> The real story here is how much power individuals have over our political landscape. George Soros, for example, has injected more than $125M into the midterm race in 2022[1]. To be clear, this is not a partisan issue; the Kochs raised over $70M last year[2].
I fully agree with you that the broader problem is Citizens United and the ability for corporations and the super wealthy to pour this much money into politics. In fact, I mention this here: https://www.followthecrypto.org/about/faq#what-about.
I think projects like mine would be extremely valuable for all industries, and I'm enormously grateful to groups like OpenSecrets that do excellent work making a far broader swath of the data more legible. But I am one person without the research team, time, or funding that would be necessary to analyze the data this deeply across industries, and so I focus on crypto (the subject of much of my research and writing).
The code is all open source, and I would be delighted if other projects like this one sprung up. It seems it would be a bit more productive to actually shine a light all the kinds of spending that happen throughout industries and across individuals, rather than using that other spending as a sort of whataboutist argument to dismiss projects like this one that (necessarily) focus on a subset of spending.
> If you want to be critical of super PACs, crypto spending is literally a drop in the bucket and completely missing the forest for the trees. There is a story here, but crypto ain't it.
As this project highlights,[1] crypto is far from a "drop in the bucket" when it comes to super PAC fundraising this cycle. The industry has dramatically ramped up its spending compared to previous election years, which is a large part of why I felt it was important to keep an eye on the spending.
"[She] keeps cherry picking until the data supports them" certainly sounds a lot like you saying the data and/or code is flawed. What "fantastic claim" am I making that you don't think I'm addressing?
(Molly here.) I added the “All PACs” page largely thanks to that Bluesky conversation with verdverm (thank you!) The “all PACs” page is the full picture.
It’s showing the same data that verdverm linked over at the FEC, which places Fairshake at #9 out of any kind of committee. Arguably ActBlue and WinRed shouldn’t really be listed there, since they are fundraising platforms that serve as an intermediary.
I've found that it requires self-discipline on both parties making an effort to break the pattern-matching/automatic-thinking to emotional pipeline that is so easy to fall into.
I apologize for upsetting you when I politely declined the invitation to come on your podcast, but it's simply not accurate to say that I don't "engage with the issues or opposing views".
My reason for declining was largely as drewbeck suggested. I also try to avoid coming on shows where I feel I am simply being used to draw engagement and interest in a specific crypto project, which was part of my concern with your specific invitation.
Thanks for responding, Molly. I am glad to have a list of shows you went on, I have not seen you on any shows.
Please don’t think I was upset. I did not think more of it until this thread simply reminded me of it, and I posted it because I thought it was very relevant, and 99% of the text was written by me so I didn’t feel I was revealing anything truly private.
I totally understand this concern, and why someone like yourself might be very sensitive not to seem like they are endorsing a specific project — and it is exactly the concern that Robert Murphy expressed to me this past week, until we spoke. Now he is coming on my show. Because I only care about discussing the substance.
You couldn’t have known this, but frankly, I reached out simply because I wanted to have a conversation. I believe that a blog which exclusively lists everything bad in web3 is useful, because it does one part of the job. But also, people who put together such things are exactly the best people to have a conversation with because I truly do believe that if the crypto and web3 industry doesn’t step up, the much worse centralized ecosystem of Big Tech, Big Government will keep encroaching with their National IDs and CBDCs and centrally controlled financial systems (just like they have in countries from China to Sweden). As a libertarian, I see things getting a lot worse and I have spent over a decade of my life and a ton of my own money building solutions, so naturally, having discussions with people in the space something I do. To be honest, it is my guilty pleasure - I enjoy being able to engage with people and battle-test my views, and actually realize that they have blind spots too.
It is the same feeling, I suppose, as a chessplayer who gets to play games with people rated higher than them. From a purely market point of view, I guess I am engaging people who are “out of my league” in terms of the size of their audience — disregarding this has worked well for me, thankfully, but I guess it comes up in some ways, like this.
I have another channel, https://youtube.com/QbixPlatform which has nothing to do with crypto and is about an open source Web2 platform. The invitation still stands, of course. To me the issues are more about decentralization vs centralization, capitalism vs gift economies, smart contracts vs trusting specific humans, open source vs walled gardens, funding projects with equity vs utility, etc.
