DoomPosting
If you bet $100 on a bet for which you knew you truly had 1% chance or winning, and then you lost, was that a good bet?
Remember counterfactual reasoning?
Remember how a HUGE portion of the people cannot comprehend counterfactuals at all?
— “How would you feel if you did not have breakfast this morning?”
“But I did have breakfast this morning?”
— “Bro do you realize playing Russian Roulette to win $100 was a horribly bad bet?”
“But I did win $100?”
— “Bro a rich dude betting $100 to win $1M at 1% odds was a great bet”
“But he lost $100”
= All failure to be able to comprehend counterfactuals,
i.e. reasoning about returns over possibly-infinite parallel worlds, in a sufficiently-accurate world model
If your answer was “outcome” as being what makes a “good bet” in these toy questions
— Then sorry you are the niqqa here
“But I did have breakfast this morning?” <- You rn
Counterfactual thinking — what separates the primitive from the advanced, yet a seemingly totally insurmountable obstacle to 95%+ of people
This, even if we do show all the math in the world, most will never really get this, and still refuse to believe
Incomprehensible parallel worlds of counterfactualism
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Remember how a HUGE portion of the people cannot comprehend counterfactuals at all?
— “How would you feel if you did not have breakfast this morning?”
“But I did have breakfast this morning?”
— “Bro do you realize playing Russian Roulette to win $100 was a horribly bad bet?”
“But I did win $100?”
— “Bro a rich dude betting $100 to win $1M at 1% odds was a great bet”
“But he lost $100”
= All failure to be able to comprehend counterfactuals,
i.e. reasoning about returns over possibly-infinite parallel worlds, in a sufficiently-accurate world model
If your answer was “outcome” as being what makes a “good bet” in these toy questions
— Then sorry you are the niqqa here
“But I did have breakfast this morning?” <- You rn
Counterfactual thinking — what separates the primitive from the advanced, yet a seemingly totally insurmountable obstacle to 95%+ of people
This, even if we do show all the math in the world, most will never really get this, and still refuse to believe
Incomprehensible parallel worlds of counterfactualism
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🔥4💯3❤🔥2
DoomPosting
If you bet $100 on a bet for which you knew you truly had 1% chance or winning, and then you lost, was that a good bet?
In short,
(1) Yes, spending $100 for a true 1% chance to win $1M, and losing — was a GOOD bet, regardless of whether you won or lost
(2) Yes, winning $100 for playing a round of Russian Roulette — likely BAD bet, regardless of whether you won or lost
Toy example math, with the strong assumptions of these toy examples, works out to roughly the probability-weighted average of the gains minus the costs, i.e.
(1) ($1M * 1% + $0 * 99%) / 1 - $100 = $100k - $100 = buying a bet worth $99,900 for $100 = positive net value = a GREAT deal
(2) ($100 * 7/8 + $0 * 1/8) / 1 - value your life = hugely negative, if your life is worth more than $100 = positive net value = a TERRIBLE deal
What about outcome?
Notice how realized OUTCOME of bets is NOT EVEN IN these equations for determining whether a bet is a good bet,
Outcome is irrelevant — at least for the question of whether the bet was a good bet, under these toy assumptions
What about probabilities?
Probabilities are NEVER what you ultimately use to decide if something is a good bet — VALUE is, with probability just being one of many possible discounting factors on the ultimate value.
Ofc this should be obvious from the English itself
“good bet” = question of “goodness” = all questions of goodness are ALWAYS questions of VALUE, (not truth, or probability, or anything else other than value)
= “good bet” was always a “value” question, literally, expressed in some units of value
Now ofc there are other considerations when going beyond these toy models — and for these the math quickly becomes far less accessible than simple arithmetic
E.g.
