The Wells notice has nothing to do with their banking connections.
Edit: the parent comment previously made the claim that this was predicted by various unrelated claims in a linked blog post, and later modified it to make it appear they were not making that association.
> The sad truth is that all the exchanges are going to steal your funds.
> like Coinbase paying out billions in stock-based compensation while losing money
I really wish people put more effort into arguing their side in these discussions. Your point is absurd and lazy.
[public company] pays some % of employee salary in stock >> while "losing money" >> ??? >> customer's property is stolen.
> Did the SEC orchestrate FTX and all the other crypto failures
FTX's problems were amplified by being unregulated, outside the US. The overwhelming majority were not US residents. The SEC didn't have jurisdiction over their International firm. The US version of FTX was handled very differently, but supposedly co-mingled funds. They FAILED to protect US residents by not shutting down the US version. They could have gave warnings about the international firm, instead of working so closely with FTX's founder.
As usual, lots of hand-waving from crypto detractors. You have a clear bias. Sadly, when enough people share a bias, truth and facts are irrelevant. There's a lot to criticize about in crypto. No need to make up irrelevant associations.
Coinbase executives will have enjoyed years of massive pay days selling stock pumped up with customer money. The customers who assumed the money in their accounts is protected like with a bank will be wiped out.
> When Coinbase files for bankruptcy, crypto deposits will be at the back of the line. They are unsecured creditors.
I'm aware. This has nothing to do with your point about "stealing" deposits like other exchanges (e.g. FTX), and is irrelevant to stock-based compensation. It contributes nothing to the discussion. More noise to encourage others to feel safe that their bias is well liked.
> Coinbase executives will have enjoyed years of massive pay days selling stock
More irrelevant and false points. The company has only been public since April 2021. Not even two years. You are attempting to frame them as fat cat wall street types purposefully driving the company into the ground at customers' expense.
Somehow you extrapolate this to "all exchanges" when Coinbase is the only publicly-traded exchange.
remember that Coinbase was audited by the SEC before going public, and is one of the oldest exchanges. If any exchange is safe, it's Coinbase. The problem is the SEC doesn't give clear direction.
Anybody that feels the SEC will "protect" them by forcing coinbase into bankruptcy is welcome to move their assets on-chain. Many people advocate for that.
Again, I'm highlighting how lazy and absurd your argument is.
> > When Coinbase files for bankruptcy, crypto deposits will be at the back of the line. They are unsecured creditors.
> I'm aware. This has nothing to do with your point about "stealing" deposits like other exchanges (e.g. FTX), and is irrelevant to stock-based compensation.
If Coinbase takes money from the people furthest back in line (unsecured creditors) and gives it to people second furthest back in line (equityholders), and the unsecured creditors think they're first in line (bank depositors)… that sounds like stealing to me!
I doubt common shareholders would get anything at all in a case of bankruptcy.
> the unsecured creditors think they're first in line (bank depositors)
Coinbase isn't a bank, and customers' digital assets aren't bank deposits.
> that sounds like stealing to me!
Welp... You're wrong!
As for real banks, feel free to look up current events on "uninsured deposits" at regional banks. You might say banks are "stealing" deposits from accounts >$250k too!
> I doubt common shareholders would get anything at all in a case of bankruptcy.
They get their already-paid dividends or proceeds of what they already sold.
> As for real banks, feel free to look up current events on "uninsured deposits" at regional banks. You might say banks are "stealing" deposits from accounts >$250k too!
> They get their already-paid dividends or proceeds of what they already sold.
More irrelevant commentary.... COIN doesn't have dividends, and.... yes.... when you sell the stock.... you are no longer a shareholder.... this needed to be said?
> None of them have lost a cent.
Again.... look up the current events. Just today the Treasury secretary said that additional bank failures won't get the special treatment the big depositors got at the failed banks. They should NOT have been insured above 250k.
In your words, you might say the bank STOLE the money from depositors, and the government reimbursed special depositors for their loses. It was NOT stolen, though. The bank was mismanaged. The government should not have covered the loses above 250k per depositor. The big depositors took a risk keeping that much money there.
It doesn’t seem like you know what your argument is.
> “If any exchange is safe, it's Coinbase”
Ok, so other exchanges are worse.
> “Somehow you extrapolate this to ‘all exchanges’”
You just told me the other exchanges are worse.
