In tech firms, from what I've heard, it's rare for very early stage startups to have many data scientists. You need some product guys, hackers, and sales/marketing people. Make something, try to sell it, pivot if it fails, repeat until you succeed or run out of money
At this stage, I guess data science isn't needed because success or failure is obvious. Or sufficiently obvious not to need p-values. You have users, or you don't. You also realistically don't have big enough N's to actually run experiments even if you wanted to
Data scientists seem to enter later when firms are more mature. Changes are more incremental, and they're run through A/B tests, datasci folks pore over metrics, before deciding whether or not to shift. I think this is an intrinsically slower process
It's more focused on incremental changes and just isn't a great fit for large "regime shift" or "new product" changes
Now the actual point of the thread: let's think about how this applies to public policy and regulation. There are many policy-evaluation data folks (many empirical economists!) who play a "data science" like role for policy evaluation
But I wonder what's the equivalent of the startup CEO/hacker-team for early-stage policy product development? By analogy, you'd want a small team of "builders", taking risks, very sensitive to on-the-ground feedback and early success/failures, willing to pivot quickly
Perhaps paying less attention to p-values. Again, at this stage, success or failure of a _tech product_ is obvious and not really a matter of statistics*
*Policies have hidden consequences! So things of course may not be as simple as "hey we make $$$ now"
There doesn't seem to be an academic economics subfield which maps super cleanly into this kind of role. Again, possibly imperfect analogy, but just a thought. Might be interesting to think what an academic subfield centered around doing these kinds of things would look like
Here's a set of questions. It seems a large % of people believe Tether is insolvent, which I define as: Tether does not actually have enough USD to pay $1 for each USDT, if everyone redeemed at once
Questions:
1. Why is a USDT still worth $1, if Tether is insolvent? Why isn't it worth like $0.9, or the market's best guess at how much USD assets Tether actually holds? 2. Couldn't a hedge fund or someone "attack" Tether to exploit the fact that Tether is insolvent?
Here is what I think about 1. The key is that USDT cannot trade below $1, _as long as Tether allows you to redeem 1 USDT for $1_. The argument is super simple! If ever someone was willing to sell a USDT for like, $0.99, you could just buy it from them and redeem it for $1!
I sort of agree with this, but one can flip the question on its head. "Black swan" events are those such that the tools of probability and statistics just don't work well. But why should we expect the universe to be well-described by probability and statistics?
Pascal's wager essentially says, there is a God or there isn't. It's an individual event. Is it ultimately useful to think about things in terms of there being 1 or 0.1 or 0.0001 or 10^-10 probability of God existing?
Obviously silly example, but applies to:
- Probability of financial crises, hyperinflation
- Global warming-induced apocalypses
- World war
And other long-tail events. Ultimately, it happens or it doesn't. Is it useful to think in terms of probabilities?
Imagine a world in which large % of El Salvador prices are actually posted in BTC. Tradable goods would fluctuate between stupid cheap or expensive depending on BTC prices
Suppose you build a car in US and want to sell it for $30k USD in El Salvador. You set the price at 1 BTC. Your offer effectively functions as an outstanding BTC put. At any point in time, buyers can "sell" you one BTC for a car. BTC goes down and you are out a lot of cars!
This. On the bright side: while intl students face a strong language barrier, I think they mistakenly assume there is also an insurmountable _culture_ and institutional details barrier, which I think is a bit smaller than it first seems.
I've found intl students tend to shy away from subfields which are very institutional-details heavy, and towards technical subjects not requiring much details. I think partly because they assume American/Western students know all the institutional details
Details like, how does the US healthcare/tax/electricity/financial etc systems work. The advantage here is actually IMO fairly small. The median international student knows ~0 about these things, but so does the median American college graduate!
Here's a thread I wrote a about the paper a while back. The new version has some new results on revenue, some more numerical simulations, and is slightly streamlined, but otherwise is pretty similar
1.9% for sellers seems kind of insane?? That's like not much better than credit cards!
Blockchain is obviously still a generally stupid medium for transactions AFAIK, but it makes a lot more sense once you realize how hilariously awful the US payments, etc infra is. Imagine paying 3% for any transaction at any merchant ever