The power of convention and having a large market cap will be all that DarkCoin can do to win.
I think of cryptocurrency as fully predictable startups. You know exactly how the CEO thinks. What you don’t know is if a new startup will come.
When Zerocash gets in, people who think like me will put money into it, fearing that it will go up because it seems safer since it is layered on top of bitcoin (it is right?). So Zerocash will try to win by being attached to the global leader, whilst Darkcoin will attempt it by taking a larger portion of the market before Zero arrives.
EA’s should be Lessrisk averse because if you are being selfish and you lose bigtime, you are doomed forever. If you are altruistic and you loose bigtime, its okay, someone else who took as much risk has just won bigtime, and they’ll save the World for you in the meanwhile. In other words, if we are both trying to prevent Xrisk, what matters is how well we do as a whole, and everyone knows that humans are skewed towards being loss averse, so to win we must counteract this aversion.
Notice that there is one risk (X-risk) to which yes, being loss averse is correct, since X-risk effectively impedes the possibility of being altruistic, by leaving no mind behind towards which to be nice and kind or self to execute the kindness. X-risk is a total bummer basically.
When Zerocash gets in, people who think like me will put money into it, fearing that it will go up because it seems safer since it is layered on top of bitcoin (it is right?).
Nope.
if we are both trying to prevent Xrisk, what matters is how well we do as a whole..
True.
.. and everyone knows that humans are skewed towards being loss averse, so to win we must counteract this aversion.
I don’t think that this is true in the investment world any more (let alone with cryptocurrency investments). It is getting to the point where high-risk high-return investments are getting overvalued [in some markets] since many players are looking for them. You seem to be a prime example of this overcorrection phenomena—recommending something purely because it is risky!
The power of convention and having a large market cap will be all that DarkCoin can do to win.
I think of cryptocurrency as fully predictable startups. You know exactly how the CEO thinks. What you don’t know is if a new startup will come.
When Zerocash gets in, people who think like me will put money into it, fearing that it will go up because it seems safer since it is layered on top of bitcoin (it is right?). So Zerocash will try to win by being attached to the global leader, whilst Darkcoin will attempt it by taking a larger portion of the market before Zero arrives.
EA’s should be Lessrisk averse because if you are being selfish and you lose bigtime, you are doomed forever. If you are altruistic and you loose bigtime, its okay, someone else who took as much risk has just won bigtime, and they’ll save the World for you in the meanwhile. In other words, if we are both trying to prevent Xrisk, what matters is how well we do as a whole, and everyone knows that humans are skewed towards being loss averse, so to win we must counteract this aversion.
Notice that there is one risk (X-risk) to which yes, being loss averse is correct, since X-risk effectively impedes the possibility of being altruistic, by leaving no mind behind towards which to be nice and kind or self to execute the kindness. X-risk is a total bummer basically.
Nope.
True.
I don’t think that this is true in the investment world any more (let alone with cryptocurrency investments). It is getting to the point where high-risk high-return investments are getting overvalued [in some markets] since many players are looking for them. You seem to be a prime example of this overcorrection phenomena—recommending something purely because it is risky!
This is right for risks that you take and other EAs don’t, but it isn’t a good argument for all EAs to make any specific investment.