— Non-infinite budget means bet sizing should be based on your current budget, and payoff odds, among other things, e.g. via kelly discounting or something better
— “Probabilities”, that are not actually probabilities but rather things under the control of the counterparty typically must be be assessed at the worst-case value, instead of anything like the average case
— Limited or imperfect observations about the true odds or true world model means you’ll be taking a lower bound at some alpha percentile, to account for exploration vs exploitation tradeoff of needing to take on some non-zero risk to make non-vacuous actions in light of imperfect information
— False discovery rate mitigation, again for cases where odds you’re observing are not true odds, and needing to counterfactually control for this as best possible
— And typically you want to elimiate the need for reasoning about probabilities entirely, or as much as possible, via proofs & hedging liabilities, establishing trustworthiness while eliminating the element of chance
— And you may be creating estimated world models on-the-fly, based on observed outcomes… yet that does not change whether something truely is a good bet, since true goodness of a bet is based on true counterfactual worlds, not based on your faulty estimates of what results in those parallel scenarios would be
Tbh, the rabit hole of handling the non-toy scenarios and eliminating false assumptions can go super-deep
BUT,
The top-level principles remain the same
= Whether something is a “good bet” is ultimately a question of value, a question of discounted returns over parallel counterfactual worlds, not ultimately a question of what happened in this reality, not ultimately a question of probability — and it is a simple question that 95% are totally incapable of ever understanding, but nonetheless, this is the reality
Eppur si muove
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
(1) Yes, spending $100 for a true 1% chance to win $1M, and losing — was a GOOD bet, regardless of whether you won or lost
(2) Yes, winning $100 for playing a round of Russian Roulette — likely BAD bet, regardless of whether you won or lost
Toy example math, with the strong assumptions of these toy examples, works out to roughly the probability-weighted average of the gains minus the costs, i.e.
(1) ($1M * 1% + $0 * 99%) / 1 - $100 = $100k - $100 = buying a bet worth $99,900 for $100 = positive net value = a GREAT deal
(2) ($100 * 7/8 + $0 * 1/8) / 1 - value your life = hugely negative, if your life is worth more than $100 = positive net value = a TERRIBLE deal
What about outcome?
Notice how realized OUTCOME of bets is NOT EVEN IN these equations for determining whether a bet is a good bet,
Outcome is irrelevant — at least for the question of whether the bet was a good bet, under these toy assumptions
What about probabilities?
Probabilities are NEVER what you ultimately use to decide if something is a good bet — VALUE is, with probability just being one of many possible discounting factors on the ultimate value.
Ofc this should be obvious from the English itself
“good bet” = question of “goodness” = all questions of goodness are ALWAYS questions of VALUE, (not truth, or probability, or anything else other than value)
= “good bet” was always a “value” question, literally, expressed in some units of value
Now ofc there are other considerations when going beyond these toy models — and for these the math quickly becomes far less accessible than simple arithmetic
E.g.
— Non-infinite budget means bet sizing should be based on your current budget, and payoff odds, among other things, e.g. via kelly discounting or something better
— “Probabilities”, that are not actually probabilities but rather things under the control of the counterparty typically must be be assessed at the worst-case value, instead of anything like the average case
— Limited or imperfect observations about the true odds or true world model means you’ll be taking a lower bound at some alpha percentile, to account for exploration vs exploitation tradeoff of needing to take on some non-zero risk to make non-vacuous actions in light of imperfect information
— False discovery rate mitigation, again for cases where odds you’re observing are not true odds, and needing to counterfactually control for this as best possible
— And typically you want to elimiate the need for reasoning about probabilities entirely, or as much as possible, via proofs & hedging liabilities, establishing trustworthiness while eliminating the element of chance
— And you may be creating estimated world models on-the-fly, based on observed outcomes… yet that does not change whether something truely is a good bet, since true goodness of a bet is based on true counterfactual worlds, not based on your faulty estimates of what results in those parallel scenarios would be
Tbh, the rabit hole of handling the non-toy scenarios and eliminating false assumptions can go super-deep
BUT,
The top-level principles remain the same
= Whether something is a “good bet” is ultimately a question of value, a question of discounted returns over parallel counterfactual worlds, not ultimately a question of what happened in this reality, not ultimately a question of probability — and it is a simple question that 95% are totally incapable of ever understanding, but nonetheless, this is the reality
Eppur si muove
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🔥2💯2
DoomPosting
Is the Hayden Davis “we’re here to max extract” draining of memecoins true “capitalism” by any good, concrete definition?
