I made a trade (very small one) even though I had no clue about his post at the time. My trade was done on the basis that he was clearly either going to reverse or be removed (and then JD would reverse).
>but the newer generation are using it to get more creative.
Without spending half the time beat matching, they now have time to interact with the tracks more - play with stems, loops, filters, fx, scratching etc.
>It’s becoming more of a live performance
while this is true in theory, i find that sometimes the new tools end up becoming a crutch making djs extremely boring
the extra time freed up from not having to concentrate on beatmatching etc. is replaced with nothing
a lot of the time i have no idea what people are even doing they may as well just be playing a playlist from spotify
whereas i can generally discern what a vinyl dj is doing, and watching someone like jeff mills dig through piles of records & spinning 3 decks while being on the edge of trainwrecking has a kind of energy and tension that gets lost and is not replicable with newer technology
it's sorta like someone being able to sing really well naturally vs someone with autotune
that being said i've still seen amazing sets from digital djs or people with interesting live setups
One of the commonly extolled virtues of playing vinyl is that you're "just playing records." As in, not using any fancy effects and tricks. For a lot of people, this is enough, and it's mostly about your music collection and song selection. If you're really good at vinyl, you're not doing much most of the time either and you can dance around and dig through records. Nothing about this needs to change when switching to CDJs.
People get hung up on all this stuff that has very little to do with what matters most at the end of the day, which is the sound coming out of the speakers, and the experience of the audience (which I will grant that the visual aspect of watching the performer is a part of). Deadmau5 talks about stuff like this...basically everyone at a major festival is playing a prerecorded set so that visuals and lights and the rest of the show can be synced up. It doesn't matter what tools you use or how much work you're doing as long as people are entertained. It's about putting on the best show you can.
Jeff Mills is a God-like legend, of course your average local DJ isn't going to compare. It is a bit like being a real estate agent in that the barrier to entry is super low now but you still have to be skilled in some way or another to be really successful.
Have to wait for a post-mortem, but there was some speculation from Ben earlier in his spaces.
They used a gnosis safe which is a smart contract multi-sig wallet that is pretty much the gold standard for Ethereum.
They believed that all of the signers' pcs were hacked and that the UI for signing was staged with a fake element to make it appear like a normal transfer.
They were signing with hardware wallets, but it's hard to verify what you're signing from a ledger typically.
What they ended up signing instead was an upgrade to the smart contract giving control of the gnosis safe to the hacker who then drained it.
In a way, it was, because they could go super large tubes without the weight penalty. Kleins and the Cannondale 3.0 and 2.8 were the first to really crank the dial on stiffness, when a lot of the other bikes were running normal or +1 oversized tubes.
They were super harsh because they were aiming for stiffness, and the material allowed them to do that.
Luna/UST was a completely degenerate & risky design; they were allowing 1:1 redemptions between the value of Luna in USD & the UST stablecoin.
As the market cap of Luna skyrocketed it allowed for the minting of massive quantities of UST, and then as the price of Luna declined the value of the tokens backing UST was less than what was in circulation and contributed to the death spiral.
No amount of demand for Luna block space was ever going to keep this thing pegged. The only thing defending it was open market moves from extremely well capitalized trading desks which is uh decidedly not "algorithmic" nor "decentralized".
There's other stable coins with similar mechanisms like Synthetix / SUSD which are also risky, but AT LEAST in their case they require 400% overcollateralization in SNX to mint SUSD.
What's shocking is how many people, who ostensibly should be in the top 1% in terms of finance IQ, (e.g., Mike Novogratz, Raoul Pal, etc.) were seemingly unaware of these risks and never examined how it worked while shilling it to retail investors.
> What's shocking is how many people, who ostensibly should be in the top 1% in terms of finance IQ, (e.g., Mike Novogratz, Raoul Pal, etc.) were seemingly unaware of these risks and never examined how it worked while shilling it to retail investors.
Not shocking at all, it’s answered in TFA:
> Many of the large firms that invested in and marketed this coin were able to exit before the crash occurred, escaping with massive profits. Strangely, some of these whales felt the need to share this in their comments following the crash. Pantera Capital CIO Joey Krug admitted that they had sold 80% of their Luna position before the crash. Furthermore, Pantera Capital partner, Paul Veradittakit, seemingly bragged that they had turned their $1.7 million dollar Luna investment into around $170 million dollars. Galaxy Digital CEO, Mike Novogratz, wrote in a letter that Galaxy had “booked profits along the way” before the Luna collapse happened.
> There's other stable coins with similar mechanisms like Synthetix / SUSD which are also risky, but AT LEAST in their case they require 400% overcollateralization in SNX to mint SUSD.
Apples and oranges, really. There is no redemption mechanism in sUSD that results in uncontrolled printing (i.e. devaluing) of SNX (the underlying collateral), unlike UST/LUNA.
sUSD is more akin to DAI (i.e., over-collateralized debt-based stablecoins) than to UST.
Something that rarely gets addressed in these discussions is why Ethereum even has fee market to begin with instead of a cheap FIFO model which ideally would be more fair.
To answer that I would invite anyone to try using a blockchain under heavy load without any way for users to prioritize transactions. What you will find is the network becomes vulnerable to transaction spamming; possibly to point of breaking consensus making it so nobody can transact at all.
MEV is a consequence of a design decision to address this. And that's not to say Ethereum has everything figured out and a better FIFO model can't solve this, but afaik this is the current state of things.
FIFO? First in first out? The blockchain is essentially the timestamping machine. The timestamp of a transaction are untrusted until mined into blocks, even then a fork can rid them.
The blockchain is essentially solving the ordering problem, one big timestamp machine. The solution you propose would require a timestamp machine in the first place lol.
The source(s) of the yield they were promising were extremely dubious and unsafe, the same can be said for Celsius.
When they tell you your crypto is being lent to "institutional investors" what they really mean to say is they're gambling with your crypto in defi protocols, and you can see this happening on-chain.
he literally told everyone to do it
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1143082727259...
and you might have felt especially confident if you recalled him doing the exact same thing in 2018