@coloradotravis@0xMakesy@jchervinsky@SantiagoAuFund@ross_phelan 1/n I thought it was a very good rant. Many of the optimistic takes you highlight are consistent with my views. But I’ll ask again, why do we need Bitcoin (or Ethereum) for this? Blockchain doesn’t require bitcoin and digital scarcity doesn’t require Blockchain.
@coloradotravis@0xMakesy@jchervinsky@SantiagoAuFund@ross_phelan 2/n Peer to peer with redistribution of profits has occurred in many markets without (necessarily) the end result being superior. A simple example is the advent of digitalization and decentralization of market makers (from Specialists) on exchanges. Different? Sure. Better? Maybe
@coloradotravis@0xMakesy@jchervinsky@SantiagoAuFund@ross_phelan 3/n Ken Griffin is much richer and more powerful than Peter Kellogg (Spear Leeds & Kellogg) ever was. Unlike Kellogg’s ancestor (also Peter fwiw), he was not there with excess capital in 1932 to help rebuild in 2008. Instead he’s required a few bailouts. In the meantime, check
@coloradotravis@0xMakesy@jchervinsky@SantiagoAuFund@ross_phelan 5/n Your articulation of replicability and portability of code is unsurprising to anyone in the coding biz… open source and object oriented programming have reinforced this for years. Yes, it’s cool you don’t need to reinvent the wheel on code…
@coloradotravis@0xMakesy@jchervinsky@SantiagoAuFund@ross_phelan 6/n but at the same time, there’s a dearth of economic understanding behind many of the projects. “Cool” stuff gets built all the time… but it rarely wins. Instead, the entrenched interests usually prevail. That may suck, but it’s the facts. And success is less likely when
@coloradotravis@0xMakesy@jchervinsky@SantiagoAuFund@ross_phelan 7/n proponents wrap themselves in a mantle of “Just try to stop me…” the future is almost certainly natively digital assets replacing most financial assets. But again, why these crypto assets? You have a nice vision, but nothing I read here says “Bitcoin” or “Ethereum”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/n Apparently I’m causing some confusion here. Obviously portfolio insurance, lack of circuit breakers, the “untested” S&P futures market, lack of put skew, “slow” computer systems, market maker lines of credit, a new Fed Chair, etc etc influenced the outcome
2/n BUT all of those conditions, including a weak US$, existed prior to Oct 1987 and therefore can’t have been the “proximate” (legal) cause of the crash. A broken tail light cannot be the CAUSE of a car crash.
3/n These conditions, like passive today, create deadly POTENTIAL, but did not cause the crash. According to Mark Rubinstein, the man behind portfolio insurance, their models to sell were triggered by the sharp decline on Oct 15th tied to the Iranian missile… the proverbial
1/n So there’s a lot of mudslinging going around about political ideology. A sub seg of FinTwit seems to have decided that “statist” is an appropriate slur to deploy.
2/n For those wondering, a statist is one who believes in some claim to legitimacy of the political authority of the govt. The antonym of statist is an anarchist, but within statism there is a wide range of beliefs.
3/n “Minarchism” (i not o) is the belief in the minimum necessary state to enforce the “non-aggression principle”, both within a society and from foreign aggression. I am a fan. It is well phrased in the preamble to the Constitution of the US
1/n Got the timing of resolution right, but not direction. Amazing to see a complete retrace in 14 months despite BOTH styles higher. Like I argued with Value back in May 2020, the problem has not been long Large Growth (up 10% in 4 mos), but shorting small (value or growth)
2/n So what now? Is this a replay of 2016 where Large Growth reasserts? Or do we continue the rotation? My bias continues to be that a sustained rally led by value is very hard. Index rebalance beckons. Many high flyers like GME and PLUG are moving out of small and into mid
3/n And valuations have largely normalized with the yield on small value at 0.82% vs 0.66% for large cap growth. P/E ratios similar, especially when quality adjusted.
1/n It's unfortunate that this is the takeaway. I have spoken frequently about the objections I have to the intrusion of the state in private affairs and the benefit we all gain when nation states are held in check. HOWEVER, there is a huge difference between emigration
2/n which physically removes you from the power the state holds (bad actors like Putin often exceed this limit) and a Thoreau style "Civil Disobedience" around a desire to disrupt the functions of the state by intentionally choosing a "monetary system" (asset/commodity/SoV) that
3/n empowers the enemies of your country. If you are not a US citizen, you can make your own calculus as to whether you support the US or China/Russia/Iran. I have no objection to your right to choose. If you are a US citizen, then you are either intentionally undermining the
1/n As requested, the TLDR. There are many complaints about the ability of the US govt (via Fed and/or fiscal) to “debase” the dollar and bailout corporate interests. This is a complaint about the choice of how to use this power, but the crypto solutions that supposedly
2/n prevent the ability to debase are fundamentally flawed. Gold-backed and other “hard” money systems were designed to attract users to nascent systems, but WJBryan was right about the crucifixion that occurs when the backing is confused for the social good of a standard of
3/n account. A flexible currency allows forgiveness — a crucial ingredient in risk taking. The 17th-19th century was a uniquely fruitful period in human social progress as the opening of the “new” world created a legitimate check on the power of the elite to permanently impair
1/n Yes, @LawrenceLepard chart is misleading. (1) datasets are not comparable. Substantive devaluations of the USD vs gold occurred in 1932 and 1971. These were political and not Fed. Debatable whether post-2000 is CB related or whether gold is really expensive.
2/n The UNIQUE inflation of the 1960s and 1970s is largely misunderstood. From my perspective, the story of "stagflation" in this period is false. There was no "slow growth" in the 1970s -- fastest growth rates for housing and jobs in US history.
3/n This becomes relevant as we think about what Fed has "actually" been doing -- staving off rampant DEFLATION. Were we still on the gold std, we'd be facing events of deflation similar to Great Depression since 2000. Instead, a "flexible" currency has encouraged "stability"