BC TRADING
Saved by @Alex1Powell

I'm having difficulty seeing the need for any other currency in the world other than G$.

If it works, and it is decentralized, then why would we need more than one global-reach currency?

If it does the job perfectly, then why do we need another?

 I don't mean there won't be others. What I mean is that maybe Crypto UBI will be like the existing non-democratic crypto market ranking. There will be a first-place market cap amount, and exponential decay to the #2, #3, #4, etc.
This is in contrast to the simplistic view where we assume there will be X systems and they all have more or less the same abstract Y market cap or reach, and they all add up to an integrated system with X*Y market cap.
All you have to do is design the controls the way they want to be designed. If you don't introduce some unneeded damage in it, then there won't be the need to come up with another system that fixes the damage and actually does complete "the system" that we will use.
E.g. Bitcoin would have worked, except it introduced the damage that is Proof-of-Work, which means it is unusable and will be replaced by Ethereum, which will use PoS, thus fixing the damage.
From the GoodDollar simulation page, and from public statements from the people in the project, the GD project can be seen as a long-term project, in the 2020 planet-melting sense of long-term, which is not that long.
The success of GoodDollar depends on US Dollars. GoodDollar is animated by the previous currency construct, which has a hegemonic hold on people's imaginations (earned through a realpolitik effort by imperialism, war, etc.)
GoodDollar takes the old-world money and uses it as a referral to the money system that's going to replace it. It uses the story known as "Compound Interest" (a math trick that mesmerizes humans for some reason) to suck up legitimacy from a nondemocratic currency system to itself
Whereas compound interest (aka "permanent funds") were deployed before, and they are the technology behind the Quatinga Velho pilot by @ReCivitas, they were deployed as a means to achieve financial sustainability *in old-world money* to these UBI projects.
What GoodDollar is doing, as a "Web3" project, is reinventing money. The compound interest engine is, superficially, used to "pay" for people's Universal Basic Income in old-world money legitimacy that's proxied through a "crypto" (cryptographic & "pseudo") currency.
However, the only difference between a pseudo-currency that can technically function as a non-pseudo one is legitimacy. The pseudoness is not technical, but cultural, "legal", social.

All religions are fake upon their founding.
GoodDollar is using compound interest to produce a democratic currency.

In other words, GoodDollar is using one of the most powerful cultural spells we have ever invented as a perpetual engine that syphons legitimacy from the old nondemocratic monetary system to a democratic one
And so, GoodDollar depends on the deposits of US Dollars to get started doing its magic. Once the magic kicks in, more and more US Dollars will be donated to the fund, which is not controlled by anyone. And once "all" US Dollars are in it, then it's over.
At that point, the GoodDollar currency is the only currency that's moving around. And it is a democratic, UBI currency. It becomes what people consider "money." And nondemocratic currencies that are locked into their reserves can be forgotten, or even abolished.
Imagine the speed at which people will cast away these disgusting "fiat" (debt-based, non-UBI, capitalist) currencies and switch loyalty to UBI.

Of course, "conservatives" (including "financial conservatives") won't do that, because they are stuck in a racist, classist past.
But since the US Dollar is like every other "fiat" (debt-based, capitalist) currency in the world, its normal functioning has led to its accumulation by extremely skilled sociopaths who can pose as "good" people. The "billionaires" (now, trillionaires).
Not all billionaires are evil, but they /are/ billionaires, meaning there's something wrong with them. The exceptions just prove the rule.
And since we need US Dollars (used as a stand-in for all "fiat", debt-based, capitalist, deprivation-oriented money) to start GoodDollar's legitimacy-siphoning scheme, that means we need billionaires to donate to the fund. Our donations mean jack shit.
For a million (1,000,000) people to donate 1 billion dollars, each person has to part with $1,000, which they don't have. One (1) billionaire can fund what 1,000,000 people can't.

