What if apps had ‘hours of operation’ like retail stores? You could only use Instagram 9 AM to 9 PM Thursday through Tuesday. Microsoft Excel was open for business 8 AM Monday – 8 PM Friday
— daniel singer (@danielsinger) July 10, 2019
Credit didn’t use to be available to the middle class in America. It was for businesses and/or the wealthy. Consumerism didn’t start until the 1920’s, when technological advances made better time-saving devices that was priced just out of reach of individuals.
Smelling a need, financial institutions expanded credit to be available to the average middle class American. For the first time, instead of waiting months/years to save up for a new car / fridge / radio, they could owe it immediately and pay for it over time.
When there’s borrowing, there’s KYC for lending, and credit scoring. After all, banks wanted to be sure the borrower could pay back the loan.
In fact, without the appearance of home appliances, there likely wouldn’t have been lines of credit or credit cards as we know it.
Currently, Defi (decentralized finance) is a growing niche within cryptocurrencies where users borrow and lend money through smart contracts. It’s gotten a bunch of traction and attention. There are currently $466 million of ETH locked up in MakerDao. Check out the rates of other Defi on Loanscan.
Currently, all borrowing is over-collateralized, meaning you can’t borrow more than you’ve deposited. That’s because without credit scoring or KYC, lenders wouldn’t be assured borrowers would pay back the money.
There are people working on KYC and identity in the space. And we know much of the activity right now is trading on speculation. But a second order question is probably more important than how to solve identity on any blockchain:
“What’s the equivalent of the home appliances for cryptocurrencies? What do people want/need to buy that they need to borrow cryptocurrencies for?”
The situation that lead to rampant consumerism in the 1920’s was unique to its time. What is the situation now that’s unique to this time that people will want to borrow money for?
Without a clear answer to this question, it doesn’t yet make sense to solve identity for under-collateralized borrowing and lending. And if you make a Defi lending product, a clear answer will help light your way.
So what is Datalog? It’s an old language that’s more powerful than relational algebra, because it has recursion. But it’s less powerful than Prolog, because there’s no negation, and the ability to express algos beyond polynomial time. It’s not a Turing complete language.
Why use such a restrictive language? In Peter Alvaro’s talk, he uses the self-imposed constraints to avoid certain classes of programming mistakes in concurrent programs.
I found these two very helpful for beginners (prereq is that you kinda know what logic programming is and can read haskell). This gives you an intro to datalog.
Logic programming boils down to essentially a graph search in the possible space. All the details is about how to do the graph search effectively.
A company called stockpile is selling stocks in the form of gift cards at Target.
Putting it in gift card form with a bit of design (good UX oft missing from traditional finance) seems to make it accessible to kids and lower middle classes. What seems clever about this? It seems like the play here is to find a new distribution channel (retail) to find a new market.
According to the tweet thread, you pay a $5 commission on $20 trade for the plastic gift cards. That’s highway robbery, but you’re paying for the education.
They mostly provide stocks, but also some ETFs. There is a single exposure to Bitcoin through Grayscale’s Bitcoin Trust (search GBTC)
That should open up markets to people who don’t need to know anything about crypto, and it’s another onboarding ramp.
Taking it further—Technically, you should be able to create new financial instruments with smart contracts that you can sell at Target in the form of a card. The private keys for an address is generated and held in the card itself.
Operationally, I can see how it hard it would be.
1/ Making gift cards should probably not be too hard. But secure cards might take some engineering. Are there off the shelf chip cards you can flash software onto? Seems unlikely for security reasons.
2/ Most big retailers (Target, Costco, Best Buy) are not going to want to carry crypto-based products out of FUD. Maybe Walmart would, as they have a Labs division that’s already looking into blockchain for supply chain.
3/ Even if they do, you’d have to spend $ on making end cap displays. Also, because they own distribution, they can make more onerous demands, like your product has to sell well or they won’t give you good shelf space.
Or for the remaining inventory, you have to promise to buy it back. They have high costs too, such as making advertising flyers and training employees on these new products.
4/ Regulatory restrictions probably would require KYC for these gift card crypto.
Is there a second order effect that makes this an interesting business or technical breakthrough if this works?
I currently don’t see either, but the cultural implications might be interesting. Once people figure out these things have value, they can do a bunch of OTC trades on the streets for any type of behavior normally deemed unacceptable.
Even if regulations require KYC to move the money, having a physical representation of the money is enough for people to trade it around, without having to actually move it. It’s much like how the banks don’t actually move the stock certificates around, but just change a ledger on who owns it at the end of every day.