Now, to the question we started all of this to answer,
— Is the Hayden Davis’ “we’re here to max extract” draining of memecoins true “capitalism” by any good, concrete definition?
For this, I’d cite one of the most classic central rules of so-called capitalism:
“The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit”
I.e.
“No exchange takes place unless its truly a good bet for both sides, given all information both sides have”
— Notice we’re using the “good bet” definition, which does NOT mean whether that particular bet went well in reality, but rather whether the net discounted value of that bet over arbitrary counterfactual hypothetical realities was good
And so, to finally answer:
— No, buying and holding Hayden Davis’ coins was NOT a “good bet” for both sides, because Hayden had covertly and unilaterally imposed a situation where the other side was essentially ~100% guaranteed to lose over all possible counterfactual worlds. In his own words, he was intentionally “max extracting”, intentionally preventing both sides from benefitting. And even when you leave room for accidental success in spite of that destruction, there’s virtually no room for that here.
And any situation where, for whatever reason, both sides cannot reasonably assess whether they stand to benefit, whether through fraud or the other side just refusing to share information which they could, and that includes defrauding people by breaking conventional expectations of an industry between buyers and sellers — cannot be a good bet
= Both sides did NOT stand to benefit, it truly was NOT a good bet for both sides
= Violation of perhaps the most fundamental central rule of so-called “capitalism”
= What Hayden Davis did was not “capitalism” at all
And anyone who says “capitalism” is whenever someone ends up with more money, no matter what fraud or theft they use to do it, is an absolute idiot, or lying commie
Not “capitalism”, obviously — but to understand why, you have to understand what a “good bet” is, and to understand what a “good bet” is, you have to understand counterfactual reasoning, and 95% cannot do that
= Clearly not “capitalism”, but if you don’t understand that then that’s your fault, for being too retarded or deceptive to understand counterfactual thinking
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
— Is the Hayden Davis’ “we’re here to max extract” draining of memecoins true “capitalism” by any good, concrete definition?
For this, I’d cite one of the most classic central rules of so-called capitalism:
“The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit”
I.e.
“No exchange takes place unless its truly a good bet for both sides, given all information both sides have”
— Notice we’re using the “good bet” definition, which does NOT mean whether that particular bet went well in reality, but rather whether the net discounted value of that bet over arbitrary counterfactual hypothetical realities was good
And so, to finally answer:
— No, buying and holding Hayden Davis’ coins was NOT a “good bet” for both sides, because Hayden had covertly and unilaterally imposed a situation where the other side was essentially ~100% guaranteed to lose over all possible counterfactual worlds. In his own words, he was intentionally “max extracting”, intentionally preventing both sides from benefitting. And even when you leave room for accidental success in spite of that destruction, there’s virtually no room for that here.
And any situation where, for whatever reason, both sides cannot reasonably assess whether they stand to benefit, whether through fraud or the other side just refusing to share information which they could, and that includes defrauding people by breaking conventional expectations of an industry between buyers and sellers — cannot be a good bet
= Both sides did NOT stand to benefit, it truly was NOT a good bet for both sides
= Violation of perhaps the most fundamental central rule of so-called “capitalism”
= What Hayden Davis did was not “capitalism” at all
And anyone who says “capitalism” is whenever someone ends up with more money, no matter what fraud or theft they use to do it, is an absolute idiot, or lying commie
Not “capitalism”, obviously — but to understand why, you have to understand what a “good bet” is, and to understand what a “good bet” is, you have to understand counterfactual reasoning, and 95% cannot do that
= Clearly not “capitalism”, but if you don’t understand that then that’s your fault, for being too retarded or deceptive to understand counterfactual thinking
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯5😁1🫡1
DoomPosting
Now, to the question we started all of this to answer, — Is the Hayden Davis’ “we’re here to max extract” draining of memecoins true “capitalism” by any good, concrete definition? For this, I’d cite one of the most classic central rules of so-called capitalism:…
And no, memecoin bets as a whole never were automatically “bad bets”
e.g. pure memecoins like $BOME and $PNUT and others still an incredible ~70x+ above presale price or where we originally bought them, to this day, even after gigantic crashes of the market as a whole
Hayden Davis’ coins were covertly bad bets because he intentionally planned to quickly destroy them, with a plan that definitely would quickly destroy them — something absolutely not universal to memecoins as a whole
Hayden Davis was a clear extractive destructive “sociopath”, as the Mops article points out
Want to hear about another, from the 2014 memecoin wave?