This strategy is absolutely dependent on rich people getting on board, if it is to cover the globe.
The only reason this is a long process is that rich people are evil and/or stupid and/or damaged in some other way. Otherwise, they could think about it for five minutes and just get rid of their money and dump it into the GoodDollar DAO-managed fund.
We don't need more than one UBI currency that implements this strategy. What we need is one currency that implements this strategy correctly, and no one will be able to surpass GoodDollar's approach. GoodDollar is what we are going to get w.r.t. that strategy.
Of course, there *will* be thousands of Crypto UBI currencies. But most Crypto UBI currencies won't use the "fiat reserve" approach. They will just be like every other community or local currency that has ever existed, and like most other cryptocurrencies: issue and use.
Reserve-less currencies will have the value of the community, and their "market cap" distribution probably will be far more even, because it is capped by region. These currencies may be global reach but the user base is not designed to be "everyone." It's like websites.
Or multiplayer games. Each game or site has a community of members. The website has global reach, but the "topic" of the game or site does not actually scale. Global reach is different from global scale (i.e. institutional reach). Global scale means the topic is "person."
Dailycoin has global reach but it has global scale problems. Its topic is "person" -- it is an institution -- but it is unreadable by most people. It is too alien. Maybe in 100 years.
Also the implementation is experimental. My *theory* is that a single identity oracle can literally cover the globe -- just like Facebook serves and identifies a billion people+ -- but I'm not actually sure of this and I certainly can't produce a proof of that.
So it is possible that Dailycoin needs the identity oracle to be a federated system controlled by a DAO, just like GoodDollar is going to do.
But my point is, there seems to be no point in duplicating GoodDollar.
You can create a different currency for a different community or a different topic. But there is only one globe and only one human species. So if that's your scale, you need only one implementation that is robust. If it is robust and a public good, then it's done.
Nobody goes dicking around in a Star Trek world suggesting that the Federation be replaced by a hundred of overlapping and competing Federations for fault-tolerance.
That doesn't mean it's bad to compete. More is always good. The point is, we don't need competition. My impulse is to contribute to the thing that's doing it right if that's not going to create a vulnerability in the ecosystem of things.
That's what it means to say that blockchain is a computing substrate that allows for the implementation of institutions. GoodDollar *would* be fundamentally vulnerable, and we *would* need redundant implementations, if we did not have Ethereum.
We need to SWARM rich people, especially very rich people, to stake into GoodDollar (GoodStake or GoodReserve).
But we have time to do that. GoodDollar has several years to develop all of the contract infrastructure, the DAO, etc.

Not too much time tho because the planet is dying.
The force that's destroying the planet IS debt. It is the competitive drive itself, which is generated by "fiscal/financial conservatism". As Charles Eisenstein noted, what we are doing is destroying nature and converting it into money. (Debt money).
That's why you need to read Charles Eisenstein's books. They are all free to read online. Read Sacred Economics and The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible.
GoodDollar has ONE problem, which is the initial token issuance problem.

Bitcoin laundered its early-mining rewards by way of the "Proof-of-Work" myth: the work of computers that privileged people own is confused with their own work, due to Proprietarianism.
The Seigniorage problem is the fundamental problem of "who is the first owner of a coin." It is an unresolvable problem. The only way to "solve" it is to issue it equally to everyone, which is also impossible because new people are continuously minted into existence.
Since it is somewhat unlikely that the GoodDollar token won't appreciate in value, the usual accusations of "scam" and of "privilege" will be thrown around. But then again, that's inevitable. Of course that the reactionaries will use that as a way to smear the project.
But it is guaranteed that detractors will use a willful misunderstanding of how the GoodDollar system works to attack it: that some people earned like 100 G$ a day in the early days whereas some went into the reserve and bought 5000000 G$ for $500.
The best thing we could do really would be a fundraiser to buy out the entire flat slope of the GoodDollar Bancor curve, and it will generate I don't know 50 billion G$ or something like that, and then we just burn it all.
My point is that the flat part of the Bancor curve, the early part, is like the "Ceremony" part of some Zero-Knowledge protocols like ZCASH: it is a pollution, an externality. But in the case of the Bancor curve vs. the Seigniorage problem it is a cultural pollution.
But this is just a story. It only really has relevance in cultural terms. In functional terms who gets the first G$s is absolutely irrelevant in contrast to what this existing system is doing -- the system that G$ and Crypto UBI and monetary democracy are trying to change.
I know GoodDollar has a part in its equations that's designed to keep the token price in check, and the parameters seem to be chosen carefully so that G$ can be an actual global currency and progress as such, with an appropriate timespan for success in that scope.
Maybe the fact that it is a long-term process is sufficient to use the sands of time to minimize the attack surface via moral panics by reactionaries. On the other hand, the Bancor curve is (usually?) an exponential, so it seems that at some point it does take off.
The curve has 3 states: 1, flat. 2, middle, 3, end. The end part is never reached, because it is exponential. But there's usually a visible transition from the flat part, which has like a ridiculously low asset price vs. the middle, where the "tension" with the end part develops
Unless I'm missing something, this is going to "happen" at some point. And lots of bitching and noise might happen. We don't want that. We want billionaires to buy the reserve because GoodDollar is the system we need and it's going to solve the entire thing for us.
Another thing that would be great would be the ability in GoodDollar for one to donate their own G$ into a pool that goes into the next UBI payment period.

