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
There were funds that did due diligence and built out models of the Luna/Terra/Anchor ecosystem and realized it was unstable.

You can talk to the people who built their models and they have lots of fun things to say about the ordeal.

>>photon+Aa
That raises an interesting ethical problem, really; should there be a duty to report this sort of thing, or is "scheme X is fundamentally flawed/a scam and investors will lose everything" legitimate proprietary information? As I understand it, various analysts were pretty sure at the time that Madoff's scheme was a Ponzi, but in general they didn't tell anyone (in fairness, one attempted to and had trouble getting listened to).

>>rsynno+1e
for context for others following along, Galois Capital went public with their criticism months before they started shorting. most people didn't listen.

https://twitter.com/galois_capital

>>dropne+tg
Was there a specific tweet you meant to link? That just goes to Galois’s profile page.

>>SilasX+4r
its months and months worth of tweets, and that's all they talked about during this year.

first a cryptic puzzle as a recruiting tool for analysts: https://twitter.com/Galois_Capital/status/148693793605468979...

followed by months of warnings like this: https://twitter.com/Galois_Capital/status/151217543903232819...

and threads pushing the systemic risk angle: https://twitter.com/Galois_Capital/status/150461116699529216...

>>dropne+zu
Thanks for the more detailed links!

I'm curious why you call the first one cryptic though? It seems the opposite to me: it refers to all the elements by their actual, real-cryptocurrency-world names. To me, "cryptic" would mean that it abstracted away from all the actual terminology used, and just describes it in terms of pure mathematical finance, which would be cryptic since you'd be left wondering, "uh, what is this referring to? Is this an actual thing?"

I also don't see how it works as a recruiting tool. This is a space that involves exploiting domain knowledge, and it's trying to bring in expert outsiders who just haven't yet used their analytical expertise in this domain. But tweets heavily depend on you already knowing how all these protocols work (e.g. what staking/minting/gauge weight mean). Such a person, if an expert analyst as well, would already be working in the field or exploiting that knowledge themselves, and you wouldn't be plucking such diamonds out of the Twitter rough.

>>SilasX+kU1
they hid the answer to find junior analysts instead of stating the solution outright

https://twitter.com/galois_capital/status/148693794923729715...

>>dropne+n02
Well, yeah, of course they hid the answer. My point was that making it cryptic would be removing the real names of the referents.