Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

That is why people are working on that specific problem. Badger is one with ebtc. There is also going to be people who are comfortable with the risk/reward ratio.


sort by: page size:

This all fits perfectly fine. High reward, high risk.

A company that probably understands risk-reward.

I think we have a shortage of risk-taking in the corporate world, especially when the gamble has an obvious profit-seeking motive, and I think that's unfortunate.

Whatever happens, a lot will be learned from this initiative.


Thanks for sharing.

What worries me is this is always going to be about a quick buck vs long term risk. We do not have the collective wisdom to stop.


Profit and a chance of safety

Err... I mean reward to risk ratio is pretty low... probably even negative advantage gained, and lots of risk exposure.

Its high risk but the potential return is also great.

Look at how SharesPost and secondMarket have already solved the first problem.

He second problem is just a special case, one risk.


Totally agreed; this and paying Gavin were my two main motivations upfront.

I really desire bitcointalk'ers to have some objective way to assess business quality when they consider how many percent per week return is a reasonable no-risk promise.


Yeah, that is an interesting question. Probably best to ask Coinbase, Tesla and Square. I don't have a good answer for you. The bad answer is this:

Risk isn't inherently a deterrent. If the reward is perceived to be high enough, there will be a first adopter.


It is about balancing possible risks as well. In this example you are able to get 4% in as close or near to risk free as possible.

It’s about risk mitigation.

There is value in certainty.

It’s why a $100 now is worth more than a pronise to pay in the future


I thought risk pooling was the point?

A lot of the criticisms and concerns in the comments seem completely valid... but in my mind, this is just one extreme of the risk/reward decision. This is high risk, high reward. Much higher risk than I want to partake in, to be sure, but I can see playing this game if they can afford that much risk.

That really is the key question isn't it? I can see some ways out of that and some sets of companies (not many) where that would be the case but it's going to be hard to turn them around once they reach that stage. Maximum risk = maximum potential gain, it's never been any different.

> There's money to be made by leveraging the difference between perceived and actual risk.

You think the risk is not that big?


the risk calculation is trust-based, so wondering how the author will make money is well within scope for trying to evaluate the risk.

The problem is that people want 0% risk and have someone else pay the infinite price tag.

Since the risk of that is 1 in a trillion, a lot of people are quite happy to take that risk.
next

Legal | privacy