I hate to say this out loud but I keep going back to some particular episodes to help me nod off when insomnia grips. I'm not sure I know how the episode on the gold standard ends and I must have listened to it more than 10 timss.
They don't have to stick the entire $80bn in one bank.
It is the lack of transparency around the CP that is raising eyebrows. Why can't Tether list the papers they are invested in? It is such a simple thing to do.
Could be all their CP holdings are in one company :)
The 1% analog is redundancy in traditional currencies. Outside the developed economies a huge chuck of transactions is still done with physical cash.
I imagine it would be a lot more convenient to have some hard currency at hand when fleeing a conflict zone. One might need to bribe border guards at some remote location with unreliable (or non-existent) internet connection, to get to safety.
I wouldn't say NFTs are money laundering - there are some interesting use cases. But the setup of NFT makes it easy for say a drug dealer to conduct business on the blockchain and launder earnings by selling "digital art" to his customers.
Interesting but the "Isn't this just multiple return?" section seems to completely miss the point. I don't see any examples of what multiple-return would look like. And multiple-return is what I want.
At first glance, it looks like this (sure, more powerful) pattern matching system is not going to satisfy my desire for a compact syntax that lets me do the equivalent of this typescript:
No, there is no tuple support yet in Java. That would require something like variadic generics or a special compile time syntax sugar for tuples as the sole use of variadic generics.
With the pattern matching the best you are going to get is nasty boiler plate like
var returnedTuple = getMeTwoThings();
if (returnedTuple instanceof MyTupleType(Foo foo, Bar bar)) {
// Do something with foo and bar
} else {
// Not reachable unless refactoring, etc. So panic here.
}
That else clause is so terrible you'd probably just rather use the getters from the type.
Using the object(/class) as you say is the probably "the Java way" to do this, given their historical "everything is an object" stance (which has been eroded a bit, though, with some of the functional support). But it sure is nice to do a multi-returns, here and there, without having to create another class. A class which required you to write boilerplate (getters/setters). Maybe records are some sort of compromise. Probably a non-compromise for people who like the multi-returns.
I think the best thing we have is the new `record` feature. You can declare a small public record before the method with the return type, and by using the `var` keyword, the caller doesn't need to repeat the type declaration.
I use the lombok plugin with IntelliJ, it eliminates tedious parts of some code.
Some times one needs to create new objects return multiple related items from a function. Or use a collection or array. I think it is unnecessary. Other languages (e.g. go or python) have had this for a while now. I taking a wild guess here LISP probably had it since the 1970s.
This valuation is insane. $100 billion for a company that is doing approx $2 billion in annual revenues.
I know that investors are pricing in future earnings potential - but this valuation seems like drinking too much Kool Aid to me.
Competition will change Coinbase's future profitability. Coinbase cannot get away with charging such high commissions/fees for much longer. The entry barriers to setting up crypto exchanges aren't that high. There are plenty of opportunities for people to step with the single USP of lower fees/commissions than Coinbase.
Institutional business is a more lucrative market than the consumer space, and nobody can service this space at the moment, despite demand. What the market is lacking is trustworthy operators who have execution technology and balance sheet.
Coinbase have done better than other players at getting their trust brand right with consumers and regulators. A conventional public listing will further enhance that.
Through the Tagomi acquisition, Coinbase picked up a team who know execution technology.
Through the float, they will get balance sheet.
There are strong network effects between these business units. For example, once you have your smart-order-router and algos for institutions, you can also offer it to consumers. By having your own liquidity pool and active market-makers, you can internalise flow that you would otherwise have dispatched to other venues, and save on execution costs.
It may be a winner-takes-all market.
I am not saying they will succeed, but the sky is the limit.
Could an existing exchange like say ICE or CME jump into the fray to service institutional investors? They already have much of the infrastructure to handle much larger trading flows than Coinbase. Talent/tech required to compete could be aqui-hired
They could, but it feels like a stretch. I suspect it would be easier to make a move for that space from an existing institutional broker like Instinet or Virtu.
There's already an exchange (Binance) with 9x the volume of Coinbase and a fraction of the fees, however, the USA has been quite hostile to them compared to CB, so it's not exactly easy to 'step up' at least there.
Yeah but Coinbase has trend behind them. Who cares about others when nobody talks? Nikola as an ENTIRELY fake company made it to billions of valuation and stayed there for months while everyone could easily prove it! with help of media too! So when valuing big companies just with revenue and calculations is bit wrong and misses trends and such, especially recently. This market is irrational and bit of scam too.
