
PaperImperium
11.1K posts

PaperImperium
@ImperiumPaper
Economics Lead at @megaeth. Views and opinions my own.




I used to agree with this, but updated my priors. You, as an individual trading or investing your own money, do actually have some edges that you can exploit. First, let’s differentiate between gamblers, traders (aka speculators), and investors. They all swim in the same pool, but are doing very different things. An investor is someone who “buys a dollar for 50¢” in common parlance. That is to say, they identify the intrinsic value of an asset, and try to buy it at a discount to that value. Note that intrinsic value means you think *in the absence of markets* there is value in the asset. Traditionally this takes the form of cash flows over the life of the asset. But it could also be cost reductions to your business or strategic value or any other metric that provides value without ever selling the asset. It’s very important to realize that most people who think they are investing do not meet this definition. If you are relying on selling your asset at an appreciated price in the future, then you are in part trading! This means most people’s retirement accounts have a strong trading element, because they need to liquidate assets (far in the future) and not just live off the income. Traders/speculators are different. They fundamentally are moving assets through time from a time of relatively weak demand (relative to supply) to a time of strong demand. This is not unlike a wholesaler who moves goods through space from an area of low demand (e.g. a carrot farm with bajillions of carrots) to an area with high demand (a supermarket where people want carrots). Traders who are long are performing a valuable service to relieve future shortages of an asset by removing it from the market today and securing it for sale into the market of tomorrow. Trading short works in the reverse (but is obviously more complex because no one has a Time Machine). However! Just as many “investors” are in fact traders, many self-described “traders” are actually in our third group. Enter the gambler. The gambler has a similar goal to the trader. They want to speculate on future prices. However, traders usually have some credible, coherent reason for their actions. They believe token supply will unlock or the carrot harvest will be bad this year or that rising cash flows at Apple will increase the price investors are willing to pay for the stock. The gambler doesn’t have this. They are in fact defined by their lack of edge and reliance on luck. And they usually are amateurs without discipline. The Gambler’s Ruin is a thing in game theory for a reason. Now, back to edge. You as an individual have some significant edges over most professionals. Your mandate is flexible - you can, in theory, invest or trade in anything. You are not subject to unexpected redemptions by LPs. You are not of size so can still get excess returns in smaller assets and markets (this is maybe one of the most powerful ones). Your time horizon can be far longer than most professional managers (the average holding period for a US stock is considerably less than a year) So the key to success here is that you lean into the areas where you have an edge, and to avoid areas where you have a structural disadvantage (e.g. day trading an asset in a deep market that a professional can deploy billions into) But mostly, a lot of underperformance is not being honest about whether you are a gambler, a trader, or an investor. Anecdotally, I think in crypto it’s mostly gamblers (including many professionals), with a lot of traders (VCs are at their core traders bc they need exit), and a tiny-but-growing cadre of investors now that some tokens have some (highly uncertain) intrinsic value.


I think there’s an interesting space between “gambling” and “finance” that has finally begun to mature. It probably goes back earlier, but really seems to have exploded with meme stocks and memecoins. In recent months, I’ve begun to refer to this territory as “finance entertainment” since it has a good analogue in “sports entertainment” - those semi-competitive exhibitions like pro wrestling, Ninja Warrior, or even the Harlem Globetrotters that prioritize entertainment but nonetheless do require serious athletic abilities and skills. Coming onto MegaETH and getting to dig into the app ecosystem, I find apps like Hit One and Euphoria to be more refined, highbrow options in this space that I personally can see the appeal of. It’s made me also appreciate that memecoins were not, in fact, just a casino, at least for some users. I think I and others were slow to recognize this because, as I explained in the QT below, gamblers, investors, and traders all swim in the same waters, and the high visibility of gamblers masked the dopamine-seeking-but-still-serious traders that participate in memecoins. The key distinction from gambling is that there has to be a credible thesis to get a positive return, usually through speculation as a mechanism to move assets through time from periods of relatively low demand to periods of relatively high demand. And this middle territory is naturally separated from regular finance by a soaring mountain range of boring UX and no attempt at providing actual entertainment (that’s not pure gambling). I’m still developing my thoughts on who the natural consumer-investors of finance entertainment are. My priors are that it’s a kind of trader that would try to make money in other ways if the experience wasn’t fun or gamified. I’m also not aware of much serious investigation, whether inside crypto or outside, into this blend of consumption and investment activity, although clearly Robinhood has leaned into this and may have some internal research. If anyone has credible data or research on finance entertainment, please drop it in the comments or my DMs. And while I try to only rarely make predictions, I suspect this new generation of finance entertainment apps will end up partly being spectator sports. It’s easy to imagine a kind of Twitch-style streaming of Hit One trades.







People like to point to the Northwest European marriage pattern as a driver of less clannish societies, stronger institutions, etc. Interestingly, there is one other civilization that was probably the least clannish large society *ever* until the modern West, and it’s Egypt.








A stablecoin can be fully collateralized and still fail. Issuers can hold enough reserves to cover every dollar in circulation and still depeg if those reserves can't be accessed when they're needed. The BIS made this point in their paper "On par: A Money View of Stablecoins." They draw the analogy that stablecoins are the modern equivalent of Eurodollars, with onchain private dollar deposits replacing offshore ones. Traditional banking maintains par through central bank settlement, primary dealer networks, standing repo facilities, and a lender of last resort. Stablecoins don't have any of these mechanisms. If there's a run there's no forward market, no credit facility, and no mechanism to absorb the pressure before it hits the reserves directly. The analogy extends beyond Eurodollars. In their current form stablecoins resemble the wildcat banks of 19th century America. They operate across fragmented jurisdictions without any of the institutional infrastructure that keeps the traditional banking system stable. But this is the same trajectory the banking system itself went through. Wildcat banking was fragmented but it eventually led to federal oversight and consolidation that made the system functional at scale. The regulation coming for stablecoins is what made the banking system functional at scale too.






