[dmitriid]

> OK. Now we are really splitting hairs

We're not. I'v directly responding to what you write, and not to hat you think you write.

You started with "leveling the playing field" and continued with "Being able to take a risky asset, and hedge it against itself, is not a strategy that I was aware of two years ago".

> You go ahead and educate yourself in the traditional exploitative financial system

Ah yes, you continue to use the words you don't fully understand, but since they are emotionally charged, this makes them the right arguments in your mind.

> And we shall never talk again.

As I already said, "Crypto maximalists ... only speak vague trivialities and then disappear."

[yebyen]

If you antagonize someone in a discussion, they're going to disappear. I don't need a degree in crypto-finance to tell you that. I'm not here for any of this.

If you want to engage me in a proper discussion, you can look me up. I've been on the internet using this name since I was 12 years old (and yes educating people, and also getting educated myself.) I'm not going anywhere.

Why don't you explain more about how easily accessible those traditional financial instruments are for normies? I'm interested in that information, can you provide links?

[DonHopkins]

You haven't disappeared as you promised, you keep replying. Please keep your promises when you make good ones with positive outcomes like disappearing. It makes you seem insincere when you keep promising to disappear, but don't. There's a huge difference between disappearing because somebody actually antagonized you, and disappearing because you couldn't prove your point and decided to act antagonized because people wouldn't believe your wild claims without proof.

[yebyen]

I haven't made any claims. I said I learned something, and your buddy disappeared without explaining how to do the same thing I said I learned how to do as he said was "something you could always do," while shouting insults at me on his way like I'm somehow the one responsible for the Crypto-calypse. I'm not, and you people need to get over yourselves.

[dmitriid]

> If you want to engage me in a proper discussion

I did try to engage in the discussion. "I'd not be here wasting my time talking", "You go ahead and educate yourself", "we shall never talk again." are hardly a proper response.

> Why don't you explain more about how easily accessible those traditional financial instruments are for normies?

Define "normies" first. Or better still, drop this condescending pejorative.

> I'm interested in that information, can you provide links?

I have no links, as it's a service often provided directly by your bank. Right now I have some money invested in risky assets that in the past two months sank 10% due to the way the world is right now.

There are multiple lists of "best books about investment", so you could start there. You know why? The absolute vast majority of "innovation" and "knowledge" in crypto space falls roughly into:

- scams

- currency speculation which is indistinguishable from Forex trading except that it's running on "smart contracts". Forex trading was huge in some countries (Moldova and Turkey among those I know about) in early-to-mid 2000s. I had friends at university heavily invested in it. It probably still is quite popular (and it's very popular in "defi" which is rarely anything but currency speculation and unsecured loans).

- asset hoarding + speculation. "Buy cheap, hype, hope for the price to go up, sell". Indistinguishable from anything traditional (from stocks to bonds to Ponzi schemes): you buy an asset, wait for the price to go up, sell.

What crypto is busy discovering is why "traditional finance" has all these things in place: KYOC, fraud protection and prevention, reversibility of transactions, deposit insurance, functional courts and laws etc. And is just as busy re-inventing all those, poorly.

[yebyen]

> I did try to engage in the discussion.

Go back and read it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt now, but you did not. You threw barbs and used the word "scam" as often as you could, and told me I'd be likely disappearing in a few minutes. Then someone showed up to comment on how disappointed they are I didn't really disappear like I promised. Can't win for losing. This is exactly like every crypto discussion on the internet today, it's very frustrating. I hope you know how difficult it is for me to be this patient. (It actually reminds me a whole lot of doing Ruby evangelism in almost the same circles...)

> how easily accessible those traditional financial instruments are

> I have some money invested in risky assets that in the past two months sank 10% due to the way the world is right now

I'm talking about deliverable perpetual futures. If you had seen this coming, you could have done some short-selling to hedge your risks. Price goes up, you deliver and sell for a profit. Price goes down, you still have your asset and can cash out for a profit. Is that a service offered by your bank? Not mine...

But maybe your bank offers it ...maybe only to qualified/accredited investors? How do I get that?

