it's for different reasons under different circumstances.
It's a lot easier to fabricate market cap than to fabricate cash.
the ponzi was really the cherry on top of the flawed algo
> It's not really a ponzi scheme.
Yeah:
> Sick of people calling everything in crypto a Ponzi scheme. Some crypto projects are pump and dump schemes, while others are pyramid schemes. Others are just standard issue fraud. Others are just middlemen skimming of the top. Stop glossing over the diversity in the industry.
* https://twitter.com/patdennis/status/1518637225789042688
Yeah:
> Sick of people calling everything in crypto a Ponzi scheme. Some crypto projects are pump and dump schemes, while others are pyramid schemes. Others are just standard issue fraud. Others are just middlemen skimming of the top. Stop glossing over the diversity in the industry.
* https://twitter.com/patdennis/status/1518637225789042688
> No matter how good your algorithm is, people will manipulate the open!
The algorithm isn't good at all. Such catastrophic failure was predicted a few months ago by a lot of people independently. But it is difficult to predict the timing so only few people shorted it at the right time.
The algorithm isn't good at all. Such catastrophic failure was predicted a few months ago by a lot of people independently. But it is difficult to predict the timing so only few people shorted it at the right time.
It wasn't a ponzi in the traditional sense but the algorithm propping their stablecoin while likely well-meaning had a serious death spiral-based fault in the case of a coordinated attack or very bad market conditions. For what is worth, they did have a healthy (for smartchains) ecosystem beyond that stablecoin and were clearly attempting to do more than temporarily prop their token and then run away.
I don't think that Luna or UST were ponzi's but some of the things built on top of them had ponzi-like characteristics.
Specifically Anchor which was promising 20% returns whilst charging borrowers less than that on the same funds, seemed doomed to failure.
Specifically Anchor which was promising 20% returns whilst charging borrowers less than that on the same funds, seemed doomed to failure.
From what I understand that 20% was completely legit and made sense. It simply came from a reserve that was created to attract investors, and as soon as that reserve were depleted, those returns would be gone.
I've not read all of anchor's material but I don't recall them publicly stating that the 20% APY was only going to las till they had burned through a specific amount of money. Do you know, was that stated publicly?
Okay, now explain the need for a 21 day lock up when trying to pull funds out.
There is not a 21 day lock up for pulling funds out.
The Terra blockchain is a proof of stake blockchain where you can stake Luna in order to gain rewards from various fees the network collects. Unbonding your staked Luna takes 21 days to complete.
One of the assets which you could use as collateral on Anchor is bLuna. bLuna is a token that represents a Luna that is currently being staked. Anyone who holds bLuna is able to redeem the rewards that staked Luna has accrued since it was last redeemed. When you give it to Anchor as collateral Anchor will start paying it's depositors with those rewards. It is possible to convert a bLuna back into Luna, but this takes at least 21 days to complete as the unstaking process takes 21 days itself. If you don't want to wait that long you can just sell the bLuna to someone else for Luna.
The Terra blockchain is a proof of stake blockchain where you can stake Luna in order to gain rewards from various fees the network collects. Unbonding your staked Luna takes 21 days to complete.
One of the assets which you could use as collateral on Anchor is bLuna. bLuna is a token that represents a Luna that is currently being staked. Anyone who holds bLuna is able to redeem the rewards that staked Luna has accrued since it was last redeemed. When you give it to Anchor as collateral Anchor will start paying it's depositors with those rewards. It is possible to convert a bLuna back into Luna, but this takes at least 21 days to complete as the unstaking process takes 21 days itself. If you don't want to wait that long you can just sell the bLuna to someone else for Luna.
If this is an attack like Soros vs the Bank of England, how is the profit exfiltrated if both currencies are worthless when the music stops? Is there a put option somewhere else?
Certain application in the decentralized finance space will allow you to borrow a cryptocurrency based on collateral in another currency. So in this case you deposit bitcoin and get Luna out. Then you sell the Luna. Then after the price crashes you buy Luna to repay your debt. Basically shorting Luna
So, I put up 10BTC as collateral to get 110LNA - worth 11BTC - on the promise that I'll pay back 120LNA - worth 12BTC.
I sell the LNA for 11BTC worth of dollars. A meteor comes and destroys the price of LNA, sending it to a penny. When my loan is due, I buy 120LNA for a buck twenty and pay it back. I keep all of the 11BTC worth of dollars, having essentially bought them for a dollar.
Something like that? Seems like it fucks lenders more than holders, but I'm guessing that a lot of holders use some trickery to act as lenders as well. Neat scam.
I sell the LNA for 11BTC worth of dollars. A meteor comes and destroys the price of LNA, sending it to a penny. When my loan is due, I buy 120LNA for a buck twenty and pay it back. I keep all of the 11BTC worth of dollars, having essentially bought them for a dollar.
Something like that? Seems like it fucks lenders more than holders, but I'm guessing that a lot of holders use some trickery to act as lenders as well. Neat scam.
Pretty close, I'm guessing there are peer to peer lending platforms but typically you do it through a smart contract where assets are pooled together. So when you put your 10 BTC in the lending pool, you can only borrow up to ~80% of that value. If the price of BTC goes down, your BTC gets liquidated if it gets to within 5% of your borrow amount
Yep that’s essentially how it works. However, it can be risky either way. For instance, what if the price of Luna had gone up massively? Well then you would have had to repurchase Luna for a lot more than you sold it for. Basically, it reduces down to the exact same scenario as shorting a stock.
> how is the profit exfiltrated if both currencies are worthless when the music stops?
They sold for real USD. Or sold for another stablecoin (and then into real USD).
