houston_Euler

The comment you replied to was correct, as M1 was expanded to include savings deposits.

Here's a link to a Q&A about the change, and the relevant explanation.

"3. Why are savings deposits being recognized on the H.6 statistical release as a transaction account? Posted: 12/17/2020

A. As announced on March 15, 2020, the Board of Governors reduced reserve requirement ratios on net transaction accounts to 0 percent, effective March 26, 2020. This action eliminated reserve requirements for all depository institutions and rendered the regulatory distinction between reservable “transaction accounts” and nonreservable “savings deposits” unnecessary. On April 24, 2020, the Board removed this regulatory distinction by deleting the six-per-month transfer limit on savings deposits in Regulation D. This action resulted in savings deposits having the same liquidity characteristics as the transaction accounts currently reported as “Other checkable deposits” on the H.6 statistical release.

To account for the change in their liquidity characteristics, savings deposits will be recognized as a type of transaction account on the H.6 statistical release"

While Akerlof's Market for Lemons did consider cases where government intervention is necessary to preserve a market, like with health insurance markets (Medicare), he describes the "market for lemons" in the used car market as having been solved by warranties.

If someone brings a plum to a market for lemons, they can distinguish the quality of their product by offering a warranty on its purchase, something that sellers of lemons would be unwilling to do, because they want to pass the cost burden of the lemon onto the purchaser.

The full paper is fairly accessible, and worth a read.

Not sure how this could be applied to academia, one of the problems is that there can be significant gaps between perpetrating fraud and having it discovered, so the violators might still have an incentive to cheat.

It depends on the case.

If it is in regards to shareholders, then I believe the state in which you're incorporated would have jurisdiction.

If it's another type of case, for example one brought by an employee, it might be based on the employment laws of the state they are employed in, so the trial would happen in the state of their employment.

I'm sorry this is irrelevant to the current discussion, but you replied to one of my comments a couple weeks ago, and I can't reply there, so I'm leaving a response here.

Regarding Sam Altman's Long-con at Reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/comment/c...

Click "Single Comment Thread" to get the context of his comment.

Wouldn't the sender have a time-stamped copy?

After learning earlier about Sam Altman's long-con at Reddit, I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone suggest that Emmett Shear accepted the job in order to help get Sam back into the company.

They were both members of the inaugural class of Y-Combinator, and all of Shear's published actions since accepting the role (like demanding evidence of Sam' wrongdoing) seem to have helped Sam return to his role.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that he did win, in that he might have accomplished exactly what he wanted when he accepted the role.

You reminded me of this: https://www.wired.com/2011/04/amazon-flies-24-million/

Can you point to some evidence for the claim that "a molecule of water is lighter than the oxygen and two hydrogen atoms that went into making it?"

I could understand the atoms sharing electrons, but just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, because you said it's unexplained.

IANAL, but I believe it means that the company can't be headquartered somewhere else.

I believe miners wouldn't, because while they might technically coordinate their efforts in deciding which version of a cryptocurrency to mine, they aren't pooling their resources and representing themselves as a single entity.

That's partly what makes these individuals an unincorporated organization.

Let me explain:

The reason opportunity cost matters is because he could have done something with the money, like buying bitcoin, instead of putting it up for a bet.

Balaji claims to believe that Bitcoin will be worth $1 million dollars in 90 days.

Also, Balaji has $1 million dollars in his bank account.

In 90 days, we can pretend there are three outcomes for Bitcoin's value: a. It's worth $1 million+ b. It's worth between 0 and $1 million c. It's worth zero.

If Balaji bought 37 bitcoins today with his $1 million, the value of his assets at the end of 90 days in those three scenarios would be: a. Over $36 million b. Between zero and $36 million. c. Zero

Instead, here are the outcomes under the bet he made: a. $2 million b. Zero c. Zero

Assuming he is being sincere in his belief, every other outcome in the price of bitcoin makes his bet suboptimal to just purchasing Bitcoin, outside of Bitcoin falling to zero, which is why it's been called a "sure loser" bet.

This reminds me of the time Banksy had someone sell original signed canvases on a NYC sidewalk for $60, and sold a total of 8 in one day (two were sold for 50% off).

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/video/2013/oct/14/b...

I don't know, I think a lot of people changed their behaviors to avoid the virus, whether or not businesses were open. Check how quickly and how far Personal Consumption Expenditures dropped:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCE

Just a thought, but isn't it possible they were written while they were still being built, so they would be open to their surroundings and well-lit with natural light?

First, I think it's great to have a talent network that's owned by it's stakeholders, but I think it's questionable to say the token holders "own" the network.

