An extremely relevant point on the benefit on crypto to Trump allies with the recent American invasion of Venezuela.
"To be very clear about this: Tether, which is the crypto company that Venezuela was using to evade sanctions, is run by Howard Lutnick, who is Trump’s Commerce Secretary.
Lutnick has been making money off Venezuela’s avoidance of U.S. sanctions. Tether has also been used to North Korea for its nuclear program, by terrorist organizations and terror states to buy weapons and fund their operations, and by criminal organizations - drug cartels and human trafficking organizations - to do business.
The entire point of “Decentralized” crypto is that people can create their own money, while they dismantle “the administrative state”
This is a not just a libertarian fantasy, it is a criminal swindle: it is people who want money to exist outside the law.
That means enforcement is also outside the law: you can’t go to court, so threats, theft, and violence are the alternative, which is fine for the criminals who want to use it.
One of the most effective ways to cut the legs out from under organized crime and bad actors would to criminalize currency.
Instead, credulous politicians are integrating it into government money-systems. The results are already a disaster."
This has potential to be a model for the platform-real-world flow of influence and events. Interesting. Will follow closely. I’m focusing on the incentive cascades within the platform economy (under its current monetisation model), but we also need descriptions, in mathematical/logical terms, for the transfer mechanisms.
The model is agnostic to transfer mechanisms. What matters is not how political identity is monetised, but that it is, once that condition holds, incentive cascades dominate behaviour regardless of the payment method.
100% agree. What we call polarisation is more, imo, akin to fomentation of centripetal forces to generate churn. Any identitarian position around the perimeter of the political theatre can be effective at that in concert with other, opposing positions. To consistently generate churn, the centre must be permanently contested. If you like, it’s the inversion (or destructive application) of 360-degree marketing.
An extremely relevant point on the benefit on crypto to Trump allies with the recent American invasion of Venezuela.
"To be very clear about this: Tether, which is the crypto company that Venezuela was using to evade sanctions, is run by Howard Lutnick, who is Trump’s Commerce Secretary.
Lutnick has been making money off Venezuela’s avoidance of U.S. sanctions. Tether has also been used to North Korea for its nuclear program, by terrorist organizations and terror states to buy weapons and fund their operations, and by criminal organizations - drug cartels and human trafficking organizations - to do business.
The entire point of “Decentralized” crypto is that people can create their own money, while they dismantle “the administrative state”
This is a not just a libertarian fantasy, it is a criminal swindle: it is people who want money to exist outside the law.
That means enforcement is also outside the law: you can’t go to court, so threats, theft, and violence are the alternative, which is fine for the criminals who want to use it.
One of the most effective ways to cut the legs out from under organized crime and bad actors would to criminalize currency.
Instead, credulous politicians are integrating it into government money-systems. The results are already a disaster."
https://substack.com/@dougaldlamont/note/c-194777556
https://substack.com/@cryptadamus/note/c-194720304
yes. the only effective policy is to increase friction and operating costs.
This has potential to be a model for the platform-real-world flow of influence and events. Interesting. Will follow closely. I’m focusing on the incentive cascades within the platform economy (under its current monetisation model), but we also need descriptions, in mathematical/logical terms, for the transfer mechanisms.
The model is agnostic to transfer mechanisms. What matters is not how political identity is monetised, but that it is, once that condition holds, incentive cascades dominate behaviour regardless of the payment method.
Payment method affects volatility, not direction.
100% agree. What we call polarisation is more, imo, akin to fomentation of centripetal forces to generate churn. Any identitarian position around the perimeter of the political theatre can be effective at that in concert with other, opposing positions. To consistently generate churn, the centre must be permanently contested. If you like, it’s the inversion (or destructive application) of 360-degree marketing.