They sold for real USD. Or sold for another stablecoin (and then into real USD).
https://twitter.com/OnChainWizard/status/1524123935570382851
probably an attack exploiting bad algorithms, I wouldn't be surprised if the US regulatory captures stablecoins now and it somehow becomes necessary to police the whole world for 'financial terrorism' or something of that nature ...
probably an attack exploiting bad algorithms, I wouldn't be surprised if the US regulatory captures stablecoins now and it somehow becomes necessary to police the whole world for 'financial terrorism' or something of that nature ...
Poor guy. But also, can't he hire private protection? He's still got a lot of money.
I'm disappointing that so many who are openly promoting vigilante justice.
Remember this is pretty much just doxxing.
I understand ther's a certain amount of schadenfreude here, particularly given Do Kwon's open disdain for nocoiners. I also understand some people have lost their houses (seriously, go look at the TerraLuna subreddit; it's dark). I also realize the irony of an Ancap requesting state protection.
But it's sad to see how many people who somehow feel comfortable with sending other people death threats, directly threaten violence or try and get people injured or killed by the state (ie swatting). It's a form of mental illness and it shouldn't be encouraged.
Remember this is pretty much just doxxing.
I understand ther's a certain amount of schadenfreude here, particularly given Do Kwon's open disdain for nocoiners. I also understand some people have lost their houses (seriously, go look at the TerraLuna subreddit; it's dark). I also realize the irony of an Ancap requesting state protection.
But it's sad to see how many people who somehow feel comfortable with sending other people death threats, directly threaten violence or try and get people injured or killed by the state (ie swatting). It's a form of mental illness and it shouldn't be encouraged.
https://twitter.com/terra_money/status/1524935730308456448
Wow, these replies right there. Some people lost a lot of money.
Wow, these replies right there. Some people lost a lot of money.
the pinned post on the subreddit is literally a suicide prevention post...
This is getting worse by the minute, i can't believe it. Hope the people who promoted the shitcoin sink to the ground in shame. I doubt it though
I think, as more or less a unique point in cryptocurrency history, that these people who promoted it also got around nothing. Many 'diamond hands' (such a strange concept for such a volatile asset) in this community it seems.
What's even wilder is the number of people in the replies still trying to buy Luna!
They're trying to buy hope. Life is hopeless for a very large part of the population - if you play your cards just right, work hard and sacrifice lots, you can barely survive and make rent.
Putting your last $50 into stupidcoin might help you break out of the Groundhog Day-esque horror that is working class USA.
Putting your last $50 into stupidcoin might help you break out of the Groundhog Day-esque horror that is working class USA.
Can anyone explain how comes Luna/UST failed at being an algorithmic stablecoin while DAI exists since 2017 and managed to hold its peg through crazy turmoil (like the price of ETH crashing from 1400 to 80 and then skyrocket to 4000)?
Why isn't the same "attack" happening on DAI, which is a big target ($6 bn of DAI worth $1 each, with $10 bn collateralized)?
Why isn't the same "attack" happening on DAI, which is a big target ($6 bn of DAI worth $1 each, with $10 bn collateralized)?
Maybe because Dai is collateralized with Ether, which is a much thicker market than Luna/Terra/UST, because you can use Ether for things that aren't Dai?
Well, that and Luna is only worth money if Terra is stable, and Terra is stable if Luna is worth money. I don't think Dai is susceptible to the same sort of death spiral.
Right, Ether is still worth money even if Dai implodes, even if maybe a little less so, for reasons that aren't strictly about how thickly capitalized the Ether market is.
There were like $18bn Terra. It was "backed" by maybe $3.5bn of BTC, and by minting Luna from scratch and hoping people would assign a nonzero value to the Luna token.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/05/luna-foundation-guard-bolste...
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/05/luna-foundation-guard-bolste...
[deleted]
After reading about stable coins they seem completely idiotic. I get the idea that pegging it to the dollar via arbitrage is great and all, but arbitrage only seems to work (like in ETFs for instance) when the underlying assets have value and high trade volume. Once trade volume goes down price stability goes out the window and you end up with this shitshow. Once that happens everyone leaves and the “value” is gone. It’s a death spiral waiting to happen.
Should be the final nail in the coffin for algorithmic stablecoins (which are only stable until too many people stop believing that collective fiction).
I do hope he goes to jail - for his own sake. People have been killed for much less money. There are some posts in this thread accepting the violence against him. I disagree, if he broke the law he should be judged and punished fairly, not by mob justice.
I do hope he goes to jail - for his own sake. People have been killed for much less money. There are some posts in this thread accepting the violence against him. I disagree, if he broke the law he should be judged and punished fairly, not by mob justice.
Wasn't there a twitter thread on their great plan to fix this? Instead UST is now at $0.11 and obviously headed to 0.
There's been several proposals from community members about "solving" this. From reading them they seemed to fall into two camps "save Luna trash UST" and "save UST trash Luna" but both relied on the idea of some external party injecting a large amount of capital to restore confidence, and in a lot of existing participants losing money.
Perhaps a suffienciently large rescue early in the problems could have solved it, but confidence is now gone and I can't see it returning to these projects.
Perhaps a suffienciently large rescue early in the problems could have solved it, but confidence is now gone and I can't see it returning to these projects.
I believe the leading current plan is to relaunch it with a different peg mechanism and airdrop the initial tokens to previous holders which does seem like the only way for them to salvage it though obviously trust in the chain will be low.
https://agora.terra.money/t/luna-go-forward-proposal/7136?fb...
https://agora.terra.money/t/luna-go-forward-proposal/7136?fb...
Look at this and tell me it's not an actual cult. After reaching almost 0 $ in value
> Let's hodl and believe that Luna rises again!!!!