> “You are attempting to frame them as fat cat wall street types purposefully driving the company into the ground at customers' expense”
It doesn’t have to be purposeful. At the rate Coinbase is piling up losses, it will eventually be bankrupt, and executives will have accumulated billions while customers will lose billions. The SEC isn’t going to force a bankruptcy; Coinbase’s own poor management seems to be doing it.
> “… is welcome to move their assets on-chain. Many people advocate for that.”
Oh, I see you agree with me that nobody should use crypto exchanges in the first place. Because they will lose your money.
>> “Somehow you extrapolate this to ‘all exchanges’”
>You just told me the other exchanges are worse.
pardon me....? Other non-public companies have executives selling stock?
> At the rate Coinbase is piling up losses
Feel free to cite your source.
> Oh, so you agree with me that nobody should use crypto exchanges in the first place. Because they will lose your money.
No, I don't. You buy it on an exchange, and then move it on-chain. Done. That's the point of a centralized exchange with banking connections. You are welcome to leave it there if you'd like, but you have to accept the risks. Go ahead, try to move the goal posts again.
Every comment you make more irrelevant and false points.
Open the Q4 2022 shareholder letter. It’s printed right there: a loss of $557M on revenue of $605M.
The loss is nearly as large as their entire revenue! Is that a sign of a healthy business? It’s like selling $5 pancakes that each cost you $10 to make.
In the report ($557M) doesn't mean "expenses". It's an overall loss.
A $557M loss means they spent all that $605M in revenue and another $557M on top of that.
>The loss is nearly as large as their entire revenue
Their initial claim is "Coinbase is piling up losses, it will eventually be bankrupt, and executives will have accumulated billions while customers will lose billions." And saying this is "stealing" from customers.
I haven't been advocating for purchasing the stock. I don't own it.
Regardless, looks like they had positive net income in 2020 & 2021. Coinbase isn't the only business dealing with losses 2022. I still very much disagree with "piling up losses... eventually be bankrupt"
It’s a good idea not to own a stock if you can’t read the income statement. Fortunately that kind of boring traditional finance stuff is not a problem in crypto.
Me: "I haven't been advocating for purchasing the stock. I don't own it."
You: "It’s a good idea not to own a stock if you can’t read the income statement."
I figured it out! It's your reading comprehension! I was wondering why I had to repeat myself so much in this thread, and why you had been trailing off on tangents away from each point you attempted to pivot around. While ignoring each of your previous statements.
I must admit I was surprised to find that Coinbase doesn't create a chain address under which the coins/tokens you buy with fiat are held, then treat the key for that address as an asset held in custody for you.
The fact that they don't do that, when it would be practical for them to do so is a red flag for me.
Well, I'd argue Reddit is worse simply because of the topics of discussion that proliferate there, and because insulting is allowed in many subs. But the gamification part and the subtle flamewars are very present here on HN.
HN might not be different in terms of upvotes and downvotes, and wanting to get fake internet points, but I still find it qualitatively different. In particular, I have never felt the urge to read downvoted comments on reddit. On HN, if it’s an interesting thread, I find I will often intentionally read the faintest comments. I’ve found that on good threads even the quality of unpopular posts provide me with something at least worth considering.
> Evals is a framework for evaluating OpenAI models and an open-source registry of benchmarks.
Is the purpose to know which of the models OpenAI offers is most suitable for your workload/app? Could I use this to know if the cheaper model is sufficient for a particular use-case?
Is it really anyone's fault but their own? I don't recall housing being offered as a low/no-risk investment with guaranteed profits. Financial blogs, podcasts, and Reddit commenters might have shared that view.
Are there any examples of mortgage issuers or home builders advertising housing as an investment?
If most people in the system are making similar mistakes, then the system is directing them there. Saying it's their fault does nothing but ensure it keeps happening.
Whether or not they make the mistake isn't the point. If they were encouraged by a specific entity to treat it as an investment, then the blame should be placed on that entity. Regulations should be put in place to prevent that (I suspect they already are). Otherwise, they have to take the L.
I expect banks and home builders are careful with how they communicate with customers.
It's less about placing fault on the purchaser. It's more that there is no one else to blame. Never-ending bail-outs only hurt future generations. I wish I went into deep debt to buy a house a lot sooner. I didn't because I knew I couldn't afford it.
