| ▲ | Aurornis 13 hours ago |
| YC, like most incubators, has always encouraged their companies to use products and services from other companies in their portfolio. The simplest explanation is that this is a mostly symbolic move: They want to show that the stable coin and crypto companies they invest in are actually trusted by YC. It starts to look hypocritical if an investor is funding crypto companies and praising them as important breakthroughs, but not actually using them where it’s important. |
|
| ▲ | latexr 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > YC, like most incubators, has always encouraged their companies to use products and services from other companies in their portfolio. Advising unproven risky businesses to depend on other unproven risky businesses? Doesn’t that just increase the likelihood that something goes wrong? |
| |
| ▲ | Aurornis 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > Advising unproven risky businesses to depend on other unproven risky businesses? Read carefully: They’re not actually advising that startups prefer it. They’re allowing it as an option. It doesn’t mean that it will actually be used. They just don’t want to appear like they’re avoiding the companies they’re funding. It’s a bad look. | |
| ▲ | Nevermark an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Would you consider it risky for a startup to use its own product? I would consider that a risk decreaser, because the loop creates a stronger fit signal. Even more powerful, since across a cohort the encouragement is N-way, or really N^2-way, it actually lowers risk on average the more startups act as each others’ early customers. And co-adopters benefit from getting unusually responsive suppliers with a strong indirect stake in mutual success. Encourage isnt a requirement. Adopt only if it makes sense. | |
| ▲ | jazzyjackson 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Does anyone remember being voluntold to use Skiff for email and calendar, instead of a product that actually handles timezones in event invites? I'm convinced the point of YC must be something other than launching successful businesses | | |
| ▲ | bombcar 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean it’s obvious that successful businesses are only a side effect of what the point is - a successful exit. And if one big success can be strongarmed to help other ventures exit successfully, they’ll do it. Why wouldn’t they? |
| |
| ▲ | remus 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | From the POV of YC, they don't mind too much if it is a bit risky for any given individual company if it increases the legitimacy and stability of their portfolio as a whole. | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The already 99.9% likelihood? |
|
|
| ▲ | onion2k 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| YC, like most incubators, has always encouraged their companies to use products and services from other companies in their portfolio. Are you saying founders don't mount an FTP account using curlftpfs and access it using SVN? |
|
| ▲ | 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | 7e 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But what advantages do stablecoins have? |
| |
| ▲ | luke5441 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Seigniorage accrues to private entities instead of the state, enriching the owners of those private entities rather than everyone in the state that issues the currency. | |
| ▲ | toomim 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Faster and cheaper transactions that don't get locked up by the whims of a bureaucracy. They continue to operate on non-business days. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s also a downside: When your funds can be transferred away by anyone who happens to acquire the key without triggering any fraud prevention or additional verification checks, losing your entire bank account at 4AM Sunday morning becomes much easier. | | |
| ▲ | tucnak 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is why people who happen to own significant amount of crypto typically get hardware wallets | | |
| ▲ | mschild 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That would make it a single point of failure, no? Not a good idea if your company is riding on it. | | |
| ▲ | tucnak 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | multisig exists | | |
| ▲ | dsr_ 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Cryptocurrency recapitulates the history of the modern banking system, and illustrates the necessity of regulation on a daily basis. |
|
| |
| ▲ | aurareturn 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, let's go back to hiding cash and gold under our beds. Maybe buy a machine gun so you can defend it from home intruders. | | |
| ▲ | RobotToaster 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Yes, let's go back to hiding [...] gold under our beds The people that did exactly that never had to worry about (hyper)inflation... | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The currency is never the only asset or unit of trade in an economy. As long as value and wealth were being created somewhere, inflation can exist. Gold is interesting because more of it was being mined and produced all the time. There wasn’t even a finite amount of gold. Thinking that a gold standard means no inflation (or in practical terms, deflation as the population grows) is a modern fantasy. | |
| ▲ | compass_copium an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In addition to the security issues, they would have to deal with non-negligible transaction costs every time they wanted to convert it to actual money so that they could purchase something. If they were using it as an investment, they had to deal with the opportunity cost of underperforming $SPY. | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | pjerem 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Still, they have to worry about them and their family not being kidnapped. Oh but hey, checkmate, burglar who is threatening to cut my daughter’s finger, my wallet is multisig ! |
|
| |
| ▲ | learingsci 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Doesn’t that mean a home invader can break in, torture you a bit and walk off with your millions? | | |
| ▲ | duttish 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think there was a rash of this kind of this kind of wrench cryptocurrency robberies in the Netherlands a few years ago. Break in, bash owner about with a wrench, get coins. <Insert xkcd> | | |
| ▲ | aurareturn 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yep, the meme in crypto community is that you can have all the digital security possible but it'll lose to the $5 wrench attack. | |
| ▲ | fragmede 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | xkcd 538, that is |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | koakuma-chan 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | ludston 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I bet you can. And I bet that raising the limit takes you a few minutes at most. Or you need a better bank. | | | |
