I am all fine with proclaiming that something is not enough... yet? Do we want to go from zero to perfect? And, what is perfect? What would be perfect? Is perfect achievable? Is perfect even desirable? I am not saying don't do nothing, but still there are balances to any of these matters. Wouldn't progress be being made by first having all (or most) exchanges showing their bitcoin (showing what is verifiable, first?)? That would be a start, no? That would be a step in the right direction, no?
Powell seems to be suggesting that it is totally worthless to show the reserves because it is not enough and it is misleading - but is it a step in the right direction? Do we believe that a company is going to show everything? Every single thing? Where's the incentive to show every single little thing? And where is the verifiability in terms of showing every single little thing? At least with bitcoin, and the bitcoin's blockchain there is verifiability.. and what else has anything close to the same level of verifiability as bitcoin? Everything else requires some level of trust, no?
So I am not sure how you can show everything else without trust, so why not start with the verifiable aspects first.. and then once we get everyone showing the verifiable aspects (if that's even possible?), then we might be able to take some additional steps from there? Maybe some exchanges are willing to show some of the their liabilities, but getting to show everything seems a bit much to expect anyone to cooperate in doing or even to consider that we want that level of transparency? Then when is it going to stop? When are the disclosures going to stop? First institutions (such as exchanges) disclosing, but do the disclosures stop at that point, or then will we require individuals to disclose too?
The point is CZ is a snake and he is trying to show how all funds are safu with sleight of hand akin to craig wrong signature scam.
Powell seems to be suggesting that it is totally worthless to show the reserves because it is not enough and it is misleading - but is it a step in the right direction? Do we believe that a company is going to show everything? Every single thing? Where's the incentive to show every single little thing? And where is the verifiability in terms of showing every single little thing? At least with bitcoin, and the bitcoin's blockchain there is verifiability.. and what else has anything close to the same level of verifiability as bitcoin? Everything else requires some level of trust, no?
So I am not sure how you can show everything else without trust, so why not start with the verifiable aspects first.. and then once we get everyone showing the verifiable aspects (if that's even possible?), then we might be able to take some additional steps from there? Maybe some exchanges are willing to show some of the their liabilities, but getting to show everything seems a bit much to expect anyone to cooperate in doing or even to consider that we want that level of transparency? Then when is it going to stop? When are the disclosures going to stop? First institutions (such as exchanges) disclosing, but do the disclosures stop at that point, or then will we require individuals to disclose too?
CZ is the one who started all this your funds are not backed that started the dominos and as I pointed out a few days earlier he had this all ready to go while he tried to goad armstrong into calling him out.
But Jesse Powell (Kraken CEO) is not a fool and a true cypherpunk Idealist who has had his books open and audited for years is calling him out on his little maneuvers.
I do agree it is cool to see some info being provided but now is the time to pressure that snake into FULL Disclosure.
Especially since he is the one who started it and apparently thinks he has all his dominos lined up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DelF6zEHXpE
I have no problem with you presenting your point of view, but frequently we still need to take some of these characterizations of motives with considerable grains of salt - even if some angles might be more convincing than others.
Yesterday, I was listening to The Bitcoin Matrix podcast in which Phil Gibson was proclaiming a kind of conspiratorial theory regarding so many players coordinating to cause the FTX crash - including asserting that CZ was in on the deal because CZ (Binance) was an initial investor into FTX. I appreciated several of the connections that Gibson was making, but still I thought that he was drawing too many conspiratorial lines for my own comfort levels
And, today I was listening to another podcast (I cannot remember which one) in which I was reminded that FTX had paid back Binance in a combination of FTT token and also in BNB token - which highlighted that some of these off-shore exchanges are using a combination of token to make payments, including frequently using their own coin - which reminded me of a previous post that I had made to defend the BNB token and CZ, in terms of the BNB token being around longer and also my presumption that the BNB token was much better backed than then FTT token - and even though we can see a lot of these games, we cannot really know the extent to which the games are being played until shit really hits the fan.. and sure some of the tokens have BIGGER red flags than other tokens....
I am not sure exactly what my point is - except that I am reluctant to buy into very much of any of these stories - and I am not even suggesting that you, Hueristic, are buying too much into any one story - even though I feel that some of my leanings are slightly different than yours - even though each of us are surely working with incomplete information - and each of us only has so much time to be researching into these matters and trying to figure out for our own comfort levels regarding how much time we want to spend investigating various angles of these stories and how much weight to give to factual, logical and conclusory representations that we come across.