That depends significantly on state law w.r.t anti-deficiency rules and so on. California is a non-recourse state where a mortgage lender can only repossess the home, but there are other states where the lender can foreclose and then come after you for the difference in case of a short sale.
What is your point? PBS indeed puts out blatant USG propaganda from time to time, including egregious instances like that al-Jolani hagiography from FRONTLINE. FRONTLINE in general is a total mess of misinformation when it comes to international issues.
I could ask the same of your original comment. Seems you like hand-waving at grants, and letting the reader come to a conclusion as a way of suggesting there's something nefarious happening. You don't like it when it's used elsewhere.
Typical divisive comment to stir the pot. It could even suggest you are being paid by an enemy of the US to disrupt or discourage/encourage discussion on particular topics. Of course, I'll use your tactic, and not provide any further information on this. I'll leave it up to the reader to wonder.
> blatant USG propaganda
All in the eye of the beholder. Which was your goal of your ambiguous hand-waving.
Roads and bridges were funded by the US government. Really makes you think, huh?!
Having a meal period <4.5 hours is a form of intermittent fasting called Daily Time-Restricted Feeding. You're fasting 19.5 hours each day.
There are many intermittent fasting protocols including multi-day fasts which have been shown to prolong life in mice. But daily fasting is included in those protocols.
A lot of health hype has focused on Daily Time-Restricted feedings. This kind of IF is typically characterized by a daily meal period of 8 hours or less, with only water or snacks under 50 calories allowed during the rest of the time.
This is supposed to promote changes like reducing insulin resistance, but there are questions about the hype vs truth of this.
Like I said.... the linked article literally says nothing about "fasting." Feel free to quote the part that mentions it. It only discusses "meal skipping." No mention of snacking.
> ...snacks under 50 calories allowed during the rest of the time.
This is not fasting. Even just 20 calories is generally expected to stop the fast. 50 calories would definitely stop the fast.
The article mentions feeding periods of <4.5 hours, which is a well known intermittent fasting protocol, which I have already defined. You have willfully ignored that, suggesting you might not respect my time or the truth.
I caution you that you are using a nonstandard definition of fasting that does not include all the currently recognized forms of intermittent fasting. Nor have you presented a definition of intermittent fasting - it's likely your definition is too narrow to cover the current practices.
I refer you once more to the wikiepdia article on IF (which leads . Again, the relevant term is "Daily Restricted Feeding". That information is here:
It's entirely fair to regard the current research as having to do with Daily Restricted Feeding, which is a form of IF.
And yes, the article does not mention snacking. I was simply claiming that some IF protocls even allow light snacks, to help persuade you that IF protocols are more diverse that you think.
The goal of these protocols is to reduce things like insulin resistance, which happens when the body is in a physiologically fasted state. Some nutritionists claim a snack under 50 cals won't compromise the outcomes, supposedly because the 50 cals is too small to physiologically break the fast.
This is informally called the "50 calorie rule", and it's relevant because the IF community and nutritionists sometimes endorse it. The point was to communicate that there is a variety of IF protocols beyond what you recognize as fasting.
I will say that it's frustrating for me that you dispute well known concepts and trends in the nutrition community - at least acknowledge what I am saying, and give counter arguments if you disagree. If you can't, I will conclude your motivation here has to do with something other than seeking the truth about our state of understanding of IF. If that's the case, lets end the convo.
Your site works great when permitting only first-party images/css/html. I use Firefox's tracking protection + ublock origin + umatrix. I don't allow first-party JS by default, or any third-party stuff. I spoof the referer. I see JS from plausible.io tries to load.
I wonder how that skewed the requests. Do you have data on that? I'm sure there are some % of HN visitors that do the same. Less likely the case for Elon Musk followers. I don't know how you would get 'time on page' data without JS.
The best data I have on that is the delta between Cloudflare numbers and Plausible numbers - but that's not quite the right comparison, because for Cloudflare I have all traffic to my site, not just traffic to that specific page (which I can get from Plausible).
I think you can reasonably assume that the cloudflare traffic from that time is almost entirely headed to this page, minus your baseline number from other posts. The "total requests" will be completely skewed, but "unique visitors" should be okay.
A lot of the HN crowd seems to use adblockers and script blocking.
Edit: the parent comment previously made the claim that this was predicted by various unrelated claims in a linked blog post, and later modified it to make it appear they were not making that association.