— Look up Ryan Kennedy, a “sociopath” that was incredibly successful at being extractive and destructive to the Dogecoin community, so much so that he literally acquired and instantly drained the #1 altcoin exchange of the time, Mintpal
Nothing new under the sun
— When you pretend these extreme “sociopath” drainers are just normal guys doing normal business, you’re being exactly the kind of clueless idiot the mops article talks about, totally clueless about the real reason and means by which the movement actually got destroyed
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
e.g. pure memecoins like $BOME and $PNUT and others still an incredible ~70x+ above presale price or where we originally bought them, to this day, even after gigantic crashes of the market as a whole
Hayden Davis’ coins were covertly bad bets because he intentionally planned to quickly destroy them, with a plan that definitely would quickly destroy them — something absolutely not universal to memecoins as a whole
Hayden Davis was a clear extractive destructive “sociopath”, as the Mops article points out
Want to hear about another, from the 2014 memecoin wave?
— Look up Ryan Kennedy, a “sociopath” that was incredibly successful at being extractive and destructive to the Dogecoin community, so much so that he literally acquired and instantly drained the #1 altcoin exchange of the time, Mintpal
Nothing new under the sun
— When you pretend these extreme “sociopath” drainers are just normal guys doing normal business, you’re being exactly the kind of clueless idiot the mops article talks about, totally clueless about the real reason and means by which the movement actually got destroyed
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯2👀1
DoomPosting
And no, memecoin bets as a whole never were automatically “bad bets” e.g. pure memecoins like $BOME and $PNUT and others still an incredible ~70x+ above presale price or where we originally bought them, to this day, even after gigantic crashes of the market…
“The sociopaths loot whatever value is left, and move on to the next exploit. They leave behind only wreckage:”
“Devastated geeks who still have no idea what happened”
= If you call what sociopath guys like Hayden Davis or Ryan Kennedy do “just capitalism”, or similar
— Then you’re being exactly the kind of clueless moron the Mops article warned about
Nothing about what the “sociopath” dudes do is just “capitalism” as “normal” in any way
What’s more, it’s NOT actually inevitable, movements can overcome and survive the sociopaths, as the same article points out
The sociopath types are a tiny extremely distructive minority, who must be called out for what they truly are, instead of painted as just normal and acceptable. Many movements have done this successfully, and sometimes it also requires new tech or tools
— though it’s not easy
Alright back to news
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
“Devastated geeks who still have no idea what happened”
= If you call what sociopath guys like Hayden Davis or Ryan Kennedy do “just capitalism”, or similar
— Then you’re being exactly the kind of clueless moron the Mops article warned about
Nothing about what the “sociopath” dudes do is just “capitalism” as “normal” in any way
What’s more, it’s NOT actually inevitable, movements can overcome and survive the sociopaths, as the same article points out
The sociopath types are a tiny extremely distructive minority, who must be called out for what they truly are, instead of painted as just normal and acceptable. Many movements have done this successfully, and sometimes it also requires new tech or tools
— though it’s not easy
Alright back to news
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🔥2🙏1💯1
Apparently some other celebrity just launched a pumpfun coin — though seems they’ve now deleted their account
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👀2
"well i'm proud to be an economic zone, where at least there's GDP
and i won't forget the 1 in 6, who are here on H1b"
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
and i won't forget the 1 in 6, who are here on H1b"
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🫡4😁2👌1
Experienced skydiver deliberately jumped to her death day after breakup with partner, coroner confirms
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
😢7😱2🙏2🕊2🏆2🫡2👏1
Trader 0x2611 is down over $1.85M on his $ENA long.
To avoid liquidation, he deposited another 1.7M $USDC into Hyperliquid 4 hours ago.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
To avoid liquidation, he deposited another 1.7M $USDC into Hyperliquid 4 hours ago.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🤖🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👀2