So if I have 5 million G$ that I bought for $500 I can just donate them to the next G$ distribution cycle.
That is the same as burning G$. The cultural and monetary results are almost the same (99.99%).

Think about it: a healthy monetary system has no rich people. Only rich organizations, funds, institutions, charters, projects, initiatives, mandates. Not people.
The moment a healthy society with a monetary system has a person that has a lot of money, what that person does, being a healthy person in a healthy society, is to just get rid of it.
Personal ownership of money is incredibly stupid. Why do people even need money? Let money be an institutional thing. UBI is a way to push us towards a world where we all have more or less the same amount of money that is sufficient for us to live. As if money wasn't there at all
People walking around with personal money, to me, is like people carrying guns. This is the economic Wild West and all the men have economic guns. What we want to do is to create a world where people *genuinely* don't need to walk around economically armed.

More from Fabiana Cecin 🏴 🌹

Fabiana Cecin \U0001f3f4 \U0001f339
Fabiana Cecin 🏴 🌹...
@fabianacecin
Before I try to solve the GoodReserve vs. GoodStaking problem, which involves math and time and interest, let me solve something easier, which is all of modern politics.

Here's an example. When the pandemic was in the first wave here in Brazil, you could see lots of cultural noise about the fact that rich people were not dying because they got hospital care, whereas poor maids etc. were getting infected by rich people e.g. coming back from Italy.

Then, after a while, this story died. We "know" this now, but nothing happened.

When this sort of thing happens -- lots of noise, followed by normalization -- we are trained to think that that's *OUR* fault as cultural noisemakers.

IF ONLY WE MADE MORE NOISE, we think.

Why do we think that?

We think that because of all the times making noise worked.

Or did it? Did it actually work? Was it actually the noise that "changed" things?

Nope. The noise doesn't change anything.

EVER.

Here's how this works.
POLITICS
Fabiana Cecin \U0001f3f4 \U0001f339
Fabiana Cecin 🏴 🌹...
@fabianacecin
But you see you don't actually understand how lawmaking works there's this set of procedures and dates that BLEAAAARGHHHHHvomitvomit


Neoliberalism is an economic genocidal ideology predicated on maintaining capitalism, and capitalism is the impoverishment, oppression and death of poor people because that's the OBJECTIVE of capitalist ideology. It's a malthusian ideology.

Neoliberals are the original Alt-Right

Capitalism has ZERO todo with "markets vs. no markets," or "central planning vs. decentralization." That's *propaganda*. That's a diversion.

Capitalism is the NAME OF THE ABSENCE of any support for poor people. In capitalism, giving ANY power to poor people is a CRIME.

Capitalism has an *exception* to the strict forbiddance of giving any economic power to the 99%, and that is the concept of "Merit."

If you act as a SLAVE (wage slave), then you can get some crumbs to *temporarily* avoid your death. While you are mechanically useful.

These fucking Neoliberals which are 99% of the Democratic Party in the US are all POSING as nice people. They are not. They are all sociopaths.

This economic fascism is so thoroughly normalized in the US that nobody has a concept of what capitalism is.
LAW
Advertisement
Fabiana Cecin \U0001f3f4 \U0001f339
Fabiana Cecin 🏴 🌹...
@fabianacecin
This is still the dark ages of software development. I don't mean that in the common nonsense sense of "methods," but of perception and of goals.

As a whole, this behaves exactly like a primitive age does: all effort spent solving the same problems over and over again.

A "technology," if it means anything, is something you do that stops you from solving the same problem over and over again. You can spend J energy solving every instance of problem X as it manifests into infinity, or you can spend J energy abolishing X through a "technology."

