It's interesting that Disney today almost the entire profits of the company come from the parks division (which also includes cruises, resorts and "experiences"). The media division by itself is in a massive war for eyeballs with tons of other streaming competitors, all of whom are probably over-investing in content relative to what consumers can support.
One interesting possibility is that maybe the business model of media companies in the 21st century will become content as a loss leader for the purpose of providing valuable IP to amusement parks. Certainly seems like a similar thing is happening with Comcast with their massive expansion of Universal parks.
That is nuts. Queue up Space Balls: "MERCHANDISING!"
Well now though, I see a video game I never heard of "Dungeon Fighter Online". Here's one of the recent reviews from the Steam Store:
"I spent $45,000 on a relentless journey into the heart of darkness with Dungeon Fighter Online (DFO), a 2D beat-em-up game that has garnered both fervent enthusiasts and critical skeptics,..."
Dungeon fighter is one of the most valuable media IPs ever, beat a ton of video games player count and revenue records.
It's one of the things that put tencent on the map.
Something north of $20 billion in revenue.
Just not known in the US.
This is a fair point, but as of their most recent financials merchandise (excluding merchandise sold inside the parks) only made up $5bn of the $28bn in the "Parks, Experiences and Product" category. By contrast park admissions was $8bn, resorts was $6bn and food/merchandise sold in the parks was $6bn.
So IMO this is a departure from the classic merchandise based strategy. It seems pretty clear that the theme parks more so than the products are the major profit centers today.
Change some distribution models and mediums of distribution, and it's the same cycle between content, brand, and customer eyeballs.
Which makes sense, as the key observation was: brands and characters are more valuable than content, but content creates and sustains them.
And you can afford more content if you have more channels to monetize it through. Which is the same observation Google made with respect to advertising integration, albeit just buying platforms instead of works.
Amusement parks are part of the inefficient monetization Hollywood is built around. The video games that make the most money give gameplay away for free too, but the difference is you can sell infinite skins and pay only 30% to assholes like Apple. It remains to be seen if even that cost will remain.
Disney lost not due to streaming, but due to its failed interactive division.
This is if course highly subjective, but for all this investment in content I, as a consumer, seem to find less and less content I like. Maybe it's just because I'm not part of the demographics that Hollywood cares about any more, but I personally would like to get much more "good" content.
I guess what exactly do you define as scamming? In terms of outright fraud, I agree there's a lot. It shouldn't be super surprising that scammers tend to prefer decentralized permissionless financial rails, for the same reason that political extremists and pornographers were some of the biggest earliest users of the decentralized permissionless publishing rails of the early Internet.
But I wouldn't characterize all, or even most of crypto as scams. Gambling, maybe. Are memecoins a scam? I would say they're more like a massively multiplayer form of gambling. Which you might argue is a bad thing, and certainly is dubious from a social standpoint. But if the code is openly public and autonomous, and there's no outright deceit, I don't think gambling is really gambling.
Even beyond that, there's a lot happening in crypto that most certainly isn't scams. You have stablecoins and payment rails like USDC, stores of value like Bitcoin, smart contract chains like Ethereum, decentralized finance applications like permissionless exchanges and lending markets, social applications like farcaster, decentralized AI, and gaming.
Now you might argue that all of these things are stupid and pointless and wastes of money, but that's a separate debate. Of the large projects in these categories almost none are outright scams. They're teams experimenting with new ways to run financial markets or move payments or train models or hedge inflation. Like most technological experiments most will fail. But if that was the criteria for "scam" then the entire startup sector is also wall-to-wall scams.
> Are memecoins a scam? I would say they're more like a massively multiplayer form of gambling.
They're practically indistinguishable from penny-stock scams, and they almost always involve a bunch of outright lies in their promotional materials; the only reason you can argue that many buyers aren't deceived is because lying is so rampant and expected in that space that people take it as given that the claims are going to be lies, which is hardly an argument that it's a healthy activity.
> Even beyond that, there's a lot happening in crypto that most certainly isn't scams. You have stablecoins and payment rails like USDC, stores of value like Bitcoin, smart contract chains like Ethereum, decentralized finance applications like permissionless exchanges and lending markets, social applications like farcaster, decentralized AI, and gaming.
