When I think of why so many people can't get comfortable with ETH as an asset, I think of Taleb's concept of a Procrustean Bed.
ETH doesn't fit into reductive categories or cookie cutter narratives - it's just different.
And that's fine, it highlights how unique ETH truly is.
ETH doesn't fit into reductive categories or cookie cutter narratives - it's just different.
And that's fine, it highlights how unique ETH truly is.
Often times when people discuss what money is on here, they attempt to jam cryptocurrencies into some preconceived notion of what money is.
Isn't the whole point of all this that we're reinventing money, not simply digitizing it?
What money is, is changing.
Isn't the whole point of all this that we're reinventing money, not simply digitizing it?
What money is, is changing.
Btw none of this is to say that we should throw all history and analytical models out the window.
This isn't a "Bubbles are mathematically impossible in this new paradigm" tweet.
Its just that old models may not be perfect for understanding what's going on here.
This isn't a "Bubbles are mathematically impossible in this new paradigm" tweet.
Its just that old models may not be perfect for understanding what's going on here.
For those unfamiliar with the bed of Procrustes analogy.
fs.blog/2013/09/the-be…
fs.blog/2013/09/the-be…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