Capitalism rewards every industry, not only "tech," to never abolish a good X. Instead, it encourages us to create some machinery to sell temporary remedies for getting rid of every instance of X as it crops up everywhere.

If "technology is what matters," then we must change the social system and culture we live in, because that culture is the greatest meta-machine for mass suppression of technology that has ever been invented.

People's instincts, individually and collectively, are always to correctly decide when to erase instances of problem generators, and when to attack the problem generators themselves. The current system and culture eliminate 99%+ of that wisdom. It's massively stupid.
SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
Fabiana Cecin \U0001f3f4 \U0001f339
Fabiana Cecin 🏴 🌹...
@fabianacecin
The US peoples could create an organization that issues a RENT token that is nominally worth 1 USD each of debt as a kind of bond to every homeowner so there is no excuse and you will not be making other people homeless.

The government can do this kind of thing very easily and in fact, every government is doing this, but if your government won't and you have the tech and the social climate to pull this off without being assassinated then you should do it because it would work.

Social debt can be redeemed by anyone, anytime. The origination mechanism of a token tells the story of whether it will be redeemed by society in an entirely volunteer fashion.

If a RENT token exists, you know that it was created by people to avoid other people being evicted. Then you can choose to honor it if (i) you can (iia) you think rent is legitimate or (iib) you think it's strategic to help pretend rent is legitimate (iii) you believe the issuer

Democratic, bottom-up currency creation is a technology that we must hand to people. It must be trivial to create tokens, and we must learn the power of volunteering *towards currencies*. This is an entire social language that's going to emerge.
SOCIETY
Fabiana Cecin \U0001f3f4 \U0001f339
Fabiana Cecin 🏴 🌹...
@fabianacecin
OK let me try math again.

GoodStaking: you invest X, like you would in a savings account. After many years it produces Y interest, of which Y/2 go to the reserve over time, and Y/2 becomes G$ that you own.

No, that's wrong. Jesus.

The entire Y goes into the reserve, and that generates a Z amount of G$.

Z/2 goes to people as UBI.

Z/2 goes to you.

OK, so I wasn't that far off.

If I donate a large amount of money to the reserve, what I am doing is emulating a large Y. I'm taking a ton of money that I *have* (so it would be a "principal" today, a X) and pretending it's like a Y of someone else that will do GoodStaking.

The money that I have is a small X. It will generate a small Y. Instead, I want to take my small X and pretend it's a large Y, which would originate from a large X. That I don't have. Because I'm poor.

So if I want to make the largest possible impact into the UBI reserve, to make a splash, and help it be noticed, I can take the small amount of money I have, the X I have, and pretend it's a Y of staking, and time warp it to the present and use the X to buy G$ from the reserve.
TRADING

More from Trading

Emperor\U0001f451
Emperor👑
@EmperorBTC
CHEAT-SHEET

Multiple Confirmation short.

A Short Entry that we shared in 2020.

Study it point wise.

1. Bearish Candle type and lowering of volume on Price rise.

2. OBV divergence.

3. Accumulation with Bearish candles and Volume increase on Price decrease.

STUDY IT!


Explanation

1. When price increases with a decreasing volume, it's bearish.

2. OBV, On Balance Volume should be correlated with price.
If price increases without similar increase in OBV, it's bearish.

3. During consolidation, if the volume increases during dumps, it's bearish
TRADING
10-K Diver
10-K Diver
@10kdiver
1/

Get a cup of coffee.

In this thread, I'll help you understand Geometric Expectations.


2/

Imagine we have an investment opportunity.

If the investment goes well, we get to double our money.

But if it goes badly, we'll end up losing three fourths of it.

There's a 50/50 chance of either outcome.

The question: is this a good bet or not?

3/

A simple way to approach this question is to calculate the bet's "expectation".

For every $1 we bet, there are 2 possibilities:

1. The lucky case, where we double our money and end up with $2, and

2. The unlucky case, where we lose (3/4)'th to end up with just $0.25.

4/

Each of these outcomes is equally likely.

So, on *average*, every $1 we put in turns into ($2 + $0.25)/2 = $1.125.

This is a *positive* 12.5% return.

Such bets are called *positive expectation* bets. On average, we expect to *make* (rather than *lose*) money on them.

5/

Suppose we could take many turns betting at these odds.