All of which still fails to add up to anything actually working and useful, 15 years in. The best cases people can come up with are sympathetic criminals like people evading capital controls. What minimal practical use of cryptocurrency there was is already in a clear decline; fewer and fewer stores are accepting it for payment, the few efforts at interesting crypto games have already collapsed...
> Like most technological experiments most will fail. But if that was the criteria for "scam" then the entire startup sector is also wall-to-wall scams.
There's a big difference between "most" and "all". The startup sector as a whole has enough successes to balance out the failures and end up as positive ROI (and even then, a lot of startups really are scams - just not all of them).
> All of which still fails to add up to anything actually working and useful, 15 years in.
The first packet switched network came online in 1969. Fifteen years by 1984 almost all the use cases were hobby, and it'd be another ten years before the Internet really started changing life.
Decentralized consensus is a fundamentally new computing primitive, similar to packet switched networks. Developing applications on top of new primitives is hard and long, and there will be a lot of time required just to build out usable infrastructure.
Turing complete smart contracts are only 7 years old. Layer 2 scaling is only two years old. Decentralized exchanges and other on-chain financial contracts about four years old.
Except with packet switching networks I can immediately point to the problem they are solving and can also make a guess how things will change when we create 000s of bigger and better ones. And the timeline is definitely not what you are making up here - the 70s had immense development of networks and protocols, every telco was building new networks across the country, it was most certainly not hobby stuff, there just weren't that many computers until the 80s.
What problem are we solving with decentralized consensus? How will things improve if we have a giant one? Say every mobile phone was a part of the consensus mechanism, churning Turing-complete smart contracts. Billions of nodes. What do we get out of that?
> The first packet switched network came online in 1969. Fifteen years by 1984 almost all the use cases were hobby, and it'd be another ten years before the Internet really started changing life.
By 1980 CompuServe had thousands of paying subscribers, both home and business - and I suspect they'd invested far less getting there than the amount of VC money that's gone into cryptocurrency. You can say the home users were "hobbyists", but they were getting real value out of the network; online chat or games might not have had a clear business purpose, but they were fun, and that's real value.
I've seen literally one niche for cryptocurrency that people seemed to actually enjoy for its own sake rather than as a crime tool or get rich quick scheme, cryptokitties, and that seems to have proven itself fundamentally unviable (either your collectibles are too cheap to be interesting, or they're too expensive to be fun). Cryptocurrency is not merely wildly unprofitable to date, it's not generating value and there is no indication that it ever will generate value.
I meet some people in crypto occasionally, and it's hilarious that most of them no longer talk about technologies, projects, applications - all they discuss is sentiment. "Oh, there's a wave of positive outlook", or "new patterns of participation are emerging". At least it's honest, I guess, instead of pretending that we are changing the world with DAOs or whatever, they are just sizing up the next bubble.
> But if the code is openly public and autonomous, and there's no outright deceit, I don't think gambling is really gambling.
But there's plenty of outright deceit. Many (most?) memecoins are some form of pump & dump. It doesn't really matter whether the code is openly public if the winners are chosen ahead of time by pre-allocating tokens.
Edit: Also actual gambling meets your criteria here. While the source code of slot machines is not public, it is typically audited to ensure it offers the odds that are advertised.
I think it's easy to be cynical. But one major reason I'm a believer in decentralized consensus is because I think it can make the silo'd financial systems of the world as seamlessly interoperable as the Internet made the silo'd telecommunication systems of the world.
It feels a lot like when AOL first started supporting email in 1993. It's easy to dismiss AOL and Nasdaq as highly centralized systems that don't align with the ethos of decentralization. But the other way to look at it is a previously maximally centralized system is interfacing with a decentralized one in a way that gives the users of the former slightly more freedom and the latter wider user base and legitimacy.
I think this is a large part of why many Americans in particular don't understand crypto. They already have access to the world's best financial system and all the protections of the state when using it.
Living in Australia and trying to invest in financial markets overseas is like pulling teeth sometimes, because every country has their own incompatible systems and local rules and regulations. And this is a developed well integrated country!
