Oceans of Wisdom


3941/edition size

why is anyone confused?

 yes, this is how it works

carry on, fake news, there is nothing to see here :)

the timeline is just confused @[prxt0]

no

of retroactive recalculation of TDH and so on

so you don't get into these mission impossible questions

this is the right way to do it

exactly

maybe i was not clear in how i wrote it but nothing has changed about the TDH rate formula. it works the same way always, it will just work that way too when editions are larger than 3941, just like when they are smaller

but the early cards will always have higher TDH rates

so we can have large editions

those cards will get 0.1 TDH rate

if we have an edition of 39,410

the TDH rate works the way it always has

no, who told you that

not owners, price, burned, etc

The TDH rate is calculated from formal edition size

NAKA goes from 14 to 20

what does this mean

sure you can do larger editions - the TDH per "total card" stays the same, so in a world where we have mass adoption of meme cards, the early ones maintain much higher TDH rates

it is Time to BUIDL arc begins for @[maybe]

he should wait and let hester do her thing

and make his meme card into shares

he wants to do make a marketplace

david is above

YOLO not as appealing?

CFPB I [wrote the other day](https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flinks.message.bloomberg.com%2Fs%2Fc%2FbCVGYfTuo1G0BRIGjpKueFhBU7DLhBhLyy67kWBM1P5PvYK0yXCbBbSMG6TWnkbpnybDLAs2aeJd5oMtJSXoApXoV-76IaHh0Y2iy9Ns2yYuOBp00EwXxxTe5K3Y4cbiJCErqQPE606teC-NNnmJWZcOqIw4xj7kB18MNKXw_VCsWat1L5uaFK3EwE90BPFseb3UAvQV_GSvWygAP5HZqU97901g8we3uDqcd6J1Klw51imi1MTOswpb87V03bNVHJ3-M_Ru-E9pcYYnlGRhxg8yWgWuz74OV4QbTspGnMZUHWn3fXMvbv7wO_sSf_mdPVXwBDi8RVVzA-QnMrck17IbSbBP_HUKb7MZIhkfdCXc4XeGtson6iRAkw%2FrRn_53a4Bu_vKQBjW40RquOaBwWZZZUg%2F7&data=05%7C02%7Cpolemitis.an%40unic.ac.cy%7C1054fda8db9a455f8de008dd6254867b%7Cfadc8328106147eea5edb4325c356b9a%7C0%7C0%7C638774837360595505%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Q5gi0nuSVESY81SApdh1K%2Fy6TEC4IKJZp8yNd2UdTbI%3D&reserved=0) that, in the Trump administration, “the legal status of crypto is still kind of uncertain, but the *enforcement* status is ‘go ahead, do whatever.’” This is not just a crypto thing; it’s a more general approach. Traditionally the way regulation works is that there are rules, and you are supposed to follow them, and if you do not follow them you get in trouble with the government. Companies organize themselves around this basic reality. A big bank will have a compliance officer, and the compliance officer will say to the bankers “hey guys don’t pay any bribes,” and if the bankers say “why not” the compliance officer can answer “because if you pay bribes we will have to pay a big fine and you might go to prison” and the bankers will say “oh right that’s bad.” But in the Trump administration, an important law against paying bribes — the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act — has not been *repealed*, but it is no longer being *enforced*. President Donald Trump doesn’t like the FCPA, so he [issued an executive order](https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flinks.message.bloomberg.com%2Fs%2Fc%2FB4y3mDVXFnxXjzJMqnuRanu7TQ4sL4tPCWdxUEXA2uRBYlhLxq0ZPPf1G5hRlsDwe64d5EsS-7sgHXKkYyeJnQNJpJX2jdnSPS2KeIzkfUiJkmYwkHnWD3zv0P04uBRBIK3p5QJ78JoTgPCo2RodIm_pCpkio8WzYxERmOz_WmtLqEHm4ua9fH1VqgpkhTE8QCv0Z0CWVmUItmLyiLW1BWMDVkkSm315b3tM1FXOzpdaNyDTQjzRQ5fug5trymwlacqd1w1suoFoROITv27EvXzSYTMHUrrlefNs7-CP_HKiorZymtuMmNS2l0DDi62Wv55AbEz-buu1CN-PC9bUqRwApXtMiR3P0ZfbYPJycBA1iW-xwV7SPsMmtzLysgSaGxn1zKvHZpYJNEx__SZLlYTAAJTLLOvfa9tYYnNren0rxE3gPeOMomCpotNOfI6qq5UHeRQC7JjDTQeUMkVeHMclboxxsCVItY8WwEMWW8rplPzv5S_ENGnZfknoXpc_OF9w6NqFbp5pGdS3JemYLV4LM17VZLOYkhLMhuOvYUoJpRen3Zq3u2lIdiU-cX7Eeyud2Rv00Z-kCywRqWWLtHydspcRHLzEwCG1yUvD0iGF171fjhsjxA91mtvC5gMMSKrQWSTF52aFLtD95SQGDYBB9ov5Xy826DpIpDhIIT4GohtLXCpBiFUlaYvJiTQzR0U92RaKIYkQyrLagItcXfmr4-SgDG-sEg%2FXKsMy-0_aiz5pbkpJehd04TLTvlicCA_%2F7&data=05%7C02%7Cpolemitis.an%40unic.ac.cy%7C1054fda8db9a455f8de008dd6254867b%7Cfadc8328106147eea5edb4325c356b9a%7C0%7C0%7C638774837360610782%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6vYF2%2BKxly1OPC431tUu6yG5i7Z89Rxu6S5lALEeRfM%3D&reserved=0) “pausing” its