> Hold on, brothers, summer is coming, the sun and a sea of positivity. There will be a time of growth and huge victories. LUNA ahead!!!
> Let's hodl and believe that Luna rises again!!!!
> Hold on, brothers, summer is coming, the sun and a sea of positivity. There will be a time of growth and huge victories. LUNA ahead!!!
Funny how I had never heard of luna before but had no trouble inferring from the headline that this was something about crypto.
(headline was "Luna Founder Requests Police Protection as Investors Are Visiting His House" at the time, in case it was changed)
(headline was "Luna Founder Requests Police Protection as Investors Are Visiting His House" at the time, in case it was changed)
Putting him in jail might be the best thing they could do to protect him.
from $80 down to 0 overnight
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/terra-luna/
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/terra-luna/
In addition to that, incredible amounts of Luna tokens have been printed as part of the "stabilization" algorithm. The supply went from around 700M tokens to nearly 7 trillion in a few days.
Source: https://terrasco.pe/mainnet/luna/supply
Source: https://terrasco.pe/mainnet/luna/supply
One guy on twitter said his net worth (or something) went from $2B to $100 in 5 days...
i just bought a shit ton of LUNA since binance resumed trading
let's see if that gamble will work out :p
let's see if that gamble will work out :p
No way, did he pull the rug? How is this even possible
Follow the money and the mana of the land and the spirit in which people act and watch the eyes and the skies and Bad Actors are kinda easy to spot after awhile.
I am reading that the Terra/Luna blockchain was halted at least twice in last couple days.
How is this possible? Is Terra/Luna blockchain centralized?
How is this possible? Is Terra/Luna blockchain centralized?
There are 130 bonded validators based off the validators who are staking the most. If >=33% of the staked Luna becomes inaccessible the blockchain can no longer make progress.
Is there _anyone_ working in crypto (other than Vitalik) that is actually likable? All these guys seem so self important and smug that I have a hard time sympathizing with them.
Not sure about "likable", but most of the high-profile people in crypto behave professionally. For my taste they are actually far too timid when it comes to talking about projects other than their own. Everyone is always super positive and hyped and agreeable and sure, there are "tons of scams out there" and "99 % of projects will die" but you rarely hear names.
Yep, I avoid mentioning specific names as much as possible so I don't come off as a maxi or a shill. Also very uncomfortable mentioning anything specific to friends because I don't want them to interpret it as financial advice or get FOMO when I have no idea what a token's price will do
It is sometimes hard to see through the noise, but for those actually interested, here a VERY incomplete list, just to have an idea where to start:
- Pieter Wuille
- Matt Corallo
- Rusty Russell
- Olaoluwa Osuntokun
- Andrew Poelstra
- Wladimir van der Laan
- Surae and Sarang Noether
- Matthew Green
- Eli Ben-Sasson
- David Burkett
- ... ... (and many many (!) dozens more!)
It is because of so much noise [1], that some other involved sometimes find it hard to stay friendly for an extended period of time (friendliness in this area lead very fast to dubious marketers to abuse (!) that friendliness to market they ponzis. Open source without economic tokens attract less of these people. Some people think it makes open-source + economic tokens a bad idea. Some other disagree and just either avoid the front pages and noise and just code ("cypherpunks write code") and some other struggle to find a balance and communicate more but sometimes a bit rough because of so many scams out there).
In every big community (or country or any other group) you will find nice people and less nice/friendly people. People just see the latter one on twitter (because of how the algo works), and sadly think at all are like that. Sad :( But happily people like skc ask the important questions loudly :)
[1]: new discoveries (like decentralize digiatal bearer assets) that involve money are bound to such frenzies and therefore noise
edit: just for formatting (the bulletpoints of the list)
- Pieter Wuille
- Matt Corallo
- Rusty Russell
- Olaoluwa Osuntokun
- Andrew Poelstra
- Wladimir van der Laan
- Surae and Sarang Noether
- Matthew Green
- Eli Ben-Sasson
- David Burkett
- ... ... (and many many (!) dozens more!)
It is because of so much noise [1], that some other involved sometimes find it hard to stay friendly for an extended period of time (friendliness in this area lead very fast to dubious marketers to abuse (!) that friendliness to market they ponzis. Open source without economic tokens attract less of these people. Some people think it makes open-source + economic tokens a bad idea. Some other disagree and just either avoid the front pages and noise and just code ("cypherpunks write code") and some other struggle to find a balance and communicate more but sometimes a bit rough because of so many scams out there).
In every big community (or country or any other group) you will find nice people and less nice/friendly people. People just see the latter one on twitter (because of how the algo works), and sadly think at all are like that. Sad :( But happily people like skc ask the important questions loudly :)
[1]: new discoveries (like decentralize digiatal bearer assets) that involve money are bound to such frenzies and therefore noise
edit: just for formatting (the bulletpoints of the list)
That's a long known problem of the nouveau riche. Too much money too fast is tough to handle in a classy way.
Part of the shtick and cult idea of alienation to create a common enemy or 'the other'.
"Those guys are dumb, they can't see it, but you can, cuz you smart!" (Twitter is geared to show you these hot takes, they also bait reasonable people to 'engage')
"Those guys are dumb, they can't see it, but you can, cuz you smart!" (Twitter is geared to show you these hot takes, they also bait reasonable people to 'engage')
You are clearly just poor and jealous and not smart enough to understand crypto, the second coming /s
Silvio Micali?
Crypto attracts people with dark tetrad (machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, sadism) personalities.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01918...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01918...