Crypto is the first time we have a global financial system that everyone can join without any one country being able to set the rules and control the system. This is extremely beneficial for countries that don't trust each other to be able to integrate and trade.
Bitcoin futures are correlated but nowhere near a 1:1 proxy for spot markets. Crypto markets are known for very steep "contango" in the curve, and it's not unusual for the price of the 30 days futures to be more than $1000 away from the current Bitcoin price.
The issue isn't just additional volatility and tracking error, but the fact that the con tango creates a "roll yield" which affects the long-term returns of the strategy. To keep constant maturity exposure, the futures ETF has to constantly "roll" its positions into further dated contracts. In particular because the market tends to be in contango it means further dated futures tend to be higher priced than near dated futures. So usually the futures ETFs in their daily rebalancing are selling cheap near dated contracts for more expensive longer dated contracts. Hence the roll yield tends to be negative. Then add all the transaction costs from daily rebalancing. It should be clear why the futures strategy has inferior returns to simply holding spot.
Spot Bitcoin ETFs truly are a game changer compared to futures ETFSs.
The price of BTC initially jumped 3% on the hacked tweet. That's $25bn+ of market cap. The irony is the SEC itself is probably now responsible for the largest crypto pump and dump in history.
They didn't say the SEC did it, they said the SEC was "responsible" for it.
Which may or may not be true, if they were using "password123" then sure that's negligent and they'd bear some of the responsibility, but it might not have been the SEC's fault at all.
> Which may or may not be true, if they were using "password123" then sure that's negligent and they'd bear some of the responsibility, but it might not have been the SEC's fault at all.
It seems like SEC didn't even have some basic protections in place for their Twitter account, like having 2nd-factor enabled. That feels kind of negligent already, even if they had a very secure password.
Since we're all being a bit pedantic here... the SEC would be responsible for negligently allowing a third-party pump to happen-- they would not be responsible for a pump and dump. Pump and dump requires intention (and requires dumping).
> The SEC didn’t buy, nor did it sell, nor did it pump up the price (someone pretending to be the SEC pumped up the price).
How do we know it's not an inside job? Pretty tempting to pull a twitter account takeover and make potentially millions if you a lonely cog in the SEC wheel.
These guys hacked the SEC, made huge announcement tweet, and only got a 3% move from that. More over, they only had a 10 minute window to close whatever positions they had before BTC crashed through it's pre-hack price.
There is a fair chance that they actually lost money on this play, lol.
This wasn't a pump and dump. If they wanted to, they should've posted about a rejection when it was 95% surely going to be approved and with a long squeeze happening along the way, they could've easily gotten a 10% movement down and back up.
Twitter/X is not an authoritative source of news, regardless of whether it is an "official" account doing the Tweeting or not. Anyone can get a blue check by paying $8/mo.
> We really really really need some legislation about governmental agencies using privately owned companies to announce things.
What kind of legislation? There's a whole lot of existing law that applies in that domain (both statute and Constitutional case law), but if you think we need different laws, it probably helps to at least present the general shape of the law you want rather than just that it should in some way touch impact government using private platforms for announcements.
An example might be that the government sets up its own very basic one-way tweet-like notification service, something as simple as or simpler than an RSS feed, with the official content accessible directly via a .gov hosted web page.
Whatever X is or becomes, as owned by private interests, is trusted with nothing more than scraping and rebroadcasting the original and authentic source.
A solution with less developer and user overhead ma ybe that government webs host a list of public keys by which any "gray or blue check mark" type of authenticatuon signal capability on any private service can be validated against, and the government can revoke keys at any time if for some reason there's a suspicion that a counterfeit message is being distributed via these private services. Maybe repurpose the creaky old atomic clock time sync radio signal that is deployed almost everywhere as a means to distribute a rotating secondary factor. just old PKI tactics proven to work for two plus decades.
But this approach is still open to exploiting human tendency to trust things that have been trustworthy for a long time, until they aren't. So I still think hosting official messaging feeds directly from a government run server, accessible by any barebones http client capable of displaying plain text with basic paragraph/item formatting at most, is the gold standard.
