Without a subscription I cannot read Tett's FT piece, but I question what is in the quoted bit.
Part of the problem is that there seem to be lots of different ideas of what 'crypto' is. But one (common?) definition is found under 'What is cryptocurrency...' at Kaspersky:
"Cryptocurrency, sometimes called crypto-currency or crypto, is any form of currency that exists digitally or virtually and uses cryptography to secure transactions. Cryptocurrencies don't have a central issuing or regulating authority, instead using a decentralized system to record transactions and issue new units."
That is, 'crypto' is not just anything digital, nor just anything crytpographic. There are lots of things around banking an financial transactions that are digitial, and essentially all of them use cryptography in some form.
But if we accept "using a decentralized system" as central to the meaning of 'crypto', then CBDCs are not 'crypto', nor is anything else that uses some form of central database or ledger.
Maybe I am misinerpreting based on what I can see, but I suggest that there is no good reason to believe that "Crypto’s future may be divided, not dead". Rather, the future of digital assets is divided - into things like CBDCs (that have a future) and 'crytpo' (which does not).
I'm not a great consumer of videos myself, but I found the first 7 minutes of the posted one interesting (I assume the remainder was as well, but as noted, I'm not a great consumer of videos, and when he made an interesting point around minute 7 it seemed like a good place to stop).
Cowen's point about existential risk is well taken and well stated. In principle one ought to be able to disentangle EA from Longtermism, but empirically, pace Hobart, that is rare. And anyway, I would extend Cowen from the future to the present: we are often uncertain of the state of the world as it is, let alone how it will be. Are you persuaded by this story of linearity among the poor? I would not be, not unless the "effective altruists" can bring themselves to ask the targets of their charity what their preferences really are.
I am ready to concede that SBF's motives were likely rationalized as altruistic to himself. But that is a very low bar, one that is cleared by most criminals. Recall the mobster's wife in Goodfellas: "None of it seemed like crime. It was more like Henry was enterprising, and that he and the guys were making a few bucks hustling, while all the other guys were sitting on their asses, waiting for handouts. Our husbands weren't brain surgeons, they were blue-collar guys. The only way they could make extra money, real extra money, was to go out and cut a few corners."
When I see an extremely smart and cynical guy like Matt Levine charmed by a character like SBF, I am minded of Taleb's dictum that with nothing else to guide you, the best surgeon is probably the one who seems least like a surgeon. If a guy is really good at extracting the benefit of the doubt from the world, I am less inclined to extend that benefit myself. And I can't overlook the fact that when he wasn't travelling in his private jet, SBF was living, in the Bahamas, in a penthouse with his ten "ascetic" friends that was just listed at $39.5 million.
Black: Probably too early but I look forward to more granular analysis of the races. Where WAS the anti-Woke narrative useful/toxic to Republicans. Florida deserves not just and X-Ray but an MRI and CAT scan. How important was gerrymandering for the House?
Without a subscription I cannot read Tett's FT piece, but I question what is in the quoted bit.
Part of the problem is that there seem to be lots of different ideas of what 'crypto' is. But one (common?) definition is found under 'What is cryptocurrency...' at Kaspersky:
"Cryptocurrency, sometimes called crypto-currency or crypto, is any form of currency that exists digitally or virtually and uses cryptography to secure transactions. Cryptocurrencies don't have a central issuing or regulating authority, instead using a decentralized system to record transactions and issue new units."
That is, 'crypto' is not just anything digital, nor just anything crytpographic. There are lots of things around banking an financial transactions that are digitial, and essentially all of them use cryptography in some form.
But if we accept "using a decentralized system" as central to the meaning of 'crypto', then CBDCs are not 'crypto', nor is anything else that uses some form of central database or ledger.
Maybe I am misinerpreting based on what I can see, but I suggest that there is no good reason to believe that "Crypto’s future may be divided, not dead". Rather, the future of digital assets is divided - into things like CBDCs (that have a future) and 'crytpo' (which does not).
Quantum Mechanics videos - my son suggests
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3ckLqsL5M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg5z_zeZP60
I'm not a great consumer of videos myself, but I found the first 7 minutes of the posted one interesting (I assume the remainder was as well, but as noted, I'm not a great consumer of videos, and when he made an interesting point around minute 7 it seemed like a good place to stop).
Cowen's point about existential risk is well taken and well stated. In principle one ought to be able to disentangle EA from Longtermism, but empirically, pace Hobart, that is rare. And anyway, I would extend Cowen from the future to the present: we are often uncertain of the state of the world as it is, let alone how it will be. Are you persuaded by this story of linearity among the poor? I would not be, not unless the "effective altruists" can bring themselves to ask the targets of their charity what their preferences really are.
I am ready to concede that SBF's motives were likely rationalized as altruistic to himself. But that is a very low bar, one that is cleared by most criminals. Recall the mobster's wife in Goodfellas: "None of it seemed like crime. It was more like Henry was enterprising, and that he and the guys were making a few bucks hustling, while all the other guys were sitting on their asses, waiting for handouts. Our husbands weren't brain surgeons, they were blue-collar guys. The only way they could make extra money, real extra money, was to go out and cut a few corners."
When I see an extremely smart and cynical guy like Matt Levine charmed by a character like SBF, I am minded of Taleb's dictum that with nothing else to guide you, the best surgeon is probably the one who seems least like a surgeon. If a guy is really good at extracting the benefit of the doubt from the world, I am less inclined to extend that benefit myself. And I can't overlook the fact that when he wasn't travelling in his private jet, SBF was living, in the Bahamas, in a penthouse with his ten "ascetic" friends that was just listed at $39.5 million.
Black: Probably too early but I look forward to more granular analysis of the races. Where WAS the anti-Woke narrative useful/toxic to Republicans. Florida deserves not just and X-Ray but an MRI and CAT scan. How important was gerrymandering for the House?