Now perhaps you see what I am getting at? It's not accessible, no matter how many books you read. Go out and get a million dollars today, through some act of God, and you still won't be a qualified investor next week or next year. Or you can wait for SEC approval, and then you can go get them through your broker I guess.

Some people read books, others are not well-served by book learning. I looked for a book that could explain it to me, but ultimately I only learned by getting hosed using these instruments flatly incorrectly until I figured out what I was doing wrong, by using them, and observing the outcomes, then also asking for help. Lovely people answering questions to help others learn. (It was the friends we made along the way!)

Is there some reason the system is the way it is? Yes, I'm sure there is. Does it protect people how it was really intended, or does it actually mean it just remains inaccessible to most people? This is how crypto levels the playing field.

Does that mean you cannot cut yourself when working with the sharp object? No, it definitely is not safe to go alone here. There are a million and one ways to lose all your money, plus a million new ones that weren't possible before. And soon a new technology will come, and everyone who understands the current landscape will know immediately what to do with it, (and everyone who has had their head in the sand will wait for the SEC for guidance, and eventually begrudgingly accept the improvement, maybe, once all the life has been sucked out of it by bureaucrats.)

[dmitriid]

> Go back and read it.

I did re-read it. That's how I could quote your words.

> You threw barbs and used the word "scam" as often as you could

Because that's what the absolute vast majority of crypto is.

> This is exactly like every crypto discussion on the internet today, it's very frustrating.

Yes. Every crypto discussion on goes like this:

- Crypto claims are refuted or questioned

- Crypto maximalist spouts some grandiose bullshit

- Crypto maximalist gets called out

- Crypto maximalist disappears

I've yet to see you actually address anything I said in my very first comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32850112

> I'm talking about deliverable perpetual futures.

It's a nonsensical term (like many other nonsensical terms) that only exists in the crypto space. And only works in the highly volatile market like crypto. This is short-to-medium term currency speculation, and I'm sure there are plenty of services that allow you to do that in "traditional finance". As I'm not interested in currency speculation, I couldn't tell you what they are.

> Now perhaps you see what I am getting at? It's not accessible

You've selected a single service revolving around currency speculation and you call "traditional finance" inaccessible because of that. That... is not what accessibility to financial services means. Or what "levelling the playing field" is.

> Is there some reason the system is the way it is? Yes, I'm sure there is.

You're sure, but at the same time you are completely uninterested to learn why it is that way, and you dismiss anyone telling you why it is the way it is because, let me quote, "it's an awful exploitative global financial system".

> There are a million and one ways to lose all your money, plus a million new ones that weren't possible before.

Indeed. And that makes this "accessible and a level playing field" unlike traditional finance which offers fraud protection, deposit insurance, etc. etc.

> And soon a new technology will come, and everyone who understands the current landscape will know immediately what to do with it

So, the "accessible system" will be accessible to those who understand current landscape, who have already lost money a million ways and cut themselves on sharp corners.

That is neither accessible nor a level playing field.

If you claim that it is "global financial system which can be participated in by anyone", where are the protections for those who "did not have access to existing systems" (I keep quoting you).

I'm a programmer, I earn quite a lot. And I still cannot afford to just go ahead and "lose my money in a million ways" and "cut myself when working with a sharp object". Where's your accessibility, huh?

> and everyone who has had their head in the sand will wait for the SEC for guidance

Ah yes. Instead we can just not wait and lose the money a million and one ways for the sake of.... something.

There's a reason for SEC guidances, but, again, you're entirely unwilling to learn why they exist. Perhaps, you will learn it the hard way.

[yebyen]

You're not responding, you're just condescending, and you've only quoted from the parts you cherry-picked as you could easily be responsive to them.

What is a qualified investor? And why do you have to be one if you want legal access to unregistered securities?

[dmitriid]

> You're not responding, you're just condescending

Says the person with such gems as "go educate yourself", "normies" etc.

> you've only quoted from the parts you cherry-picked as you could easily be responsive to them.

Says the person who ignores everything written in every single response and then pretends he's being offended

---

There's a reason you repeated several times you're a big time investor from age 12. That is most likely representative of your actual age.

At this point I've lost all interest in trying to have a conversation with you. Adieu.