Originally posted on Quora on Sep 19th, 2014.
I applied six times between 2005 and 2010, before getting in the seventh. Someone on Hacker News once called it winning the Oscar of Rejections. I can’t say I’m particularly proud of that distinction, as I’d rather be successful. That said, the lessons are more apparent when you fail, compared to when you succeed. I wrote about it in the form of .
So as for what it feels like. The first couple of times, it felt like disappointment and a huge letdown. At the time, I wasn’t sure what they were even looking for, but maybe we got it. So after sending the application in, it had all the tension and melodrama of gambling: the ball is spinning around the roulette wheel waiting to land on your number.
After a while, I started to figure out what they were looking for, and subsequent rejections were not disappointing, but felt expected. When I finally got it, it was a little unsurprising. We have done more to prepare and shore up our chances much more than any other time–though it was no guarantee.
Nowadays, I feel if you’ve been rejected by anything, all you do is keep working. Sometimes, it’s a blessing in disguise. If you’re not at the right stage in your own development as an entrepreneur, even if you get in, you won’t be able to properly leverage YC to build a successful company. Other times, you’re overlooked, but don’t take it personally. Mistakes happen. Keep on working. Get to be so good they can’t ignore you.
I read somewhere about how it feels for athletes to win a championship game, rather than feeling like a fluke of high performance, like it seems in the movies, it feels rather like an execution of a habit. That’s probably what it should feel like.
On the HN thread.
It’s just really hard for people to see beyond the present. Innovators in one cycle are often blind to the opportunities in the next. I see it in a couple of my successful friends that built their own companies on the web and mobile when it comes to crypto.
I’m reminded of the quote about the radio:
“The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to no one in particular?” — Associates of David Sarnoff responding to the latter’s call for investment in the radio in 1921.
And then a couple of years later, for someone that made their stake in radio:
“While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility, a development of which we need waste little time dreaming.” — Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, 1926
And remember TV didn’t really come into its own until decades after 1926.
Yesterday, I was reading about past objections (circa 2007) to using Git vs CVS or SVN, and most of the objections were things that turned out to be unimportant. The objections focused on how their team doesn’t have a decentralized workflow that the Linux Kernel does, so they don’t need git. Or that the interface sucked, so they don’t need git.
Turns out everyone mostly uses git in a centralized way (via Github), to coordinate, but the decentralized design reveals secondary affordances that are really useful in practice. The decentralized design allows you to work and commit offline–great as laptops became more pervasive and more people worked on them. (You use to have to be online to commit, and can sometimes take minutes) The decentralized design also used content hashing with parent chains, which allows for inherent self-checking–no object modification can escape detection. Git’s data structure makes commits fast, which in practice makes fine-grained commits possible. And the decentralized design gives everyone a backup of the repo, so the central repo getting nuked by the intern doesn’t take down the org. Nowadays, in saying these things, I’m preaching to the choir. But back then, it was completely non-obvious.
The only people that got it right back then are the ones that dug into the technical details, and then actually tried it out. Notably, the guy at X.org.
And I think it’s a similar thing with cryptocurrencies, in the way that the fundamental different design and architecture of blockchains allows for secondary effects that are harder to see (until you’ve actually used or programmed in it) that aren’t available to you at all otherwise.
The trap most people fall into is that they compare the new X with what the old Y does very well. But they never consider that if it’s actually got a new underlying concept, it might suck at what the old Y has had time to get good at, but it allows for some other thing that we just couldn’t do at all before.
Fallacy of marginal cost when making decisions only applies when a fundamental shift has occurred. If no shift has occurred, making decisions solely on the comparison of marginal cost works.
That means when it comes to leveraging personal skills and connections, you should double down on what you’re good at if something fundamental about the environment hasn’t changed, whether this environment is distribution, relationships, technology, culture. But when it has changed, you need to take a deep breath and fully retool, and allow yourself the time and the mindset of a beginner in order to make the transition. That also means you need to save the money and create the environment so that you can do so.
How to tell if something fundamental about the environment has changed? It helps when you can extract the concept of something from the concrete something. For example, lots of front end frameworks proliferated in 2013, so lots of people felt like they couldn’t keep up. So they threw up their hands and would joke only the cool kids knew something new. The only way they could judge something was if it was new. You should only learn something if the underlying concept is something new to you. Concepts are an abstraction or generalization of how something works.
That’s why learning about something’s concept will go a long way. Knowing the how’s and whys of something, and finding a generalize-able abstraction will help you recognize shifts, so you can better make decisions in a changing world.