It’s important to understand that this is a Stanford educated, pampered brat who would taunt people with “stay poor” whenever anyone asked basic diligence questions. He built his fallen empire on the back of a bogus “governments are bad, people have to be able to stand up to them” BS narrative (that a lot of the HN crowd blindly parrots as well without thinking through the consequences — life isn’t Zero to One).
Given this context, I do not think the police should honor his request. If Do Kwon was American, he would be the sort that would support utter trash like RAGE (Retire All Government Employees). People like him and their mind viruses are destructive to proper civil society.
Then again, the Korean police aren’t stupid. I am guessing they will “protect” him so he can be handed over to the US federal authorities, who haven’t been shy about the fact that they’re looking for him.
Also — if you work in crypto, you want this guy arrested and gone from the scene. These are the sort of selfish bad actors who will shamelessly blow up an industry and blame it on the industry rather than themselves. I can already see Do Kwon becoming the singing voice of why crypto is bad, as a way to save himself.
Given this context, I do not think the police should honor his request. If Do Kwon was American, he would be the sort that would support utter trash like RAGE (Retire All Government Employees). People like him and their mind viruses are destructive to proper civil society.
Then again, the Korean police aren’t stupid. I am guessing they will “protect” him so he can be handed over to the US federal authorities, who haven’t been shy about the fact that they’re looking for him.
Also — if you work in crypto, you want this guy arrested and gone from the scene. These are the sort of selfish bad actors who will shamelessly blow up an industry and blame it on the industry rather than themselves. I can already see Do Kwon becoming the singing voice of why crypto is bad, as a way to save himself.
It's entirely reasonable to think both "They should be arrested" and "the police should stop others from attacking them". I'd argue it's much more reasonable to hold both views than only one - everyone for themselves or the rule of law rather than "the rule of law for people I don't like".
> People like him and their mind viruses are destructive to proper civil society.
I don't think the "proper civil society" response is that they should be subject to criminal attacks.
> People like him and their mind viruses are destructive to proper civil society.
I don't think the "proper civil society" response is that they should be subject to criminal attacks.
Triangulating between these responses which each have some sensible points, we (?) might choose to aim for meaningful and serious consequences (because life is srs bzns) yet still temper our justice with mercy, meaning, and occasionally a touch of humor.
Okay but also how about we don't triangulate between "rule of law" and "eye for an eye", and instead just have rule of law.
If the Korean justice system works anything like the US then, as long as someone has money there is no justice.
Well, he doesn't have any money any more.
I'm certain he was at least smart enough to at least convert a lot of his earnings into more stable cryptos.
If he was smart he would have sold his crypto holdings for real money, not other crypto nonsense.
Protecting from someone attacking him yes, preventing him from getting a mouthful from people protesting outside his house, heck no!
Sorry, I think my comment lacked a bit of context. We are in agreement.
“Police protection” tends to imply that you get treated as a special person, someone super important — like a head of state or a political dissident. It’s a bit like having Mark Zuckerberg’s security detail, but through the use of taxpayer funds. In a country where most people don’t have guns and don’t resolve problems through violence, the need for this sort of thing is extremely rare.
As someone who is clearly “not poor,” as he says repeatedly, he should be asked to source his own protection rather than being an undue burden on the South Korean taxpayer. The funds and resources earmarked for police protection would be better spent protecting women fighting for equal representation, against corruption, etc.
Of course, if the guy is actually poor, well, that’s another thing. I don’t think that is what we are dealing with here, however. Keep in mind that he dissolved the South Korean entity for Terra on April 30th…
“Police protection” tends to imply that you get treated as a special person, someone super important — like a head of state or a political dissident. It’s a bit like having Mark Zuckerberg’s security detail, but through the use of taxpayer funds. In a country where most people don’t have guns and don’t resolve problems through violence, the need for this sort of thing is extremely rare.
As someone who is clearly “not poor,” as he says repeatedly, he should be asked to source his own protection rather than being an undue burden on the South Korean taxpayer. The funds and resources earmarked for police protection would be better spent protecting women fighting for equal representation, against corruption, etc.
Of course, if the guy is actually poor, well, that’s another thing. I don’t think that is what we are dealing with here, however. Keep in mind that he dissolved the South Korean entity for Terra on April 30th…
[deleted]
Flip side: our proper civil society allows to many people to disregard the law when they see fit and a strong and powerful position against illegal and unethical actions should be taken to return to a civil society.
A civil society would deal with this through the political process. Sorry if that’s unpopular with you, but the alternative is roaming gangs of lynch mobs dishing out vigilante justice to whoever they see fit. If you want to see how that works, I encourage you to go and visit some countries in the third world. You’ll be running back to the West faster than you even know.
I don't see how that's a flip side.
Too many people being able to just disregard the law when they see fit is not an argument for either
* Letting them off
* Allowing more people to break the law as they see fit
Which are the alternatives.
> a strong and powerful position against illegal and unethical actions should be taken to return to a civil society.
This would, imo, be the "arrest them" part of the argument.
Too many people being able to just disregard the law when they see fit is not an argument for either
* Letting them off
* Allowing more people to break the law as they see fit
Which are the alternatives.
> a strong and powerful position against illegal and unethical actions should be taken to return to a civil society.
This would, imo, be the "arrest them" part of the argument.
>Given this context, I do not think the police should honor his request.
Police deciding whether to protect you based on whether you said “governments are bad, people have to be able to stand up to them” or “stay poor” is absurd. It's sad how much hating crypto clouds people's opinions here and elsewhere. You can dislike crypto without basing every tangentially related opinion on what would be disliked most by a crypto investor without other considerations.
Police deciding whether to protect you based on whether you said “governments are bad, people have to be able to stand up to them” or “stay poor” is absurd. It's sad how much hating crypto clouds people's opinions here and elsewhere. You can dislike crypto without basing every tangentially related opinion on what would be disliked most by a crypto investor without other considerations.