enforcement. What does that mean? If you are a compliance officer at a bank, and a banker comes to you and says “hey I’d like to pay bribes, is that cool now,” what should you say? Well! I am not going to give you legal advice, but my anecdotal impression is that actual compliance officers who get this question these days still say “absolutely not, no bribes.” (Here is a [Wall Street Journal story](https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flinks.message.bloomberg.com%2Fs%2Fc%2F2Ebhyfcp80p3pH3zOmn5JbxSDwsklORdBFgTLzMrKRhFkWdikku_k7-4t9k235eqCoRvHCX1cklNUsom60YLrUTEoT7KB7TOiCHqSpIKr-pXL1CpQAvKFfSuWGikuSmXD9LYDHd1jdnAz-bdCJjfWMSZl-SpiHsDS_KpMGqGG9BtQ3odrrKMRJAG3AfthOoqzXYZVOkWSIEG_h8w5_IYMgdkbhpkj4sFWtftrLsUNpeXhQAOEoUDaeCze0C3O5xlMErxlIR57R9meoE0QcSU-MiqJRU8jKr4pDRxg93VgQK7idBBIQzGzhERkAj893lqHupbSvcs2FGlYTunwlX8DbuyXrYCWbQrNtt8kRW3TBPQ2Vh74CTGe7pQWBxPvTslTIKZ2SM0WAcGqenxYHUHBPce013mR_ePgdEwdhqvw9FDn7UL5H0L6YxIpTIsxfKNtrcDJZYHzNHNyNwgLKwg-AjfingT04NouUPfHAGqgIClp6Fh2HeTTwSE6CDbkSOW-gZ3FbMSU813oSzt_rlCSkLkmDb38E9XNw4vGwL8RwXlfhZ9VXCxWLm2tymEyIP9cucPx0kHQ6tEx5w6HJr_4yYdfe7Ku9P4R0lFRQ50Vd7BU6B3pSwfD2c_Xg0RLPhY5mxCVmIME_6CW2tzjFfVMuKe1i8btl8dZQ%2FgNVoBYhzPi9SGzGfsjwzn91R_2RaGBZH%2F7&data=05%7C02%7Cpolemitis.an%40unic.ac.cy%7C1054fda8db9a455f8de008dd6254867b%7Cfadc8328106147eea5edb4325c356b9a%7C0%7C0%7C638774837360626268%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v9FqhWhKHy2KAjiL%2F1bYliAjT6Z6gcFoHcTGDeKgwjM%3D&reserved=0) reporting that this is mostly the case.) And then if the bankers say “but I thought the FCPA was paused, what’s the problem with paying bribes,” the compliance officers might give answers like: 1. The law is still the law: Enforcement is paused, but it is still a violation of a US statute to pay bribes, and it is bank policy not to break the law. 2. Sure enforcement is paused, but it could come back. There’ll be a new president in four years, probably, and the new administration might enforce the FCPA, including for old cases. If you pay a bribe now, you might go to prison in five years. 3. For that matter, there’s nothing to stop the Trump administration from un-pausing enforcement and bringing a case against us *this* year. Trump might change his mind about enforcing the FCPA. Or he might want to punish just *our* bank, for unrelated reasons — maybe we expressed support for Democrats — so he will go after us for FCPA violations. The fact that the law is no longer enforced *generally* doesn’t mean it can’t be enforced against *you*. 4. State regulators and even private plaintiffs might sue us for violating the law, even if the Trump Department of Justice does not. 5. If we just manifestly go around breaking the law, that seems bad for public relations, even if the law is no longer enforced. Probably some other things. These answers are all a bit vaguer and less compelling than “if you pay bribes we will pay a big fine and you might go to prison” — they are less compelling than the standard mechanism where the government enforces the law — but they are compelling *enough*. If you are a big regulated bank, you do not want to have a policy of “go ahead and break the law” just because Donald Trump pinky-promised not to enforce it.  