In any one turn, we could of course lose money.

But because our bet has positive expectation, *over time* we expect to make money.
TRADING
Advertisement
Sarang Sood
Sarang Sood
@SarangSood
FINDING EDGE IN OPTIONS

24/08/15: Nifty gap down 250 points & another 250 after that. Previous few months return gone, but since I'm quick to take my losses, was saved from ruin. Before that my only edge in option selling was adjustments & my forever edge of following PA. (1/n)

I soon realised that theta decay with sound adjustments is not an edge, which i earlier thought was & which gave me good returns over the years. After that i went deeper in understanding volatility behaviour, how/where it manifests & all the discrepancies in option chain. (2/n)

With finding edge in logistics i mean how to keep the greeks in check, SL in place & optimum ways of adjustments with minimum slippages. So the main aim here is to write theta without following vol behaviour & having any actual knowledge of what's going on in the markets. (3/n)

A dedicated trader can learn all this in few years & it is something which is 'obvious' to become successful. But majority can't reach this level, as this also requires consistent hustle in live markets. All the seminar/webinar business teaches you till this level only.(4/n)

If you get passed this level though, the real work starts, when you have to find your real edge. This can't be taught in a webinar. It needs serious introspection of your trading skills, psychology & strategies in use, which ultimately allow you to book excellent profits. (5/n)
TRADING
Shravan Venkataraman \U0001f525\U0001f680\U0001f4b0
Shravan Venkataraman 🔥...
@theBuoyantMan
Working on some execution optimisation related backtesting. I have so far been executing with market orders only. Going towards higher lot sizes, I'd like to optimise for minimal slippage.

First off, on NSE, if you place a market order, you get filled at the best bid/ask right?

If we want to optimise this, the first non-creative idea one can think of is, slicing the order into different lot sizes, and placing a limit order for each slice at the mid point of current best bid & ask.

But this requires your latency to be the least.

Why would latency affect it?

I looked at tick historical data, and there are more than 18-20 ticks in a second (auction and quote combined).

Even if you keep 10 ticks per second, your best bid/ask can shift from the time you place to the time exchange receives the order.

So, the next best thing that people can do is place tranches of orders every 1s, 3s, 5s, 10s, 15s - in their preferred time range, and get filled at the midpoint or best-bid+1/2/3/4/5 in the depth.

What you need is liquidity.

But if you're trading breakouts, then it's highly likely that your limit orders may not get filled if the action is too fast.

So, a retry mechanism is required in such cases.

If nothing works, you convert your orders to marketable and get filled at worse slippage.
TRADING
Kirtan A Shah
Kirtan A Shah
@KirtanShahCFP
Learn about the STEEL SECTOR in this thread

The demand for steel is generally only 1.2 times the GDP & there is no significant growth in our GDP but still the sector has rallied relentlessly, lets try & understand

Do ‘re-tweet’ & help us educate more investors (1/22)
#Investing

The metal sector is broadly divided into 2,
-Ferrous is a category of metal that has Iron in it, Steel as an example
-Non-Ferrous is a metal, which does not have Iron content, Aluminum, copper, lead, nickel, Zinc etc.
This thread focuses on Ferrous & hence Steel (2/22)

To start, lets understand with how steel is made (its important).
Iron ore is mined, it is then first converted to Iron & Iron is then converted to Steel. There are 3 processes of making steel
-Blast Furnace
-Scrap Metal
-DRIP/Sponge
We will discuss all three (3/22)
ALL , SECTORLEARNINGS , STEELSECTOR

You May Also Like

FT Trading\u2503Stock Trader
FT Trading┃Stock Trade...
@FT__Trading
Ever wonder how traders get in stocks before they explode? 🧐

Or find options that move 1,000% in a single day/week?🤯

I made a thread going over exactly how I find these stocks BEFORE they take off 🚀
👇👇👇

So, let's start with the software I use…

Finviz!! Finviz is a free website that I use to scan for stocks.

They have a lot of other cool features as well, but I only use their scanner.
👇

Head on over to finviz and go to the screener

Click on the “All” tab on the top and put in the criteria in the next tweet
👇

This is the first scan that I use for bullish swing setups
✅Quarter +10%
✅Week Down
✅Vol over 400k
✅Optionable
✅Price > $20
👇


The next scan I use is the opposite of the first one.

