Justin Slaughter
@jbsdc
Former Biden Chair of Council on Economic Advisors speaks on GENIUS. You’re all going to want to read this. https://econjared.substack.com/p/crytpo-theres-just-no-legit-use-case?publication_id=3782367&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=ge4xb&utm_medium=email
9 replies
0 recast
10 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
It's crazy to me the Democrats want to make a stand on this hill. There's a massive constituency that pro crypto. There is no meaningful anti-crypto voter constituency.
2 replies
1 recast
13 reactions
BrixBountyFarm 🎩
@brixbounty
I like reading these Honestly gives me perspective on where the opposition thought lines are generated from and provides an exercise for me to maintain patience and discipline to not knock my head against a wall. Wish we could have civilized debate instead of each in their tower with a megaphone button permanently pressed. Send along the rebuttal when one of the pro crypto folks puts together a point by point takedown.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
matthewb
@matthewb
why do they insist on dying on this particular hill? is this really a wedge issue they think will buy them more voters than they will lose? doubtful imo.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
gcmac.eth
@gcmac
The “not useful unless you’re a criminal” is the best filter for knowing they’re bullshit artists. I prefer to read economists smarter than Hamas… https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-armed-wing-announces-suspension-bitcoin-fundraising-2023-04-28/
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
mmu
@mmu
If they are part of Stanford Institute for Economic and Policy Research... why can't they just walk across the campus to have a chat with Stanford Center for Blockchain Research? They've contributed tremendously to the industry throughout the years, they have all the expertise, why not just... talk?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Peter
@silencedogood.eth
Bros?
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Goksu Toprak
@gt
Can't believe they are still doing the "Unless you’re a criminal, there are no use cases for these currencies." bit.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Patricia Lee
@patriciaxlee.eth
It’s the political refusal to weigh the merit of ideas separately from people who hold them. The article tries to claim it’s not just being anti-Trump, but the conclusion says it all.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
androidsixteen
@androidsixteen.eth
It's hard to take these people seriously when they're still trotting out "anonymity" as a spectre Didn't we debunk this in 2017?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