If the police have to provide protection to anyone whose doorbell has been rung, then they're going to be very, very, very busy.
This is not the reasoning (which I am criticizing) for not protecting them given here and at any rate there are more reasons to think people might wish him harm at this time.
Is this comment deliberately facetious?
Nothing facetious about my comment at all.
Many people in Korea have faced far worse threats than having their doorbell rung without getting personal police protection. If this is indeed the new standard for getting police protection, the Seoul police force needs to start a huge recruitment drive.
Many people in Korea have faced far worse threats than having their doorbell rung without getting personal police protection. If this is indeed the new standard for getting police protection, the Seoul police force needs to start a huge recruitment drive.
gmflkgfds(1)
It's almost as if there was a much greater context that you deliberately ignored.
It's not the "bell ringing" part that's worrying it's the "people lost tons of money and potentially seek revenge" part
It's not the "bell ringing" part that's worrying it's the "people lost tons of money and potentially seek revenge" part
Let's focus on what's actually happening instead of hypothetical threats.
I don’t think the disposition of this individual has any bearing on whether the police should protect them from criminal acts of aggression. The police should protect all equally.
Especially due to the fact that despite any political views they may hold, they are forced to pay taxes for police services like everyone else.
GP is arguing that certain taxpayers should not receive the services they paid for, on political grounds.
GP is arguing that certain taxpayers should not receive the services they paid for, on political grounds.
This reminds me of people who argue that fire departments should be an opt-in service, yet still get angry when their house burns down.
Crypto bros spend all their energy slamming the government. Why should they get to enjoy the protections of the government they hate so much?
Crypto bros spend all their energy slamming the government. Why should they get to enjoy the protections of the government they hate so much?
They can complain all they want; that doesn’t mean a government and its responsibilities to its citizens suddenly vanish.
Vice versa, endlessly praising your government does not suddenly grant you greater rights and privileges
Well, it shouldn’t anyways.
Vice versa, endlessly praising your government does not suddenly grant you greater rights and privileges
Well, it shouldn’t anyways.
Correct.
I think we can discuss the protagonist's hypocrisy, but that's very separate from a government's obligation to its citizens.
Also, a similar standard of need to other requests for protection should be applied to this case.
I think we can discuss the protagonist's hypocrisy, but that's very separate from a government's obligation to its citizens.
Also, a similar standard of need to other requests for protection should be applied to this case.
> people who argue that fire departments should be an opt-in service, yet still get angry when their house burns down
Who are these people? Can you please bring up one specific example of a person who (1) expresses those views, (2) lives in an area where fire service is opt-in, (3) didn't opt-in for fire service, (4) had his house burn down and (5) is upset about not receiving help?
Who are these people? Can you please bring up one specific example of a person who (1) expresses those views, (2) lives in an area where fire service is opt-in, (3) didn't opt-in for fire service, (4) had his house burn down and (5) is upset about not receiving help?
Sure [1]. Money quote: "Bell admitted that she was aware of the fee, but never thought it would happen to them."
[1] https://www.firehouse.com/operations-training/news/10472820/...
[1] https://www.firehouse.com/operations-training/news/10472820/...
The article doesn't show that this homeowner supports this system.
The level of police protection you receive should depend on your views of the government? I think some countries have tried this before...
Do crypto-bros get to opt out of paying taxes for the services you think they should be deprived of? If not, the answer is "because they pay for it".
> yet still get angry when their house burns down
Which people?
Which people?
I’m sorry but this is an insane comment. We live in a civil society, in which we deal with criminals through the courts and not through lynch mobs.
And we've watched as the little guy goes to jail over the littlest offense and as the big guy gets off committing murder because of money time and time again.
Which big guy murderers are you referring to?
There are many. Ethan Couch if you want a direct example, but that is one of thousands. A poor African American will get 20 years in jail for possession, but a rich white kid will get a year or two for killing someone in a DUI. That doesn't even take into account the corporations that have made decisions that resulted in many people dying but that never faced jail time.
Will be interesting to see what happens with Elizabeth Holmes.
Will be interesting to see what happens with Elizabeth Holmes.
Even assuming that was the case, the solution wouldn't be vigilantism.
I'm not advocating for murder, but rich people need to be scared of consequences too.
I think this is a very important point. When the rule of law continuously fails there needs to be a measure that strikes fear into those that disregard it.
I personally call this the French/Guillotine Deterrent.
I personally call this the French/Guillotine Deterrent.
It’s his wife who requested protection, according to the article’s sub-headline.
Good lord, this thread. Thank you for doing what you can to quietly correct things.
Readers: please upvote this. I don’t normally ask, and it’s a breach of etiquette to talk about votes. But there’s a line, and I think calling someone a pampered brat while his wife is requesting police protection is the one.
Readers: please upvote this. I don’t normally ask, and it’s a breach of etiquette to talk about votes. But there’s a line, and I think calling someone a pampered brat while his wife is requesting police protection is the one.
> there's a line, I think calling someone a pampered brat while his wife is requesting police protection is the one.
Those can both easily be true, though? And the theoretical protection is for both of them, right? Unless there's a huge amount missing in the story.
Those can both easily be true, though? And the theoretical protection is for both of them, right? Unless there's a huge amount missing in the story.
> If Do Kwon was American, he would be the sort that would support utter trash like RAGE (Retire All Government Employees). People like him and their mind viruses are destructive to proper civil society.
Wait... So if he had pulled the exact same scam while longing for more government employees and a bigger part of the public sector in countries' GDP, then he'd be worthy of police protection?