The current situation, where X or meta or google or even a mastodon instance is entrusted with the entire conduit from human input to broadcast output, is a terrible precedent to normalize.
It looks like all of their tweets are just links to items on the news room portion of their website. If you click around a little there, you'll see that they do have RSS feeds:
So it looks like they're already doing exactly what you suggest: they post official announcements on their website which you can subscribe to using the standard way to do that (RSS), and they also rebroadcast on Twitter by linking back to the original source. What should they be doing differently? Periodically tweet reminders that you can subscribe directly to their RSS feeds? Stop posting to Twitter at all and leave only a message that you can find official news on their website?
Your ideas are honestly great and both of the solutions you presented (RSS->.gov site and public keys) feel like great solutions. I think the problem is that both of those require the general public to have some amount of technical knowledge which is, apparently, a big ask. The first would be a lot easier to present and avoid confusion but it'd still require people to know to go to that site.
For what it's worth though, I think the solution to that is people should have some real amount of education about the function and potential dangers of the internet before getting on it.
which while resolved, really opens more questions than it solves (which is fine because legislating from the bench shouldn't be the norm...)
There need to be very clear laws about how social media and modern tech is used to present information. Hell for the first time the government should have the ability to directly release information and not be reliant on normal privately owned distribution, and that should be investigated as well.
This whole thing is a giant can of legal worms anyways, and it only gets worse because our legislative branch has decided to devolve into high school popularity contests and just let the judiciary sort it all out.
> There need to be very clear laws about how social media and modern tech is used to present information.
What laws? “There should be laws about X” is a bunch of words with no substance unless you can say what the laws should, at least in general terms, require and/or prohibit.
> Hell for the first time the government should have the ability to directly release information and not be reliant on normal privately owned distribution
The government is able to do so, and has done for... quite a long time, though until recently wide distribution was a problem. Now, you can get information directly from the websites of most government agencies.
They also release information via private conventional media (via several mechanisms) and social media (via government run accounts), but they aren't exclusively reliant on such media.
The government has always used privately owned companies (newspapers, news channels, news websites) to make announcements. Social media is just the latest iteration of that. The government operating its own websites is in fact the aberration, and I'd wager the vast majority of people don't even know they exist or visit them. So not sure what such a law would accomplish.
The big issue is you can't be banned from newspapers, radio, and news channels. And there was still some question about "can you just announce this on the news or is that going to be unfair to people who don't own TV's". You can absolutely be banned from twitter.
There's also the standard of keeping records. The government is supposed to have immaculate records of these sorts of things with a whole shitload of legal nonsense involved in it. Twitter has complied with this under recent presidents but it's a big question of "do they need to?" and "what happens if they don't?".
For starters it like violates the FOIA, which is a serious thing.
I think we just need media literacy at least for now while the noise is still manageable. It’s perfectly fine to rely on private news to spread the information IMO, the issue is that people should independently verify said information.
After reading said announcement on Twitter, the first thing I’d do (if I cared about it) would be to head on over to sec.gov or use a search engine to find the official SEC site, then from navigate to find the official announcement. Any reputable news source should include a link in their announcement to the official announcement to save you this verification step.
At some point there may be so much targeted disinformation/misinformation out there that we need legislation to help protect against it but I don’t think we’re there yet.
Right, but I think paxys’ point is that the message you get when you click a blue check also implies the account is verified (which is not true in any rigorous sense of the word “verified”). The average user can’t be expected to know that the white one is “more verified” when they both say “verified”.
"The grey checkmark indicates that an account represents a government/multilateral organization or a government/multilateral official. Eligibility criteria to receive a complimentary grey checkmark are listed below. Additional government and multilateral accounts can receive grey checkmarks through Verified Organizations.
Eligible government organizations at the national level may include: Main executive office accounts, agency accounts overseeing specific areas of policy, main embassy and consulate accounts, and parliamentary or equivalent institutional and committee accounts. Eligible government organizations at the state and local level include: Main executive office accounts and main agency accounts overseeing crisis response, public safety, law enforcement, and regulatory issues.