Simply change:
✅Quarter +10% to -10%
✅Week Down to Week up

This is my bearish scan for swing setups. 👇
TRADINGTHREAD , OPTIONS
EverythingOppresses
EverythingOppresses
@SoOppressed
The first area to focus on is diversity. This has become a dogma in the tech world, and despite the fact that tech is one of the most meritocratic industries in the world, there are constant efforts to promote diversity at the expense of fairness, merit and competency. Examples:

USC's Interactive Media & Games Division cancels all-star panel that included top-tier game developers who were invited to share their experiences with students. Why? Because there were no women on the

ElectronConf is a conf which chooses presenters based on blind auditions; the identity, gender, and race of the speaker is not known to the selection team. The results of that merit-based approach was an all-male panel. So they cancelled the conference.

Apple's head of diversity (a black woman) got in trouble for promoting a vision of diversity that is at odds with contemporary progressive dogma. (She left the company shortly after this

Also in the name of diversity, there is unabashed discrimination against men (especially white men) in tech, in both hiring policies and in other arenas. One such example is this, a developer workshop that specifically excluded men: https://t.co/N0SkH4hR35
TECH
Advertisement
Alex Oluwatobi
Alex Oluwatobi
@alexlobaloba
According to psychologists, there are four types of intelligence:

- Intelligence Quotient (IQ)
- Emotional Quotient (EQ)
- Social Quotient (SQ)
- Adversity Quotient (AQ)

1. IQ is the measure of one's ability to comprehend, solve maths; memorize things & recall subject matters.

2. EQ is the measure of your ability to maintain peace with others; keep to time; be responsible; be honest; respect boundaries; be humble, genuine, and considerate.

3. SQ is the measure of one's ability to build a network of friends & maintain it over a long period of time.

4. AQ is the measure of your ability to go through a rough patch in life and come out without losing your mind. It is a new paradigm and can be used to determine who will give up in face of troubles and may abandon their families.

Now to the very interesting & analytical part👇

People that have higher EQ & SQ tend to go further in life than those with high IQ but low EQ &SQ.

Most schools capitalize on improving IQ level while EQ & SQ are played down.

A man of high IQ can end up being employed by a man of high EQ & SQ even though he has an average IQ.

Your EQ represents your character; your SQ represents your charisma. Give in to habits that will improve these three Qs but more especially your EQ and SQ.

EQ and SQ make one manage better than the other.

Try not only to have a higher IQ but also to have higher EQ and SQ.
ALL
Abigail See
Abigail See
@abigail_e_see
Can we control the output of neural generation systems?
Can we build a better chatbot using this control?
And what makes a good conversation anyway?

Check out the blog post for our NAACL paper:

https://t.co/UAAUxSeA0L

#AI #NLProc #DeepLearning #ConversationalAI @facebookai

This post got a little delayed since the paper's publication, but the intervening time has given me an opportunity to reflect.

So this post has some extra thoughts regarding more recent NLG developments - e.g., pretrained models like GPT(2), and the suitability of beam search.
ALL
ArmaniTalks \U0001f399\U0001f525
ArmaniTalks 🎙🔥...
@ArmaniTalks
A relationship begins to get stiff when excessive patterns begin to form.

Too many patterns leads to a boring, predictable, logical lifestyle.

Get the emotions involved.

Do something spontaneous out of the blue moon & flip the script.

'What's wrong with the patterns?'

Nothing is wrong with patterns.

However, there is a problem when all you have are patterns.

It's boring.

'Can you explain why?'

Sure 👇

The thing with relationships is that it's meant to be an emotional experience.

It's very difficult to logically explain love, right?

'Right.'

Well this is where you want to steer the ship the right way.

1. Too emotional is bad.

2. Too logical is bad.

Let me break it down.

1. Too emotional

If a relationship is completely ruled by emotions, then it's too volatile.

You will never reach productivity if you are aimlessly only following each others emotions.

This lifestyle tarnishes any structure for the couple.

'So why do people do it?'

Because it's fun.

You may ruled by this stage in the honeymoon phase.

Normal.

You'll be so spontaneous that it almost becomes a lifestyle.

But it's hard to level up your life when you're too spontaneous.

Avoid.
LIFE


Category Partner: Enkryptopedia