1. Sounds like exactly when early investors and insiders would want to cash in and when retail investors who “have heard of the company and like the product” will buy without a lot of financial analysis.
2. A 300bn IPO can mean actually raising n 300bn by selling 100% of the company. But it could also mean seeing 1% for 3bn right? Which seems like a trivial amount for the market to absorb no?
I have a tradfi background but work in crypto with trading software.
The whole industry (except deribit) is a shit show of barely working apis that aren’t reliable or accurate in any way. It’s completely routine to not be able to get an order status for minutes at a time. Or to get fills after an order has been rejected. Or a week after a cancel confirmation message.
Coinbase is actually one of the worst offenders for this. Coinbase Prime, their supposed institutional grade offering especially so.
So it doesn’t surprise me at all that the same issues are happening more widely.
To be clear: deribit have always been efficient, accurate, reliable and generally excellent. If you must trade crypto, do it there so you’re Ops and Support people don’t have to suffer.
The most annoying thing about pieces like this is how easy it would be to actually test the hypothesis. They could just give people choline (double blind placebo including some participants who are not anxious). And test the effect on both choline levels and anxiety.
It’s also ready sold OTC.
Instead people just sit around and do meta studies on meta studies on correlation and publishing whatever statistical anomalies they can find.
I can understand why this may seem simple, but when it comes to the brain almost nothing is simple.
Choline a key component in Acetylcholine is the primary neurotransmitter used in your hippocampus. Its an excitatory neurotransmitter meaning it turns neurons on. The hippocampus is a massive parallel feedback circuit that when over stimulated can and will begin to seize. In fact many people who suffer from seizures have over active hippocampal circuitry. Simply "flooding" the brain with more choline could have very very bad effects.
Likewise, taking choline might not work as the brain actively controls and regulates the contents of the cerebral spinal fluid. Unlike the rest of your body, the capillaries in the brain are not leaky, but instead are enshrouded in the blood-brain barrier and there are active transport proteins for anything that isn't lipid soluble.
Choline is actively transported into the brain and the brain has additional internal mechanisms to regulate the levels of choline.
Lastly, neurotransmitters aren't just floating around in the soup of your brain. They are released by specific neurons which are integrated into specific circuits. Parkinson's disease is a perfect example here. There is tiny region of the brain involved in regulating voluntary movements that is rich in dopamine neurons. For Parkinson's these neurons die off while the rest of the brain remains relatively strong. Simply putting dopamine into the brain doesn't fix the issue you need to up the dopamine released by these specific neurons.
The treatment here is l-dopa which is a precursor to dopamine which does this, but once those neurons are gone they're gone and there is little we can do to stop the disease.
So if this works for l-dopa why won't it work for choline? My guess is because of the tight regulation the brain has around choline levels as its needed to prevent the hippocampus from seizing up.
Trials are really different skill set compared to the scanning for these chemicals or in this case meta studying. Trials involve large numbers of people you have determined do and do not have the condition you are trying to treat and then having your treatment and having some way to measure if the treatment is impacting the thing you expect it to (brain choline levels) and whether that impacts the symptoms (anxiety).
Trials cost millions and in this case would require a number of different expertise, meta studies on the other hand is just reading and statistical analysis with knowledge of the biases of papers and assessing them critically and they don't cost millions.
This is how research works. Someone, somewhere, someday will see this study and do just that. Or it could be the next step for the researchers at UC Davis who published this.
Anecdotal, but I've had life long issues with anxiety. First time hearing about choline, but about a year ago I started taking omega 3 capsules on a whim, and its been a game changer. Eating salmon as they suggest has a similar positive effect. YMMV.
Broadly speaking if the data is on someone else’s computer, it’s in their “house” for the purpose of the search.
Cracking open your phone might require a warrant. But basically every byte of data on it has come from your ISP and is backed up to Apple\Google etc. and those companies will let me search their computers for your data no questions asked (or for a nominal fee).
That’s how you sidestep the 4th amendment when it comes to tech in the modern age.
Unpopular opinion: the case against him/binance was always that as a non us citizen, outside the us, he failed to obey US law and in a paperwork and licensing sense not a violent or otherwise serious manner.
I don’t like trump. But “CZ” basically paid a ransom to let Binance come in from the cold. Why shouldn’t he pay another to get a clean slate and maybe go back to being CEO?
I never understand why people don’t pay more attention to “n” in these cases: number of other players.
If there are 2 suppliers in a market, they will collude without algos or private meetings: I can be pretty sure you will not cut your price if I don’t cut mine. The issue there is that there are only 2 suppliers, so trust is very easy.
If there are 100 other suppliers, I know ONE of them will cut their price. So I best cut mine first.
What I am trying to say here is that, algos or not, n is the major driver here imho.
That’s kind of interesting since the US has been very relaxed about falling values of n as long as prices seem ok.
The first trillionaire will be whoever owns the patent on mass producing graphene with controlled properties. I worked on that back in 2006. As far as I can tell no progress has been made.
Gamblers anonymous should offer a service where if you are struggling with betting addiction you give them your account and they sell it to a “sharp” who profits until you are banned.
Functionally more like parimutuel bets, then? I don’t gamble (on sports or anything else), so I haven’t paid these much attention (though the nonstop betting ads have made watching pro sports much less pleasant).
It's a bit of a conspiracy, but ultimately there is more money in sports betting than in the sport itself, and thus eventually the money will win and sports will just be a mechanism for gambling. The leagues will ultimately be controlled by those who run the gambling and have more money and power than the league itself.
One of the underappreciated concepts behind vice laws is that they function to prevent large-scale coopting of entire industries this way. In theory, at least.
2. A 300bn IPO can mean actually raising n 300bn by selling 100% of the company. But it could also mean seeing 1% for 3bn right? Which seems like a trivial amount for the market to absorb no?
reply