So basically the government should protect people depending whether or not they're pro-government?
I want to see that scammer rot in jail but there's no reason, if he go death threat, that public mob lynching is suddenly okay because he's not a leftist.
Wait... So if he had pulled the exact same scam while longing for more government employees and a bigger part of the public sector in countries' GDP, then he'd be worthy of police protection?
So basically the government should protect people depending whether or not they're pro-government?
I want to see that scammer rot in jail but there's no reason, if he go death threat, that public mob lynching is suddenly okay because he's not a leftist.
Calling for government help when things get real, while loudly and publicly stating the government is useless and should be disbanded / retired when times are good is a bad look.
Asking someone to stick to their principles or accept they were wrong earlier may not be very kind in this case, but expecting someone to die by the sword they lived by hardly sounds wrong.
I'll agree this shouldn't happen in a civil society, but I also wish people were smart enough to recognize that government and rule of law are a prerequisite for civil society.
Asking someone to stick to their principles or accept they were wrong earlier may not be very kind in this case, but expecting someone to die by the sword they lived by hardly sounds wrong.
I'll agree this shouldn't happen in a civil society, but I also wish people were smart enough to recognize that government and rule of law are a prerequisite for civil society.
What everybody says, and repeatedly gets ignored, is the irony that his plea for protection is directed exactly at those he dislikes. It's about him acting in contradiction to his own principles, not about him getting or not protection. It's about his character. That's all. Even asshats deserve police protection, agreed, but that doesn't make them any more likeable and likeability was the topic here.
> Given this context, I do not think the police should honor his request [to protect him]
I vehemently disagree on this. Regardless of what you think of a person, no one should be subject to the violence of a vigilantist mob. Anything else is a huge step back into the middle ages.
It saddens me to no end that the kind of inhuman sentiment that is displayed in comments like the above is becoming more and more en vogue in modern civilization.
I vehemently disagree on this. Regardless of what you think of a person, no one should be subject to the violence of a vigilantist mob. Anything else is a huge step back into the middle ages.
It saddens me to no end that the kind of inhuman sentiment that is displayed in comments like the above is becoming more and more en vogue in modern civilization.
Jesus, denying a proactive police guard isn't "inhuman". Try not to exaggerate things for the purpose of feeling righteous.
The GP apparently supports the idea of looking the other way while someone is threatened by an angry vigilantist mob. GP justifies this by their personal impression of the person's character.
I don't think I'm the one here feeling righteous.
I don't think I'm the one here feeling righteous.
Not "looking the other way". Refusing to assign police to stand outside his home because some angry people knocked on his door. Those are very different things.
Murderers on death row get "proactive police guard" protections in court. How is it not "inhuman" to deny at-risk civilians of one?
Extra police in court are even less necessary in most cases.
But tons of people are at mild risk that doesn't warrant paying 1-6 cops' salaries to keep watch.
But tons of people are at mild risk that doesn't warrant paying 1-6 cops' salaries to keep watch.
Yes but the primary reason given in the original comment was that they didn't like him, not the cost.
The cost is obviously a factor. If it cost next to nothing, you wouldn't need to block users with insufficient real need, no matter how jerkish. Let protection be as easy as carrying an umbrella.
The sad (?) thing is that despite these scummy crypto projects collapsing, people like Do probably still made out like bandits. It's only the "regular" greedy folk who lose everything.
I know the world isn't just, but it would be nice to see these shysters getting some form of comeuppance. At least Madoff and Skilling ended up in jail.
I know the world isn't just, but it would be nice to see these shysters getting some form of comeuppance. At least Madoff and Skilling ended up in jail.
> Given this context, I do not think the police should honor his request.
Why? States have a monopoly on violence for good reason. If a disgruntled speculator decides to do something stupid for revenge, it's much better for the police to deal with rather than a private guard.
Why? States have a monopoly on violence for good reason. If a disgruntled speculator decides to do something stupid for revenge, it's much better for the police to deal with rather than a private guard.
How much anti-government rhetoric is a second order effect of the existence of compromises?
When people push for something, they rarely get what they want. Even when there is a lot of support, the end result is a compromise with the previous status quo. If you push for minimum wage to be $10 and it is currently $5, with enough support you will see an increase but it won't be up to $10.
In turn, people will ask for more than what they actually want. If someone wants a minimum wage of $10, they might ask for $15. So when there is a compromise they are more likely to get what they actually wanted to start with, and maybe even hope for a little more than the minimum of what they wanted.
This of course has limits. If you instead were to push for a minimum wage of $100, you won't get enough support to have any impact at all. But exactly where this threshold is located is something only well known in hindsight, if even then.
So people who push for completely removal of government positions are likely much more interested in a compromise that still has a great deal of government power left, but are using rhetoric that will hopefully shift the window of compromise to be more in their favor. This is why things like 'defund the police' become supported even by people who can easily predict what would happen if the police really were defunded.
Lastly, I am speaking of people who would take positions similar to Do Kwon in general, and not about Do Kwon in specific. I realize that's slightly off topic, but I think it is worth clarifying that not everyone with positions similar to Do Kwon hold such positions for the same reason that Do Kwon does and many of them would be open to reasonable discussions and compromises.
When people push for something, they rarely get what they want. Even when there is a lot of support, the end result is a compromise with the previous status quo. If you push for minimum wage to be $10 and it is currently $5, with enough support you will see an increase but it won't be up to $10.
In turn, people will ask for more than what they actually want. If someone wants a minimum wage of $10, they might ask for $15. So when there is a compromise they are more likely to get what they actually wanted to start with, and maybe even hope for a little more than the minimum of what they wanted.
