Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
Laeserin | 6 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 Term limits are often useful.
Donors could be electors. 🤔
▲ ▼
DataNostrum | 6 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 Not sure about that, otherwise it would be the ETFs indirectly deciding what gets developed.
▲ ▼
Laeserin | 6 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 Do you think things will be developed that the ETFs don't want?
▲ ▼
DataNostrum | 6 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 For sure. Likewise, I think ETFs may want (or be compelled) to have things developed that most Bitcoiners don't want
▲ ▼
Laeserin | 6 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 No, I mean...
You think that's even a possibility? That the fund would ever finance a project that the biggest donors don't want?
▲ ▼
DataNostrum | 6 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 With the current board, definitely
▲ ▼
DataNostrum | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
  @Laeserin  This is what I meant:

nostr:note1acv2njun5x8cyv8nv55z3yvzvlkjxtz879cl6hn8s7ehpuj0myus3n0f28
▲ ▼
Laeserin | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Hmm. I don't really follow.
▲ ▼
DataNostrum | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 The ETFs will definitely be against privacy
▲ ▼
Laeserin | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 Oh, yes. Of course.
▲ ▼
mleku | 5 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 i'm not sure about that... they only have to be transparent in their records, being transparent on chain is probably to their detriment in fact