Similarly [with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau](https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flinks.message.bloomberg.com%2Fs%2Fc%2FZsV6umR7Zn3km3UUPu8XEtk7Ja8uVEkRnKisBNqLkTRwwWPKyk65l3J7UKcCR5QFW7F8yCg4qgl5c1N1q8IrN12iimSGzGHBRtMdpNT3EYBSQZpS5pEwkF5-WYfpAi_A2hsLqh64ZUmFWPNFL4QqYNbuHw8yNcvgHC0ocxWtDEit3T9-dbeczEZQF1Ce02y4dtwZHhpSYjjWF7SuXKykjfEWMN9lS_PONVwIBDV2jwJXp8-nXI8jpVVLLaKDbMTlJ_t5n8dpO-HHR2U-BMi8opvmtTIcXENoF2vybhezm_RoR0FyXE8uqiafrSMuaT6Cq5w13_jEzI5YXc_hNSICCJDlthQlIug8TopHcxen9FcMN5F4xESFkp42_A%2FI4csqfn88VVRaWzHNTmGBtpGjKIObDvO%2F7&data=05%7C02%7Cpolemitis.an%40unic.ac.cy%7C1054fda8db9a455f8de008dd6254867b%7Cfadc8328106147eea5edb4325c356b9a%7C0%7C0%7C638774837360639309%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PVdj4iwTyJ94KkGxP8%2FyaJdI9kwPl4pHPvjRprfI9NE%3D&reserved=0): While the agency’s headquarters stands dormant amid a halt-work order, its rules — ranging from major new edicts to dozens of small points of guidance which companies are loath to go against — are still in place. Financial firms can face penalties from state authorities for running afoul of them. And they remain at risk of being punished by regulators for breaking rules after President Donald Trump’s term ends. Lobbyists for banks and mortgage companies have contacted Trump administration officials with a request for acting director Russ Vought: Turn the lights back on and get to work rewriting some regulations. “The CFPB has work to do, like undoing rules and withdrawing proposals and guidance,” said Ian Katz, a managing director at Capital Alpha Partners in Washington. “I don’t know that initially the White House totally appreciated that. I just don’t know if Russ Vought was thinking in those terms or not, but clearly if you want to rescind rules you need people.” Right, see, the CFPB has existed for a while now, and it has written a lot of rules requiring banks to do various consumer-friendly things, and the banks would often prefer not to follow those rules. And in fact, now, if a big bank breaks all those rules, it can be pretty confident that the CFPB won’t bring an enforcement action against it, because the halls of the CFPB are filled with tumbleweed. (Not legal advice!) But it can’t be confident that that will be true *forever*. Maybe a new administration will bring old enforcement cases. Maybe a state attorney general will, or a consumer class action lawyer. Maybe a bank will, like, close some crypto guy’s bank account, and the crypto guy will complain to Donald Trump, and he’ll reopen the CFPB for just the one case.  You can go a long way toward creating an atmosphere of lawlessness by stopping enforcement of the laws, but banks do not actually want an atmosphere of lawlessness. They want laws! Just ones they like. (Again, this is [true of crypto too](https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flinks.message.bloomberg.com%2Fs%2Fc%2F1rQZOYRFgaMfqaWMWNY6OIRd-ITTy_RbMLGOqfD2iAkOJOb62PKZCNvd7OzUhBxIcLupHtRUYh5KI7PVFOgzS9F0QUnBQEjnbp_cUOkhTY6iZX_jDRkw3O760cQasBo4FPSD652AdhPV_4xofF2-UU4y-SDu-3rdjDrYQZHirOvnev_cVFBgRwCmOsNOu-s8dTVTxQmdqH3A1f2XknQ9Pkq8hHXtj8axNHdI0Wv6c7TG_yNraOXbX3YKuGk6CxZLxWU-ElqBYwc4cQbsf6A0rWRHIq8YlQUvxmE7Kv4KoaktiAzzCdyj6RhNKwGMyf2XfsjVAZ1BU_NPBC7HcOcCOgIZwKh4PIHrk0KrOuFASHHmhjsfRjpULMtYFA%2FE2PS4qllYnac3MAqWBuOwWYAa6SgT-DK%2F7&data=05%7C02%7Cpolemitis.an%40unic.ac.cy%7C1054fda8db9a455f8de008dd6254867b%7Cfadc8328106147eea5edb4325c356b9a%7C0%7C0%7C638774837360653307%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=A6swdP8nudHtYDE5zvjFNdbZ5Q5Rpl%2BNIsU2lbqBuMw%3D&reserved=0).) To give them the regulations they want, you do need some regulators.

compliance has entered the chat

ASI

2027

yeah

if it all works, etc, etc it won't stop at 100M, sure but also i think line between AI and humans will blur

encryption will need to be swapped out

ASI for sure

roger that

what do you mean links

@[prxt0]

EOY

btw AGI this year still seems on track

really lots of skulls going on there

its a good one

maybe easiest to have 1 medium sized warning type only?

still cracking up about this. "you have to wait 3 days to change your name and PFP again"

web sockets will take care of this

or raffle is only 11

edition is only 11?

yup