> When folks want to dump Tether, they generally cannot dump it directly into dollars. They have to dump to Bitcoin, move it off-exchange, and then sell the dollars on an exchange with fiat currency.
Not sure where you got that from, but that's not true whatsoever; USDT/USD is a thing in a bunch of exchanges with really healthy volume. Other than a few months ago (perhaps the run you mentioned in May) there's normally no premium and the peg is down or up by perhaps 0.5% or so.
Maybe you are saying that because Binance, the largest exchange doesn't have a USDT/USD pair (they don't have any USD pair afaik), but you can easily withdraw USDT and sell them for USD directly in other exchanges.
You might benefit from reading Eric Horst's Maximum Climbing [0]; it covers precisely this just-pull-harder mentality and provides exercises to unlock it.
> most of them don't have a good quality of life
What does that even mean? Are you implying most of “them” (whatever that might be) are lives not worth living thus “we” should put them out of their misery?
> And more importantly, there isn't a way of significantly improving it (with today's technology and social/ethics understanding)
Sources? Read Factfulness; you’ll be surprised at just how far of reality your view is!
Not OP, but OP's point stands. If they can get special treatment, someone else's might be able to. The fact that it's a possibility means they must use it or risk being at a competitive disadvantage of a less ethical player.
Before an argument of "this justifies any type of behavior such as murdering your competitors' CEOs." There's a natural limit (albeit fuzzy) to what rules is in the company's self interest to seek a "special treatment". Relationships with gov't go sour, governments change, etc. What used to be "special treatment" might quickly transform into proof of wrong-doing against the company.
> People do not have to be mindless money maximizers.
No. They don't. Companies do.
To a degree, they DO have a fiduciary duty to maximize profit over the long haul; if Amazon didn't take all legal shortcuts it'd be at a competitive disadvantage and a competitor could put it out of business.
Optimizing every aspect of their operation gives Bezos, the person, the opportunity to act following his moral compass (space exploration, philanthropy, etc.)
Looking beyond the clickbait-y headline, I think the article takes issue with the use of this technology by government, which fits perfectly well with a Libertarian POV.
I gotta say, #7, if something were to happen to you would be pretty scary. Have you considered that scenario? Tying the delivery of messages to some kind of manual online activity (e.g. recent emails sent)