This of course has limits. If you instead were to push for a minimum wage of $100, you won't get enough support to have any impact at all. But exactly where this threshold is located is something only well known in hindsight, if even then.
So people who push for completely removal of government positions are likely much more interested in a compromise that still has a great deal of government power left, but are using rhetoric that will hopefully shift the window of compromise to be more in their favor. This is why things like 'defund the police' become supported even by people who can easily predict what would happen if the police really were defunded.
Lastly, I am speaking of people who would take positions similar to Do Kwon in general, and not about Do Kwon in specific. I realize that's slightly off topic, but I think it is worth clarifying that not everyone with positions similar to Do Kwon hold such positions for the same reason that Do Kwon does and many of them would be open to reasonable discussions and compromises.
You say that last part like crypto is mostly good and this is one bad apple. I suggest you don't research too far into the owners of Tether and how much is has propped up the entire crypto market single-handedly.
An individual is not destructive to civil society if civil society is healthy.
An individual is not destructive to civil society if civil society is healthy.
The last 5 years have either proved you wrong or demonstrated that civil society is unhealthy. In either case, something needs to be done.
If someone needs protection from a genuine threat does it matter what they may have done?
The request should be evaluated without bias
The request should be evaluated without bias
[deleted]
[deleted]
>Given this context, I do not think the police should honor his request.
If I read your argument correctly. It's OK for the police to remove protection from people based on the court of public opinion without due process if they are "bad hombres."
If that's true, you are casually suggesting is disregarding the core principles of rule of law and human rights in the society.
I find this attitude very disturbing and discussing. Maybe it's lack of understanding or genuine want to abandon principles of liberal democracies, I don't know.
If I read your argument correctly. It's OK for the police to remove protection from people based on the court of public opinion without due process if they are "bad hombres."
If that's true, you are casually suggesting is disregarding the core principles of rule of law and human rights in the society.
I find this attitude very disturbing and discussing. Maybe it's lack of understanding or genuine want to abandon principles of liberal democracies, I don't know.
> If I read your argument correctly. It's OK for the police to remove protection from people based on the court of public opinion without due process if they are "bad hombres."
Based on numair HN comment. It's funny the dude is angry at another dude because of lawlessness and suggests applying lawlessness to the other dude to teach about lawlessness.
Based on numair HN comment. It's funny the dude is angry at another dude because of lawlessness and suggests applying lawlessness to the other dude to teach about lawlessness.
Why would the US federal authorities have anything to do with a Korean businessman that doesn't have to do anything with the US?
Basic human decency, equal protection, rule of law, etc.
You do understand other countries have other rules of law?
> RAGE (Retire All Government Employees)
New one for me:
> As early as 2012, he proposed the acronym RAGE—Retire All Government Employees—as a shorthand for a first step in the overthrow of the American “regime.” What we needed, Yarvin thought, was a “national CEO, [or] what’s called a dictator.” Yarvin now shies away from the word dictator and seems to be trying to promote a friendlier face of authoritarianism as the solution to our political warfare: “If you’re going to have a monarchy, it has to be a monarchy of everyone,” he said.
* https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right...
> Under his Moldbug pseudonym, Yarvin gave a talk about "rebooting" the American government at the 2012 BIL Conference. He used it to advocate the acronym "RAGE", which he defined as "Retire All Government Employees". Acting as a provocateur, he described what he felt were flaws in the accepted "World War II mythology" alluding to the idea that Hitler's invasions were acts of self-defense. He argued these discrepancies were pushed by America's "ruling communists", who invented political correctness as an "extremely elaborate mechanism for persecuting racists and fascists". "If Americans want to change their government," he said, "they're going to have to get over their dictator phobia."[36]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin#Dark_Enlightenme...
New one for me:
> As early as 2012, he proposed the acronym RAGE—Retire All Government Employees—as a shorthand for a first step in the overthrow of the American “regime.” What we needed, Yarvin thought, was a “national CEO, [or] what’s called a dictator.” Yarvin now shies away from the word dictator and seems to be trying to promote a friendlier face of authoritarianism as the solution to our political warfare: “If you’re going to have a monarchy, it has to be a monarchy of everyone,” he said.
* https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right...
> Under his Moldbug pseudonym, Yarvin gave a talk about "rebooting" the American government at the 2012 BIL Conference. He used it to advocate the acronym "RAGE", which he defined as "Retire All Government Employees". Acting as a provocateur, he described what he felt were flaws in the accepted "World War II mythology" alluding to the idea that Hitler's invasions were acts of self-defense. He argued these discrepancies were pushed by America's "ruling communists", who invented political correctness as an "extremely elaborate mechanism for persecuting racists and fascists". "If Americans want to change their government," he said, "they're going to have to get over their dictator phobia."[36]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin#Dark_Enlightenme...
What? So if you criticize society, you're fair game for assassination?
At the moment are there suggestions that he did anything illegal?
[deleted]
You advocate for mob violence against American citizens who don't support your political views? I have no words.
They advocate for a lack of government bodyguarding for anyone that wants there to be no government bodyguards in the first place. At least that's the only mention of politics I see.
Doesn't seem like a ridiculous position to me.
Doesn't seem like a ridiculous position to me.
He should hire private protection. Funny how an anti-government person runs to the government in times of trouble.
My unpopular opinion is that this guy should be mugged in the streets for running a shitcoin ponzi...but that's just an opinion. In reality, he should be handed to US authorities and serve a long prison term.
My unpopular opinion is that this guy should be mugged in the streets for running a shitcoin ponzi...but that's just an opinion. In reality, he should be handed to US authorities and serve a long prison term.
I don't know why a Korean should be handed to US authorities but in a world that many cryptobros envision, we will live in warlords with private armies up until they each fight off each other.