| ▲ | victorbjorklund 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why do you have a bank? Don’t you use crypto for all your needs? Or does crypto fail you in that? | | | |
| ▲ | SecretDreams 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If your bank doesn't want to raise the limits, there's probably good reasons behind that. | | |
| ▲ | koakuma-chan 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, there's not. There are rarely good reasons behind what banks do because these are organizations that are run by mediocre people who are not incentivized to not suck. They don't care at all about anything. This "fraud prevention" thing only gets in my way and doesn't prevent the less sophisticated people from sending their money to India. | | | |
| ▲ | selcuka 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If your bank doesn't want to raise the limits, there's probably good reasons behind that. Why would their having reasons make me feel better when my payments don't go through? We complain when Apple plays nanny and makes their product a walled garden. How is a bank different? They should be doing their job without causing inconvenience for me. |
| |
| ▲ | pertymcpert 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Unnecessary rudeness. | | |
| ▲ | koakuma-chan 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Strong language used for emphasis. I apologize if anyone was offended. | | |
| ▲ | vasco 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's also a lie, you can pay for many things without raising limits. | | |
| ▲ | koakuma-chan 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why does the bank decide what I can pay for? That's bullshit. | | |
| ▲ | mschild 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What limit are we talking about though? Credit or debit? Debit I'd agree would suck because it is your money. Credit cards on the kther hand is you lending mkney from the bank. | | | |
| ▲ | nananana9 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because you put your money there and agreed to their rules. | |
| ▲ | cess11 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It typically doesn't, it just implements compliance with laws and regulations in your jurisdiction. Withdrawal and transaction limits are commonly such a thing, politicians get hounded because some people were frauded out of their monies and they feel a need to show that they're doing something about it. Banking is very international, you can put your money in some other jurisdiction if you'd like to. Many transnational banks are connected to the usual payment providers, you can probably figure something out if you put your mind to it. One way to do it is to start a company, business accounts at banks generally have different limits and then you pay a lawyer or bean counter to clear how to do the books and pay appropriate taxes. | | |
| ▲ | koakuma-chan 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I can only really use Canadian banks because that's what Interac, Canadian system for sending money by email works with. The bank does decide what I can pay for because it limits the amount of money I can spend via Apple Pay (like $500), and in general (like $1000). You need to bring your physical card and call them to temporarily increase the limit to buy anything expensive. | | |
| ▲ | cess11 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Web searching a bit seems to say that e.g. tourists can use their foreign issued cards and typically carry their issuers' limits with them, unless the merchant has their own limits for some reason. Putting stricter limits on intermediate devices like pocket computers doesn't seem very tyrannical to me. Interac's web site says the typical default limit would be 2-3000 CAD, i.e. 12-1800 euros or so, unless you have a small business account, then it's more like 25000 CAD. If you often find yourself spending thousands of CAD on a whim, perhaps it would be a good idea to open accounts with a bank that is tailored to people with a lot of money. I'm sure there are some available in Canada. | |
| ▲ | ludston 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah all of that sounds way more convenient than your grandma irrecoverably losing her life savings because somebody kid fished her for her crypto authentication. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Ekaros 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is there some magic in redeeming them? And by redeeming I mean going to issuer and getting the face value in seconds? | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can redeem stablecoins in blocks of a million if you are a registered bank. This is the only way to redeem them. Otherwise you can only trade them. |
| |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | At the end of the day, for better or worse, the US dollar is backed by the US military. Virtual coins are backed by the greater fool. What a strange toss-up. | | |
| ▲ | 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | anukin 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Usdc is backed by US dollar denominated treasuries for most major issuers. | | |
| ▲ | bandrami 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's broadly agreed that hasn't been the case for a while now, but that at the moment it's better for everybody if we pretend it still is | |
| ▲ | Hamuko 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is there actually any proof of this or is it Tether-tier magic money? |
| |
| ▲ | Onavo 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But the stable coins are also backed by the US military. All major USD stablecoins have sanctions mechanisms baked into their smart contract. See for yourself the blacklist features https://github.com/circlefin/stablecoin-evm/tree/master/scri... | |
| ▲ | zx8080 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > US dollar is backed by the US military. No, it's not. It's not possible to come to the US soldiers with a bunch of US dollars and some demands and get what's demanded in return for the dollars. Only trust of the other market participants backs the US dollar. | | |
| ▲ | direwolf20 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's the other way around. If you don't trade in dollars, the military comes and demands that you do. | | |
| ▲ | RealityVoid 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is the peso backed by the Mexican government? Because I'm afraid of all these militaries coming and knocking down my door to use their money. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | baxtr 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don’t think that matters. It’s a sign of commitment to something they’ve invested in as OPs says. |
|
|
| ▲ | csmpltn 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Like a pyramid scheme? |