Let me know if you’d like to engage in any way that would scrub any mention of Intercoin (company, project etc) and if so I’ll email you and we can set it up.
I would think that someone so gung-ho on unalterable ledgers would be less inclined to try to rewrite the facts of what's happened each time we've interacted — all interactions that you have initiated, I might add.
You seem to think that if you can make vague assertions that I've "brigaded" or "abused" or "bullied" or "sent an online lynch mob" after you, people will just take your word for it — and this is a pattern you've repeated several times now. They're welcome to review our past interactions, where you began by making massive assumptions about me and my motivations, where you continued to be incredibly arrogant towards me and towards others replying in the thread, and where I repeatedly tried to disengage. Taken aback by your arrogance and rudeness, I ultimately tweeted some screenshots of your own words, with the added text "this man called me vain last week" https://twitter.com/molly0xFFF/status/1516610542588284931 (and you had). As far as I can tell that's what you've decided was me "drinking your blood" (a bit over-the-top, if you ask me), rather than perhaps an opportunity to reflect on how you speak to other people.
I'll also note that we ended our last, unpleasant interaction by mutually agreeing to avoid the other: https://twitter.com/molly0xFFF/status/1517200861377839110. And yet here you are, blathering into the comment thread on a profile about me, because apparently your ego can't stand my mere existence. Perhaps your once-in-a-generation transformational intelligence could be put to use doing something other than coming after me at every opportunity, and then pretending I'm puppeting some sort of shadowy cabal to come after you (when the reality is that when normal people see arrogance of your calibre, they feel the need to comment on it).
6. The theory is to dispel the myth that blockchain is a fringe technology used only by those wanting to risk their livelihoods or possibly make their fortunes on volatile cryptoassets like Bitcoin.
7. The blockchain is now at a stage in its development equivalent to where the internet was in or around 1995. The internet was unstoppable in 1995 and blockchain technology is unstoppable now. It will become ubiquitous in all major industrial and financial sectors, simply because it allows for the immutable recording of data, thereby reducing friction in commercial and consumer transactions and obliterating the scope for dispute as to what has occurred.
8. As the Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice in England and Wales, I hold an office that pre-dates modern trade in derivatives and reinsurance, even steam engines, powered flight, and certainly the internet. I am particularly and obviously concerned about the reputation and development of English law and the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
9. Many people do not realise that English law governs trading in €600 trillion of OTC derivatives annually, in €11.6 trillion in metals trading, in £250 billion in M&A deals, and in £80 billion in insurance contracts every year – just to take a few examples. My hope is that English law will prove to be the law of choice for borderless blockchain technology as its take up grows exponentially in the months and years to come.
=
I think we can both agree that this is a well reasoned case made by a global expert in the field who is talking inside of his area of expertise: I feel that my view of the blockchain and its potentials is similar, although of course less nuanced. I think you should reconsider your position based on this analysis and the work of many other experts in the field. But you do you. By all means be the expert. Be the authority.
I've really enjoyed your stuff, but wasn't sure if you really cared about the truth or not. Now I know. Thank you! The world needs more journalists like you!
I fully agree with you that the broader problem is Citizens United and the ability for corporations and the super wealthy to pour this much money into politics. In fact, I mention this here: https://www.followthecrypto.org/about/faq#what-about.
I think projects like mine would be extremely valuable for all industries, and I'm enormously grateful to groups like OpenSecrets that do excellent work making a far broader swath of the data more legible. But I am one person without the research team, time, or funding that would be necessary to analyze the data this deeply across industries, and so I focus on crypto (the subject of much of my research and writing).
The code is all open source, and I would be delighted if other projects like this one sprung up. It seems it would be a bit more productive to actually shine a light all the kinds of spending that happen throughout industries and across individuals, rather than using that other spending as a sort of whataboutist argument to dismiss projects like this one that (necessarily) focus on a subset of spending.
> If you want to be critical of super PACs, crypto spending is literally a drop in the bucket and completely missing the forest for the trees. There is a story here, but crypto ain't it.
As this project highlights,[1] crypto is far from a "drop in the bucket" when it comes to super PAC fundraising this cycle. The industry has dramatically ramped up its spending compared to previous election years, which is a large part of why I felt it was important to keep an eye on the spending.
[1] https://www.followthecrypto.org/committees/ranking/super