Wrestleknownothing

I read Levine every day. Yes, it is the same mechanism that many, many, many tokens (almost all) use. As I said (and as Levine says in the article), it is a bet on the company/project. And some times that is a bad bet. But worst of all is that in FTXs case depositors probably thought they had precedence in liquidation (like with a bank), but in the crypto world equity investors always put their claims in front of creditors. I have little sympathy for people who invest in things they don't understand until they learn the lesson the hard way.

Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Matt Levine.

For Rokfin RAE works very much like shares of stock. In that way it has a different reward profile than cash. In addition to creators getting paid in RAE, others can buy the currency as a bet on the success of Rokfin. Rokfin even has a form of stock buyback (burning) designed to increase the value of the currency. This is, I think, different from what Willie is talking about with regard to Rokfin's revenue sharing model that gives greater control and agency to creators.

Happy to help.

I have a hard time believing that revenue sport leaders would back a proposal like this, so this would mean it would need to be a non-revenue sport proposal. While there have been examples in the past where some revenue sports have had different eligibility rules than other sports, I do not think now is the time the NCAA is interested in limiting athletes' opportunities given its recent loses in the court room. Beyond that, I don't really see the problem that needs solving. I understand the 4 wrestlers getting 5 years of money vs 5 wrestlers getting 4 years of money argument. But I guess it starts with me not caring that some wrestlers took 6 or 7 years to compete 4 times.

Matt Levine is the absolute best. He quoted me once. I can die a happy man.

I have the 10/27 and 11/8 rankings, or ratings, or rankings, or whatever. Is there a specific question?

This man knows his sh*t

That is a heavy hand.

Speaking of which, Brooklyn Dodger has been mute (and doesn't even appear when I @ him). What did you do @Husker_Du?

Your Target gift card is not currency. It is like a deposit at a bank minus the FDIC insurance and any interest payments. And instead of withdrawing the cash that was deposited, you can withdraw goods. You also have credit exposure to Target. If they go bankrupt, you become an unsecured creditor.

I took your advice and just bought a Four Roses Small Batch Select. I used dollars.

Not always. The SEC has been clear that they do not consider bitcoin or ethereum to be securities.

A more complete statement is that no currency has intrinsic value. A currency is a collective fiction, but it works to the extent that it is a useful fiction. A dollar bill is worth a certain amount of a good or service because we all agree it is worth that. Our agreement is based on trust in a central body and its institutions. When the trust breaks down, the currency breaks down. See Venezuela, or any country that is losing a war. The point of a crypto currency is that it does not rely on the trusted central body. It is still a collective fiction, but it does not require trust to work. And the idea that a government could shut it down is not completely accurate. It is difficult to shut down crypto locally, but nearly impossible to do so globally. And there is certainly an argument for them if you are in any jurisdiction that is subject to US sanctions. US sanctions are so effective because the dollar is the world's reserve currency. Losing access to the US banking and money transfer system can be devastating as a result. Unless there is an alternative.

Thanks. Not on Twitter myself, so wasn't sure. As for bitcoin and ethereum, I do think a case can be made that they are unique within the crypto space and not necessarily fantasy, nor strictly neccesary, but absolutely interesting. At least to my way of thinking.

Is he a crypto enthusiast broadly or a bitcoin enthusiast narrowly?

If I was running a casino I would definitely adjust the line lower at this point as more "money" has come in on Beard than Dean. I chose -2.5 initially because we have the presumption of a wrestleoff having occured, plus the rumor of a 1 point Dean win in the presumed wrestleoff. Then add in a Dean NC and you have to go higher. One guy won and one guy didn't. That has to count for something. And you can minimize the win by talking about favorable calls, but you cannot eliminate the win. Sure, we have the example of Cassar who didn't win the 197 spot against Rasheed, but then followed it up with a NC that included two wins against a generational talent to suggest that Beard can do the same. But until it happens, it hasn't happened. Anyway, that was my reasoning for -2.5. But as I say, if I was running a casino I would drop that to -2 or maybe -1.5 based on current betting.

Too late...

Dean pins Lehigh's Morrison. I think Beard ducked him.

That sounds to me like the initial estimated economics from the platform did not work as well as hoped (it happens with projections), so individual channels requested the PPV option?

And sometimes it shouts from the mountain top.

You are correct. Lehigh in 3 weeks, Lock Haven tonight. Doh.

The rematch of the rumored wrestle off (supposedly Dean by 1) happens tonight in three weeks. If I set the spread at Dean - 2.5, who ya got?