It isn't clear to me that regulations could or would cause that. Or that not being regulated would prevent it.
FDIC / SIPC type protections would be beneficial to consumers in cases like FTX. I'm guessing if a crypto version of those things existed, FTX would have massively failed to secure membership since by all accounts it was outright fraud. And if they did, US consumers would receive some portion of their funds back.
I think things like ethereum could have real value but as long as the landscape is littered with rugpulls and ponzi schemes I don't think it will realize that potential.
I don't claim to understand corporate structures or the best way to organize a large group of employees but metas problems seem to stem more from betting on the wrong thing which seemed like a decision that came from the top.
It really feels like he used to have advisors who would push back on his more outlandish ideas and that provided a good hype / pr vehicle for Tesla and SpaceX. That seems gone now.
He seemed to go steadily off the rails since the Thailand rescue debacle but that might have just been the first gaffe that I noticed as being an obvious misstep.
This actually gets into "regulated" vs "buyer beware" banking markets. And crypto is still a "buyer beware" market where reputation can be bought with super bowl ads. And then getting "glowing" reviews from the crypto press on their sudden "success".
True custodial banks could in fact be fraudulent for allow e know. But they don't buy super bowl ads to buy reputation -- they've earned it over the course of decades.
They did have a fairly clean brand, but I wouldn't compare them to say Anchorage, which is a US-based bank and qualified custodian. There are more regulatory as well as technical protections with a firm like Anchorage.
I would compare FTX to say Tastyworks. Clean brand, but they're not a bank, not insured, and not focused on custody, so it wouldn't really be prudent to store idle cash or crypto with them.
He created a new holding company (X Holdings) for this acquisition that will also be a parent company to Tesla and Space X (see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-21/musk-form...). So he'll be able to carry forward all of the losses against his income from other businesses.
> He created a new holding company (X Holdings) for this acquisition that will also be a parent company to Tesla and Space X
AFAICT, it was very nebulous at the time that it ever would be a common holding company for those (and Musk’s other companies), and very good reasons were cited for being skeptical that that would be workable. And, to my knowledge, none of the other companies has been put under X Holdings.
I think it's a pretty good explanation of why he didn't gain more traction than he had -- he's always been a zealot with a proclivity of misguided rants that he proclaims loud and far.
If you are inclined to think the CCP knows / is covering up a lab leak; you are also inclined to think that they'd release fake disclosure data to cover it up.
Faking data is much harder: it’s easy to forget to remove something, change numbers so they don’t match other numbers, or make up numbers which have the statistical signal of manufactured data. Even being a great power does not prevent these kind of mistakes, because of the skill level censors would need in multiple scientific fields to make a good forgery. People get away with it in minor papers in the social sciences all the time, but with a million eyes on the data sets in this case, someone’s gonna see it.
They wouldn't have to actually fake scientific data - they'd just release everything else they were working on, omit the problematic files, and go "see? we showed you everything - there's nothing to see here!".
Time tables, budgets, staffing docs, those are readily forgeable. Any leftover discrepancies can be chocked up to clerical error. This is doubly so if the problematic research was classified or compartmentalized - files pertaining to those programs are often designed to be easily expunged.
Ultimately, China could release as many files as people ask, and never be able to settle the debate. You can't prove/disprove the existence of files they claim do not exist.
Our best bet would be whistleblowers - ideally multiple trusted and independent ones - who can testify to a hidden program. However, we can't use the lack of whistleblowers to prove the lack of a program, which is where we're stuck today.
Well, who says they haven't tried to do that. The 2013 Mojiang mining incident was claimed to be a fungal infection, while it was later proven it was a viral infection.
It doesn't crash; it's sluggish. It's hard to quantify but it's like there is a quasi animation effect that you can't turn off. In something like 3|2 it's not terrible but in 1 minute games its a real issue.
I thought for a while that maybe I was just used to the lichess interface but I don't have the same sluggish feel when playing on my phone on the website vs the app.
I've been considering writing up something for extended kalman filters like this. Kalman filters are great but in my experience extremely limited without the non-linear extensions which make them useful in a much wider variety of problems.
FDIC / SIPC type protections would be beneficial to consumers in cases like FTX. I'm guessing if a crypto version of those things existed, FTX would have massively failed to secure membership since by all accounts it was outright fraud. And if they did, US consumers would receive some portion of their funds back.
I think things like ethereum could have real value but as long as the landscape is littered with rugpulls and ponzi schemes I don't think it will realize that potential.