Eligible government individuals may include: Heads of state (presidents, monarchs and prime ministers), deputy heads of state (vice presidents, deputy prime ministers), national-level cabinet members or equivalent, the main official spokesperson for the executive branch or equivalent, and individual members of all chambers of the supranational or national congress, parliament, or equivalent.
Eligible multilateral organizations may include: the main headquarters-level, regional-level, and country-level institutional accounts. Eligible multilateral individuals include: The head and deputy-head or equivalent of the multilateral organization.
US only: Accounts of current US state governors and senior military leaders are also eligible.
Eligible accounts may apply here. (link)
Any government or multilateral accounts that do not qualify under our current grey checkmark criteria can see if they’re eligible under our Verified Organizations feature."
Lol, I can't believe this is really what they ended up with: multicolored stars to indicate different things? I thought it was a joke at first, but no, that's really how it works now. What a strange world...
They used to have blue check marks which was this exclusive thing that meant that someone was important enough to have been verified. Then Elon decided to start selling blue check marks for money, so now there are apparently a bunch of different colored check marks that you need to keep track of and know the meaning of.
Whereas it used to be just. Blue check mark = this is probably the real person I think it is.
(But in this case it don’t matter anyway. They were hacked and even if we still had only blue check marks their account would have been hacked all the same.)
to be fair in the app you can click on the badge and it will tell you what it means
but really it'd be better if they didn't, since it opens them up to liability, "the website said this is a government account and they verified it, what do you mean someone was impersonating the SEC"
"We continue to be committed to keeping people safe and secure on Twitter, and a primary security tool we offer to keep your account secure is two-factor authentication (2FA). Instead of only entering a password to log in, 2FA requires you to also enter a code or use a security key. This additional step helps make sure that you, and only you, can access your account. To date, we have offered three methods of 2FA: text message, authentication app, and security key.
While historically a popular form of 2FA, unfortunately we have seen phone-number based 2FA be used - and abused - by bad actors. So starting today, we will no longer allow accounts to enroll in the text message/SMS method of 2FA unless they are Twitter Blue subscribers. The availability of text message 2FA for Twitter Blue may vary by country and carrier.
Non-Twitter Blue subscribers that are already enrolled will have 30 days to disable this method and enroll in another. After 20 March 2023, we will no longer permit non-Twitter Blue subscribers to use text messages as a 2FA method. At that time, accounts with text message 2FA still enabled will have it disabled. Disabling text message 2FA does not automatically disassociate your phone number from your Twitter account. If you would like to do so, instructions to update your account phone number are available on our Help Center.
We encourage non-Twitter Blue subscribers to consider using an authentication app or security key method instead. These methods require you to have physical possession of the authentication method and are a great way to ensure your account is secure."
(I don't have an account, cannot confirm current state of MFA auth story)
3% gain on BTC is really not that much for crypto, it's the size of the movement within a given timeframe that makes it impressive (e.g. it was within a minute or two). It would have been very easy to take out a leveraged long position in defi & profit off this.
How is the SEC responsible because they got hacked? Are you responsible for fraudulent charges on your credit card (you'll contrive some yes, but the answer is no)?
Generally I would expect a higher degree of security from an agency with a $2bn budget whose primary purpose is the integrity of communications about financial markets than an average person with a credit card.
Certainly you will admit at some size, responsibility and level of funding the organization should take responsibility for protecting itself from hacks. If the Department of Defense got hacked and nuclear secrets were leaked, I certainly hope people would get fired rather than sympathized with.
Twitter offers password based security. What other methods of security were you expecting? The SEC can't make Twitter functionality. We don't even know how they got hacked.
The DOD doesn't use Twitter, a social media platform, as the mechanism for launching nukes... what are you talking about?
By using Twitter as a communications channel for official announcements, they are at least legitimizing it.
If they have any reason to be concerned about the security of their account (and it looks like they should have at least from now on), they should arguably reconsider their choice of platform.
For people who are victims of identity theft, of course not, but for organizations or governments? Yes, clearly yes. Let's make sure that the burden of securing operations generally stays with, you know, the folks that have staff and budgets.
