And the Crypto Andys were all like "you just don't understand DeFi!" to which the retort is "No, you just don't understand finance".
Finance is the way it is for many reasons. There are thousands of years of lessons that have made the system the way it is. I get the innovator mentality of sweeping away the old but there seems to be a fine line between innovation and ignorance.
I'm just sitting on the sidelines watching people relearn all the lessons of finance the hard way, some because they think they understand finance because because they understand merkle trees and consensus protocols but really most just want to get rich quick.
Anyone who has studied quantitative finance knows that it is a HARD science. I worked with a Nobel prize winner in economics, and the math dominated. There was no politics, no opinions, no ethics involved. It really is a science.
Most social media characterize finance as some ethical vice or organized political power structure - and those people simply don't understand finance.
Talking to people who are looking to just tear down modern finance are no different than climate change deniers, antivax, or flat earthers... and yes, they even exist in crypto (and on HN).
Physics is a science. Math is. Or Biology. Finance is not. Because it deals with the madness of crowds.
> Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street
> And Li's Gaussian copula formula will go down in history as instrumental in causing the unfathomable losses that brought the world financial system to its knees.
> Nassim Nicholas Taleb is particularly harsh when it comes to the copula. "People got very excited about the Gaussian copula because of its mathematical elegance, but the thing never worked," he says. "Co-association between securities is not measurable using correlation," because past history can never prepare you for that one day when everything goes south. "Anything that relies on correlation is charlatanism."
If you follow the scientific method, it's science. If you write an observational essay, it's not. You can build theories around falsifiable, replicable experiments pertaining to the madness of crowds. The error bars are longer. But they are not infinite.
I feel like they are infinite? Because, for example, in hyperinflation, there's no upper bound on how long someone is going to keep printing money.
Any given instance will stop at a finite number, but you can't bank of that being the high water mark.