@DgtlNumismatist It's a big deal because we want big banks to capitulate and offer fair yields. Capitalism is supposed to be about competition.
English
galgitron
54K posts
@galgitron What is so complicated about this? We cannot earn yield on “ Passive holding” of stablecoins. But we can gamify it. We can be part of a “subscription” model. We can earn something other than “yield”. This is no big deal, we just have to be creative.
English
This is not a compromise. Banks win again.
x.com/LuckyStar589/s…
LuckyStar589@LuckyStar589
@BSCNews Yes, the agreement is, we get zero yield
English
@iMustBeNewLOL That's the difference that the banks want to keep. They don't want to compete with liquid savings yield
English
I mean staking your stables would be the same as a savings account. It's there an you don't touch it. So in theory all you need to do is lock them up somewhere, even if it's on coinbase or whatever...a wallet using defi on the backend, etc ... Really the same way it is now, only diff being they're locked for however long, no?
English
@dumbletwit Crony capitalism is the only capitalism there is or ever can be. Human nature won't allow the dream version.
English
@galgitron Crony capitalism is what it is. Not pure capitalism. Without arguing for either or any :)
English
@chuff7se7en bro, good practice to read entire threads before commenting
English
@galgitron Banks will end up realizing DeFi does the same thing but with more risk. People will go where the money is getting yield in DeFi pools.
English
@bchainreader My guess is that lock-in staking would be allowed to generate yield. Banks don't want any competition for liquid cash yield.
English
@galgitron Any guess how long it will take them to fight about what will be deemed passive vs active? I mean that again could drag things out, no?
English
@bchainreader I'm sure savings stablecoins (yielding stables) from centralized issuers would also be disallowed. So Kraken or Tether couldn't offer this.
English
@galgitron Ok, I didn't get that, thanks! I read it like it would prevent stable coin issuers from materializing yield directly into our wallets. But if this really extends to vault products then I'm as well unable to spot that so called compromise.
English
@galgitron What i meant was that e.g. Kraken could build some sort of 1 click deposit product (vault ?) which internally is setup to leverage a stablecoin pool.
English
@bchainreader What you do with your own stablecoins is your business. This is entirely about preventing competing businesses from offering higher yield than banks.
English
@galgitron Would yield from a defi pool like usdc / usdt be considered active ?
English
@GVOCollective you know what I know at this time, but it shouldn't come as a surprise; it's the world's most powerful cartel.
English
@galgitron Interesting, that is a bummer, how about “staking” in some shape or form or using some crypto as a security mechanism and pad rewards etc… also is it JUST stable coins affected by this?
English
They said, 'AI can't do this..'
x.com/i/status/20347…
Tuki@TukiFromKL
🚨 Let me explain what Jeff Bezos is actually doing here.. > He already automated the warehouse workers with 750,000+ robots.. replaced checkout cashiers with cameras.. tested drone delivery.. built robots that move faster than humans.. > Now he's raising $100 billion to BUY entire manufacturing companies.. not to run them.. to automate them.. he's not investing in factories.. he's buying them to empty them.. > This is a man who built Amazon by undercutting every small business in America.. who crushed bookstores, malls, and retail chains.. who made same-day delivery possible by burning through workers so fast they literally ran out of people to hire in some cities.. > And now he's coming for the last thing left.. the factory floor.. the one place people said "AI can't do this.. you need human hands".. $100 billion.. not to create jobs.. to buy the companies that have them and remove the people inside.. your factory job survived the recession.. survived outsourcing.. survived COVID.. it won't survive a billionaire with a shopping list and a robot..
English
@cryptobitch7 @GVOCollective What you're describing is a valid lack of faith in our leadership to ramp up with AI advances. I don't think this will be nearly as poorly executed as the worst case scenario portends. There's already ample discussions about UBI, it will happen, and necessarily on time too
English
@galgitron @GVOCollective get the pre-singularity framing, but that’s the gap:
If unemployment hits 50% before redistribution → why assume a smooth shift instead of instability?
And if voters are “in control” → what ensures coordination over fragmentation?
English
@cryptobitch7 Why would billionaires try to keep all the humans enslaved to them like they do today? It makes no sense. They can get robots to do everything 10x better. They'll have no need for humans, and that should be your bigger concern.
English
@galgitron I get that, but history suggests otherwise:
Even with abundance, humans still compete for status, control, and scarce assets.
If AI is that powerful → controlling the “river” is the ultimate leverage.
So why assume incentives suddenly disappear instead of intensify?
English
@GVOCollective @cryptobitch7 All my thoughts here are 'before' the singularity, while we remain in control. There's no predicting afterwards. And those sick people trying to control us will be eaten alive at 50% unemployment. It makes no sense
English
@galgitron @cryptobitch7 Cuz the ppl in control r sick, insane an the billionaire class already have more then enough for 10,000 lifetimes but still want more power. I also don’t know if AI becomes so smart that it will just keep making robots to be our “slaves”, slaves that are stronger/smarter than us?
English