stacks are eating the world

There are only 3 real challenges to free speech at the tech level a) the need for CDNs at scale b) distortions of net neutrality c) nation-state firewalls.

All other claims are about social governance on private sites, where applying free speech doctrine is a stretch at best

Baseline free speech has expanded modestly since 1776 or whatever your reference point is.

About 20% beyond core case of government-critical speech in formally public spaces and media I'd say.

You can (for example) have more kinds of conversations in a bar without getting punched or kicked out by other patrons or management. You can teach more things in colleges than 100 years ago.

That's a genuine de facto increase in practical, informal free speech/expression.

But online free "speech" is, as @reneed has pointed out, not an expansion of free speech at all, but an expansion of reach. It is like the secondary freedom of the press to print as many copies as they can afford, not primary freedom to say what they want

If a newspaper wants to print more copies it has buy more printing equipment and front more upfront costs. Reach for a paper publication is not "free", but a function of desired circulation, which in turn is a function of demand prediction etc. But that logic is obscured online.

social media use really calls for something closer to a driver's license than terms of service... most apparent bad behavior here is more incompetence than malice, like not knowing how to change lanes or take turns at a 4-way stop..

trump's history on twitter is something closer to a crazy car chase on LA streets than bad driving (with the cops MIA, but media helicopters in pursuit), but almost all unpleasantness around here is just poor driving skills

not that I'm advocating for a licensing regime... that would be a terrible thing. Do not need a social media DMV. But the underlying principles (as tested for eg. in the written and road tests) are pretty good.

Written test would test things like "safe following distance" (reply-guying = tailgating?)

Road test would actually expose you to routine provocations. Like, "make a left turn" = "deal with this concern troll"

As in the driving test, where an awkward, unnatural, and unintuitive bit, the parallel parking test, is the toughest bit, there would be some such awkward maneuver you'd have to learn (hmmm... what's the parallel parking equivalent on twitter?)

following a discussion at @yak_collective this morning, I came up with this chart to capture a hypothesis I have that the difficulty of creating communities scales exponentially with the the "depth" of what you're trying to do

thanks @grigorimilov for leading the discussion that sparked this.

The way to read the graph is: each line is a time history of difficulty. It starts dotted, goes through a criticality inflection point, and then crests in difficulty before coming down to a stable plateau.

The inflection points have different names depending on context, but are all topologically similar. They are the make or break moment when a network-effect either kicks in, or fails to. "Product-market fit" in the case of market is the best known such point.

Level 1 is a basic social community, such as a FB group, meetup etc. There are millions of successful ones, and 100s of millions of failures. The "fit point" is what I call a meme-mind fit, when some social object catalyzes a sustainable long-term conversation of growing richness

Almost everything I've helped instigate is Level 1. My contributions to the social-object soup have been things like the vocabulary around sociopaths/clueless/losers, legibility, 2x2s etc.

We're in the phase of the market where there's a lot of retail inbounds but not enough education about the Ethereum ecosystem and DeFi.

So, let's break down the basics of some of the top protocols.

First on deck: Aave (@AaveAave), an Ethereum-based money market protocol.

A 🧵

TL;DR: Aave is a protocol through which any user anywhere in the world can take decentralized loans by collateralizing their assets.

Aave also allows those will idle assets to earn a relatively safe return on capital from lenders, whose rates are determined by a curve.

1/ For years, most crypto assets had no indirect or direct utility.

Users would hold BTC, ETH, and other assets (including many ERC-20 tokens) with no expectation of a native yield or dividends.

ETH, for instance, was long just an asset for transaction fees, as was Bitcoin.

2/ If users wanted to borrow against their assets, they were relegated to centralized platforms—which were few and far between years ago.

3/ Aave, formerly ETHLend, is a protocol allowing users the ability to lend and borrow on-chain, without KYC and untransparent fees.

Users can deposit a variety of assets as collateral, then use that collateral as ammo to borrow other assets to be used in DeFi or beyond.

Lindy Effect 101

With Bitcoin's return to the spotlight, debates on its long-term viability are raging. Its proponents contend @nntaleb's Lindy Effect says the technology is here to stay.

But what is the "Lindy Effect" and how does it work?

Here's Lindy Effect 101!

👇👇👇

1/ First, a few definitions.

The Lindy Effect is a theory that the future life expectancy of specific non-perishable items, like a technology or idea, is proportional to their age.

Put simply, the longer it has already lasted, the higher the likelihood it will continue to last.

2/ The term "Lindy effect" is a reference to Lindy's, a New York deli frequented by comedians in the 1960s.

While author Albert Goldman used the term "Lindy's Law" in a 1964 article, it was mathematician Benoit Mandlebrot who moved the dialogue towards the current definition.

3/ In his book, entitled The Fractal Geometry of Nature, Mandlebrot commented that the more stage appearances a Lindy's comedian made, the more future appearances he could be predicted to make.

The longer he lasted, the longer he would continue to last.

4/ @nntaleb built upon Mandelbrot's work, formally coining the term "Lindy Effect" in his book, Antifragile.

He noted the Lindy Effect with books - the longer a book has been in print, the longer it is likely to survive.

With no natural upper bound, power laws come into play.

On the importance of leverage for the crypto ecosystem.
A long time ago, BNP Paribas bought a retail forex exchange, because they thought they'd get an insight into forex trading flows and positions. What they quickly discovered, is that the website was a muppet slaughterhouse.

People would get stopped out ALL THE TIME because they used too much leverage. Over 90% of them lost money in a consistent way. Those are worse than even casino odds.
That's why around 2005, you had so many forex trading websites popping up. They would offer up to 500x leverage.

The higher the leverage, the better (for the website).
This became such a huge trend that regulators stepped in, and introduced maximum leverage rules. Something like x30 for forex, if I remember correctly. All of a sudden, all the ads and Premier League sponsorships vanished.

Forex gambling is still around, but not nearly as profitable, because it takes time for people to lose their money with a pitiful x30 leverage. Currencies usually don't move by 3% in a day. It can take weeks for an amateur trader to lose it all. Plus the adrenaline rush is gone.

Enter crypto.
It's hard to explain how one-sided leveraged crypto trading is. Traders don't stand a chance. With currencies, you could expect to extract SOME money from real world flows. In crypto, there are no real world flows. It's just traders against traders against insiders.

Will start this thread with a disclaimer. I have never invested a rupee in cryptos 😀

But I have studied bull and bear cycles and financial bubbles extensively. Saw 1992, 2000, 2008 with own eyes. The first one as a novice, the next two when I knew to analyze

The amount of chatter I am seeing in friends, family and social media about cryptos has gone through the roof. For everyone, it's a dream to make 100x or even 1000x easily. Basically, become stinking rich easily
( it never happens )

In any financial bubble, the top is made in extreme speed and violence. The distribution happens on the way down. Unless one saw the rates of 65k on bitcoin, one wouldn't buy at 30-35k or 20k. That 65k is an anchor point which leads to greed

During the tulipmania, a single piece of tulip reached a price of $750,000 in today's money. When we see that history, we think "what idiots". But consider this, as of now meme coins generated by someone in their garage are being traded at absurd prices

Then there is this joke called NFT. A piece of "digital art" basically made by someone on their computer ( who is not even a known artist) are being sold for millions of dollars