The popularity of Naval is something I fail to understand.

He was an investor of ours, and among the most useful. There was rarely a founder/investor issue he hadn't run into, or knew someone who had. That sort of help is invaluable to founders, especially given his experience and everything he knows about both raising, and building a company. He's really solid.

In case anybody else had no idea who this "naval" is:

Naval Ravikant (@naval) is the CEO and co-founder of AngelList. He’s invested in more than 100 companies, including Uber, Twitter, Yammer, and many others.

https://fs.blog/knowledge-project/naval-ravikant/

Fortune cookies syndrome, it affects millions.

Here are a few I just invented to mimic these pseudo philosophers (modern day VC charlatans):

Tomorrow is a mist. Today's the sunshine.

Make the world better by building something anything today.

Build shit. Ship shit. That's all there is to success.

----- I almost feel like these Twitter personalities like Balaji, Naval, Chamath are the VC equivalent of Shia Lebouf. They became popular by shouting out loud. I have no idea why they matter at all in the computer science industry.

>>I have no idea why they matter at all in the computer science industry.

What is the computer science "industry"? To the extent that such a thing exists, I suppose you are talking about people who have directly made money by creating software (Chamath), or invested in companies which made money (Naval and Balaji). How can any industry exist if no money is ever made?

And whom do you propose people follow instead? :-)

With Balaji Srinivasan it is even worse. He is open supporter of Modi current prime minister of India(BJP party) and supports caste system. My advice is if you are not from upper caste(brahmins) do not waste your time with him.

What is that? I googled it and I didn't see anything, am I being stubborn?

Basically when someone says something vague enough to apply to many situations and people who hear it think he's telling the future.

"You will need clarity to deal with upcoming personal conflicts."

You get in a argument with your friend/spouse/partner/coworker, the fortune cookie sounds prophetic

I guess he’s saying dishing out clever aphorisms is similarly like the sayings in fortune cookies.

Just guessing: fortune cookies are bite-sized tautologies, but people still eat them.

Pseudo-philosophical vague sayings that appeal to the masses.

I disagree, a stock-trading scam would be way easier to track than crypto.

$20B of TSLA is being held short right now. How in the hell would the SEC discern you from any other Robinhood trader holding TSLA puts?

I'd wager the list of folks who: -hold a meaningful enough short position for a potential attack to be worth, say $500k or more (not a rando robinhood trader with a $200 put) -are not an existing bank or long term day trader

is already quite small, and could be quickly prioritized based on how anomalous the trade was, other flags (foreign national, software engineering babckground). I suspect the SEC could get to a workable list of 50 prime suspects reasonably easily.

There are people on /r/wallstreetbets who are blowing up 100k accounts on TSLA puts on Robinhood. On the front page of /r/wsb right now the 3rd highest post is someone who has lost 30k gambling on TSLA.

Even betting 20k would have probably netted you more than what was gained via BTC and you would still be indistinguishable from RH day traders.

Naval is wrong because fiat will be harder to launder while bitcoin is borderless censorship-resistant money.

I'd imagine picking a highly volatile stock with a lot of wallstreetbet bros in it, like TSLA, would serve to helpfully obfuscate your trades and their relationship to the hack.

It's almost like people think he has some magical insight into to everything when really he's just a VC with severe survivorship bias.

The idiot has never hacked a thing for profit in his life.

How would it be harder to launder? You bet on a Tesla stock drop. That's perfectly legal. Musk tweets some bad news, and says he was hacked, but that doesn't mean you hacked him.

True, but it makes you a suspect for further investigation.

In a stock scam it is already laundered, because there is no direct flow.

Market surveillance is much better than most people realize. The accounts making money on a scam like this would be identified, filtered for anomalous activity, and the people at the other end investigated.

They might be, but the money nevertheless is pretty clean (has an acceptable origin).

The way around this is to leave no traces of the hack or to cash in using another person.

Are we certain that Twitter's share price won't be affected?

I can't find the tweet now, but Tavis Ormandy once talked about companies share prices often rebounding after a breach, so he was buying stock in companies that got hacked. Equifax was an example, I think.

It's called "buying the dip" and it's not specific to hacks; it happens on all kinds of bad news.

An egregious example at that.

It already is around $1.4 from the close on heavy volume. It's pretty clear that they have a major problem.

Assuming the ultimate purpose for the hack is a crypto scam shows a complete lack of imagination.

Who is Naval? Their website doesn't have an "about me" page.

Founded AngelList and made some good investments https://angel.co/p/naval

this is the first thought that popped into my mind when hearing about it. Why are you quoting tweets as a reply on HN?