“Half as much” is unnecessary exaggeration. All assets with a high reading volume can be manipulated with a tweet. News of a Bitcoin ETF is no different than positive news for any other asset. I think your bias is making you ignorant to general market mechanics.
> Imagine your bank balance is suddenly worth half as much because someone wrote a tweet.
That's just as possible with regular stocks, which Twitter's owner has (unrelatedly) demonstrated multiple times in the past with both Tesla and Twitter... or, a bit slower, in the early covid months.
Stock markets are insanely sensitive to "insider" information and breaking news in general, which is why the regulations around them are so strict.
The large majority of Americans live within 50 miles of where they grew up. And this number has been steadily ticking up. Geographic mobility is the lowest it’s ever been in the post war period.
> When I purchase a baseball card, I do not have the expectation that there is any additional value attached to the baseball card beyond what the collector's market will pay.
What about music royalties rights? Those are almost always purchased with expectation of profit. Those are even explicitly marketed on the basis of how big an artist is going to be. Yet the SEC does not consider them securities
Any speculative profit you hope to make on buying a limited edition Rolex is entirely reliant on the business of Rolex continuing to market the brand of Rolex.
But if you don't have a formal contractual relationship with Rolex SA, then it's quite simply not an investment contract.
> Any speculative profit you hope to make on buying a limited edition Rolex is entirely reliant on the business of Rolex continuing to market the brand of Rolex.
That is not at all true. Rolexes will continue to accrue value even (especially?) if the company goes out of business.
To the extent that the Rolex brand has a certain inertia that will propel it further even after the company ceases to exist, that inertia can be attributed to company's previous marketing efforts.
Indeed, the brand may retain value for some time even if the company goes out of business, perhaps even for a very long time. Nevertheless, that doesn't negate the fact that ongoing marketing efforts can amplify the brand's value and momentum, and the brand's inertia will be even stronger should the company cease to exist.
Another way to look at this is to put yourself in the shoes of a prospective buyer in 1923. Wouldn't you say in that situation you rely on the company's continuing marketing efforts to further the value of the brand? At what point in the last 100 years do you stop relying on the company's efforts?
Also, Rolex can easily destroy brand value with ill-considered promotional campaigns, so you rely on the company to not mess it up.
I think if you have to go a full hundred years in the past to make this point, we can probably agree that for any prospective buyer today the speculative value of their limited edition watch doesn’t depend on the company continuing to exist during their lifetime.
The 100 years isn't the issue here, nor Rolex in particular. Replace Rolex with a contemporary brand and dcolkitt's point stands even more clearly. There is nothing in the law that makes a distinction between a Rolex watch and some other brand that people may purchase hoping it will garner prestige someday through present-day marketing efforts. It would be absurd to make that distinction.
The salient point is many things may be purchased for "speculative profit you hope to make [...] reliant on the business", but that by itself doesn't make them securities according to the law, so it's just not the right test to use.
A Rolex is a tangible art object that also performs a useful function. If, on the other hand, the issuing company sold NFTs with no tangible, functional, or aesthetic component and somehow sold people on the idea Rolex the company was going to pump these otherwise useless bits and bytes to the moon, then you're actually talking about something analogous to crypto.
There's literally nothing in existing law that identifies tangibility as a specific criteria for what constitutes a security and what constitutes a commodity. In fact both the CFTC and SEC are specifically on record as saying Bitcoin constitutes a commodity. And obviously Bitcoin is as intangible as it gets.
The Howey test's 4th prong refers to the value being derived from the work of others. When we're talking about a "commodity" that is intangible with no real-world application, function or value, respectfully those attributes are suggestive that the value derives from the "work of others." Maybe you and I and the SEC don't necessarily know the scope of the enterprise, but useless bits and bytes don't generally acquire value spontaneously so if one of them like ... XRP ... suddenly goes to the moon ... it certainly is suggestive because there's no other reasonable explanation.
One interesting possibility is that maybe the business model of media companies in the 21st century will become content as a loss leader for the purpose of providing valuable IP to amusement parks. Certainly seems like a similar thing is happening with Comcast with their massive expansion of Universal parks.