People who have the stake or dry powder to move the share price of a bank (or megacap tech company while we’re at it) are in no way interested in socially useful pricing around dickhead behavior.
no reason why both can't be true — the security is overall better, and companies are happy to invest in advancing this paradigm because it gives them more control
incentive can and does undermine the stated goal. what if the government decided to take control of everyone's investment portfolio to prevent the market doing bad things? or an airplane manufacturer gets takes control of its own safety certification process because obviously its in their best interest that their planes are safe? imposed curfew, everyone has to be inside their homes while its dark outside because most violent crimes occur at night?
There are millions of kids out there eating nothing but toaster waffles who don't have Crohn's. Your son's disease is not your fault — it's bad luck. It's certainly possible that eating a specific way could help manage his symptoms, but that's different from his diet (past or current) being the root cause.
"The amount of cash looking to invest in winning web3 deals is pretty damn large; this means that when an attractive bet comes along, there is pressure to get as much capital into the deal as possible. [...] So, when a web3 product seems to have legs, well, it’s going to raise a check the size of a small city because there's a lot of capital wagered on there being lucrative wagers to be made on the blockchain. Even if the startup in question doesn’t really need that much funding."
reply