Imagine a bank. Now imagine a bank robber. One night, that robber tries to pick the lock on the bank's door and is caught, but there are no consequences. The next night he throws a rock through the bank's window and is caught, but again, he's allowed to go on his way. ...

The next day he tries to bribe the security guard. The day after he threatens the teller. The next day he brings hired muscle. The next day, something else. Day after day, the bank robber tries to get the money from the bank, and every time he has caught, he gets to try again. …
The outcome of this game is inevitable. So long as the robber can attempt to get at the contents of the bank day after day with no consequence, he will. Because there is no consequence, on one of those days, the robber will walk away with the money. ...
That’s where we are now, not just with Donald Trump, but with the whole of the Republican Party. It’s been almost exactly a year since Republicans in the Senate made it clear to Trump they would use their power to back his power, assuring him there would be no consequences. …
That wasn't the start, of course. This has been a long learning experience for Republicans. William Barr was attorney general under George H. W. Bush, he showed how that position would be used to absolve White House staffers of serious crimes. ...
Newt Gingrich had control of the House when they learned how that chamber could be used as an engine for hate and disinformation. Mitch McConnell demonstrated how even a slender majority in the Senate could deadlock the legislative branch while stacking the judiciary. …
Finally, Donald Trump has built on the real legacy of Ronald Reagan—running roughshod over the law; dividing the nation for both power and profit. Republicans have learned how power, can support power, can support power, until law is something laughable. ...
It’s possible, even likely, that on Wednesday the Republicans pushing Trump’s conspiracy theories and disinformation will burn their their allotted time, sit down, and then Mike Pence will reluctantly read the results of the Electoral College and declare Joe Biden the winner. …
It’s also possible, considering Pence’s spine of purest clay, that he will refuse to read the results, or play some other game suggested by the likes of Louie Gohmert, forcing the Supreme Court to make an ugly end to what should have been a simple, ceremonial event. …
But one thing is certain: If there are no consequences to this attempt at daylight robbery, they will be back again. With dynamite. There has to be punishment, punishment both swift and sure, or the outcome of this fight is a foregone conclusion.

You May Also Like

So the cryptocurrency industry has basically two products, one which is relatively benign and doesn't have product market fit, and one which is malignant and does. The industry has a weird superposition of understanding this fact and (strategically?) not understanding it.


The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.

This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.

The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."

This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.