Everybody is gangsta until an actual gangster knocks on your door.
Everybody is gangsta until an actual gangster knocks on your door.
“Uh, sorry, he’s actually the one who knocks. And everyone saw through your act.”
> He should hire private protection. Funny how an anti-government person runs to the government in times of trouble.
Why is it funny? Regardless of how anti-government you are, you're already have a contract with government: they take your money and give you protection. You wish to change this contract, may be even spend time and effort in political activity to get it changed, but it's still there.
The fact that you express your desire to change your contract with somebody does not give them any (moral or legal) right to not follow the contract if it is not yet changed. And especially if, despite your wish to change it, you still follow your side of the contract (pay taxes).
Why is it funny? Regardless of how anti-government you are, you're already have a contract with government: they take your money and give you protection. You wish to change this contract, may be even spend time and effort in political activity to get it changed, but it's still there.
The fact that you express your desire to change your contract with somebody does not give them any (moral or legal) right to not follow the contract if it is not yet changed. And especially if, despite your wish to change it, you still follow your side of the contract (pay taxes).
It's funny because their argument for pushing crypto is that govt is bad, taxation is theft, so govt needs to be circumvented financially in favor of a libertarian utopia with zero taxes so that govt can be crippled. Why would you want to take help from something you think is a terrible influence on the world? It comes off as selfish, capitalism and tax avoidance and even evasion when it suits you and socialism when you need help.
> Why would you want to take help from something you think is a terrible influence on the world?
I've already answered that in my comment. You would want to take what's yours according to the contract that you've been forced to sign, even if you are trying to cancel the contract.
I've already answered that in my comment. You would want to take what's yours according to the contract that you've been forced to sign, even if you are trying to cancel the contract.
Most countries don't allow private police, especially for individuals. This is probably the case in South Korea. So even if he wanted, he couldn't.
I don't know anything about him, but if he is an anti government guy it's very likely that he is indeed in favor of private defense agencies.
I don't know anything about him, but if he is an anti government guy it's very likely that he is indeed in favor of private defense agencies.
Private _protection_ is very different from private _police_. How do you think movie stars, mega popular singers etc. hire their… well, private protection?
Those guards are mostly for show. They really can't do anything. Even then, in South Korea it's even worse because I'm pretty sure they can't even carry a gun.
The happenings in the linked article look like they'd be easily deterred by the presence of strong men guarding the entrances. Not everyone posing a threat, especially in SK, comes in with blazing guns.
He should give a call to Erik Prince [0]. They'd go together well.
[0]: https://theintercept.com/2016/04/11/blackwater-founder-erik-...
[0]: https://theintercept.com/2016/04/11/blackwater-founder-erik-...
Ha! Erik Prince fascinates me...One of the few real-life villians. Must be a unique world being a war-profiteering entrepreneur.
Normally I'm not moved very easily, but reading the Intercept article really makes me freeze a little inside, and think "how's that even possible".
There's a real alternate reality on this planet.
There's a real alternate reality on this planet.
This was a really great read, thank you for sharing. I’m blown away by the quality of the reporting and the material the intercept were able to gather.
An anti-government guy shows why humanity settled on a regulated, stabilized financial system.
I don't participate in the crypto market but saw him yesterday on twitter for the first time, and guess what, he was telling people that they are poor for questioning his business practices.
The crypto bros were telling everyone on Twitter to "enjoy being poor", when they were loaded up on Luna. How am I supposed to feel about that kind of attitude?
I know it’s stylish to be crass, but his wife is the one that asked for protection.
Given this context https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31365212 don’t you think that his wife is likely just as terrible of a person as he is?
They have a one month old baby too
I don't know why you would do this and not stay anonymous on the internet. This guy sounds like a true "lolbertarian."
Paid with crypto
i think he should get his protection from corrections officers, like any fraudster.
Does this mean USDT is next?
UST/Terra was pegged to the dollar by diluting Luna to the infinity, assuming Luna would keep a non-zero value. I still don't understand how can anyone think this can be a good idea, so my understanding could be wrong.
Anyway, USDT has no such requirement it's pegged to the dollar by Tether company actually exchanging USDT at 1$.
That's not saying USDT won't crash, (there are reasonable fear of wrongdoings) but those two are really not alike
Anyway, USDT has no such requirement it's pegged to the dollar by Tether company actually exchanging USDT at 1$.
That's not saying USDT won't crash, (there are reasonable fear of wrongdoings) but those two are really not alike
Doesn’t it highlight the insolvency of USDT because they don’t actually have the assets to exchange all their coins for $1 and won’t conduct a proper audit to confirm or deny?
It should be fairly easy to do a run on USDT, but not sure if anyone would make money from this.
It should be fairly easy to do a run on USDT, but not sure if anyone would make money from this.
No, this has close to nothing to do with USDT. The current bad market conditions might also be bad for USDT and could potentially cause it to fall (though I wouldnt bet on it personally) but there is no connection beyond that.
Tether did lose its peg for a few hours, although like you said it's an unrelated and different mechanism.
He deserves the same protection his investors had. Absolutely none
enlyth(2)
Ahh man ... something, something the "revolution will be televised."
Wouldn't surprise me if some people can't control their emotions and attempt to lash it all out on the person who in their eyes caused all of this. I have no sympathy with him creating this "guaranteed 20% APY" ponzi scheme but for his own safety it would be wise to go into hiding for the mob which is coming for him.
[0] https://twitter.com/ksicrypto/status/1524760834400006145 [1] https://twitter.com/search?q=%22please%22%20%22life%20saving... [2] https://twitter.com/Mete01524584/status/1524876715692015616