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

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.

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

Same with cash

But there's a reason we want to preserve it -- because the cost to liberty of criminalizing anonymous payments or identity is far too great to bear

I think our world view is a bit warped by how strongly bound identity has become in the past ~75 years. Prior to this era, humans could take on new lives just by moving a few hundred km or miles

agree with both of you, just pointing out the obvious: anonymity makes accountability harder by design, so it's fair to be a bit more skeptic