My concern is that the organization is split into two entities: (1) Freelance Labs, which owns and controls the website.[1][4], and (2) A Panamanian Non-profit that "owns" the token.[2]

Stripe's copy: "And because it’s decentralized, the people that use Braintrust also own and operate the network: Talent keeps 100% of its earnings and clients can make their budgets go further by cutting out unnecessary middle men."

#The Braintrust Foundation has nothing to do with the website:

From the usebraintrust.com TOS[1]: "This Terms of Service (also referred to as the “Agreement”) is a contract between you (“you” or “User”) and Freelance Labs, Inc. (“Freelance Labs,” “we,” or “us”)."

#The website controls the operations of the network:

Also from the usebraintrust.com TOS[1]: "The Site is a marketplace where Clients and Freelancers can identify each other and advertise, buy, and sell Freelancer Services online. Subject to the Terms of Service, Freelance Labs provides the Site Services to Users, including hosting and maintaining the Site, facilitating Projects between Users,, and assisting Users in resolving disputes which may arise in connection with those Projects Users are required invoice and pay any amounts owed for any agreed upon Projects facilitated by the Site and/or Services."

#Users keep all their earnings, except for the 10% fees clients pay:

From the Braintrust whitepaper[3]: "Talent are charged no fees: they are paid their full contracted rate (whether that be per hour or per project). Clients are charged 10% of the total contract value, an amount that is significantly less than in other networks and consulting firms.

Client fees are collected in USD, converted into BTRST, and sent to the Braintrust DAO through the Fee Converter, a smart contract that was proposed, voted on, and implemented by the community in October 2021. This process makes it possible for client fees — in the form of BTRST tokens — to pay for network operations and to fund community programs"

#The token technically doesn't own anything:

Also from Braintrust's whitepaper[3]: "BTRST is not a share of stock, does not represent a claim on profits, dividends, equity, or debt in any company or organization, and is not a financial instrument. BTRST has been adopted by the Braintrust network and users for various activities on the network only, such as for staking, governance, voting, and educational purposes"

#The token has no claim to anything:

From a podcast with Adam Jackson: "We have a token instead of a share of stock. It does not represent any financial claims, any dividends or profit sharing, simply because there is no profit. The network is meant to run sustainably. It's meant to sustain itself. And so, it charges just enough fees to get by on, paying for hosting and maintenance and upgrades and that sort of thing."

Again, I still think it's a potential improvement on the alternatives, and they've built a lot of functionality, but I just worry that the website, seemingly the only way to contract on the network, isn't owned by the foundation.

Is the foundation contractually obligated to heed to any votes from the DAO? It's not very clear that they are.

They've built out a lot[6] that makes me hopeful their network will hold its value, but I just wish they could leave no doubt that their users own the network as well as the resources that power that network.

For example, what if once the network has gained enough value, the owners of Freelance Labs sell the usebraintrust.com website to UpWork? Can they, and if so, what happens then?

[1] https://www.usebraintrust.com/terms [2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1756245/000175624518... [3] https://www.usebraintrust.com/whitepaper [4] https://sec.report/CIK/0001759292 [5] https://www.hbs.edu/managing-the-future-of-work/podcast/Page... [6] https://info.app.usebraintrust.com/

Yeah, political engagement was likely near its peak during the Civil War. I don't think it's as positive an aspect of polarization as the OP suggested.

A problem with that logic is that it doesn't do anything to change the economics of gun sales.

If you kick them off the stock market, gun manufacturers can go private, or they move their headquarters and incorporation abroad.

If you prevent banks from making loans, they'll take their billions to Deutsch Bank, or HSBC, or some crypto bank that is happy to hide their money. Plus, if they're now private, there's likely no requirement to report their loans.

If we tax gun sales at 100%, you'll start to see more people renting out their guns or "gifting" them.

Are you buying a new mattress? We'll toss in his and hers handguns to keep under your pillow.

There are hundreds of millions of privately-held guns in this country. Without a cultural shift, and an active campaign to decommission those firearms, there's more than enough supply to fuel a black market for a long time.

It'd be like the war on drugs, you'd push everything underground, manufacturing would move abroad, and the lack of visibility would potentially make things worse.

I'll take that bet. But you need to put up the $5,000 first.

So you don't think you're just losing money, I'll issue you $5,000 worth of my personal stablecoin that you can redeem 1:1.

If you win, I'll give you another $5,000 of my personal stablecoin to pay the bet.

You can redeem them whenever you want, I'll be good for it. /s