zlacker

>>donsup+(OP)
The last few weeks (months, really) has highlighted an incredible lack of discernment in the VC-verse wrt the thing we call web3. Now. I have no experience doing what YC does and don’t claim to, but the jig here was so transparent that the smallest drop of “street smart” should’ve been enough to set off some alarms.

We’re approaching a point where being passed over for “culture fit” is a compliment. Hopefully the embarrassment is enough to expand the founder vetting checkboxes.

>>okwubo+x7
If they’re unlucky they lose $500k, which is nothing. If they’re lucky they get a Coinbase. Why not.

>>oefrha+i8
$42 million of real people’s money was lost. That’s a net negative to society whether or not it shows up on a balance sheet.

>>okwubo+m9
The money changed hands... from people gambling on financial instruments to other people who are probably also gambling on financial instruments. Significant real value was only destroyed forever if the underlying tech for this is based on proof of work. Mining bitcoin destroys an enormous amount of ~real value, and nobody who cares about the advancement of society should touch it. Proof of work crypto mining is something we can and should just ban as a society the same way we ban watering lawns with drinking water in the middle of a drought.

>>drewm1+Bb
It's a great analogy because:

Banning watering gardens is exactly as dumb as banning proof of work. The vast majority of water wastage occurs irrigating farms supporting crops that are unsuitable for that area.

A solar panel connected to a coin miner is only doing good in the world. Where is the negative? You sure it's the mining that is the bad thing and not the dirty energy?