brypto

shl0ms.twitter shl0ms.telegram shl0ms.com/bio /moonbeam

𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪                          
𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪 
𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪
𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪𒐪                          


Bad take. It’s good to be default skeptical of most things in this industry including pseudo/anons

But as @jake laid out in his thread, time and values demonstrated are proxies (pun intended) for trust

This is the same flawed rationale that panopticons use to argue that cash is bad and default money surveillance is good

friendly neighborhood shitcaster / building @pinetree

musician: gigameshmusic.com | dev: github.com/gigamesh

Appreciate the clarification, but it unnecessarily singles out identity as the main vector of risk

The biggest charlatans so far have been fully doxxed (eg. SBF, Do Kwon) -- both burned their mains for profit

We ought to be default skeptical of all actors, including anons. Doxxed actors just get to parlay trust from prior time and values demonstrated. Anons can do the same

Default skeptical is what I meant.

Call me crazy but seems pretty self evident that someone who is anon should be treated with more skepticism than someone who isn’t.

Not everyone feels comfortable doxing to potentially tens or 100s of thousands of people.

a lot of weirdos out there in this world.

brother, being anonymous is the origin of the internet.

you have forsaken your forefathers & cast stones upon your kin.

Everything reminds me of him🥲 (Proxies). Make it stop

I’ll one-up everyone in this thread. Be deliberate about eliminating or at least minimizing each and every trust assumption. That’s what crypto is deeply about when you strip away all the fluff. Anonymity should be downstream of trustlessness