So IMO this is a departure from the classic merchandise based strategy. It seems pretty clear that the theme parks more so than the products are the major profit centers today.

One interesting possibility is that maybe the business model of media companies in the 21st century will become content as a loss leader for the purpose of providing valuable IP to amusement parks. Certainly seems like a similar thing is happening with Comcast with their massive expansion of Universal parks.

The first packet switched network came online in 1969. Fifteen years by 1984 almost all the use cases were hobby, and it'd be another ten years before the Internet really started changing life.

Decentralized consensus is a fundamentally new computing primitive, similar to packet switched networks. Developing applications on top of new primitives is hard and long, and there will be a lot of time required just to build out usable infrastructure.

Turing complete smart contracts are only 7 years old. Layer 2 scaling is only two years old. Decentralized exchanges and other on-chain financial contracts about four years old.

But I wouldn't characterize all, or even most of crypto as scams. Gambling, maybe. Are memecoins a scam? I would say they're more like a massively multiplayer form of gambling. Which you might argue is a bad thing, and certainly is dubious from a social standpoint. But if the code is openly public and autonomous, and there's no outright deceit, I don't think gambling is really gambling.

Even beyond that, there's a lot happening in crypto that most certainly isn't scams. You have stablecoins and payment rails like USDC, stores of value like Bitcoin, smart contract chains like Ethereum, decentralized finance applications like permissionless exchanges and lending markets, social applications like farcaster, decentralized AI, and gaming.

Now you might argue that all of these things are stupid and pointless and wastes of money, but that's a separate debate. Of the large projects in these categories almost none are outright scams. They're teams experimenting with new ways to run financial markets or move payments or train models or hedge inflation. Like most technological experiments most will fail. But if that was the criteria for "scam" then the entire startup sector is also wall-to-wall scams.

It feels a lot like when AOL first started supporting email in 1993. It's easy to dismiss AOL and Nasdaq as highly centralized systems that don't align with the ethos of decentralization. But the other way to look at it is a previously maximally centralized system is interfacing with a decentralized one in a way that gives the users of the former slightly more freedom and the latter wider user base and legitimacy.

Certainly you will admit at some size, responsibility and level of funding the organization should take responsibility for protecting itself from hacks. If the Department of Defense got hacked and nuclear secrets were leaked, I certainly hope people would get fired rather than sympathized with.

The issue isn't just additional volatility and tracking error, but the fact that the con tango creates a "roll yield" which affects the long-term returns of the strategy. To keep constant maturity exposure, the futures ETF has to constantly "roll" its positions into further dated contracts. In particular because the market tends to be in contango it means further dated futures tend to be higher priced than near dated futures. So usually the futures ETFs in their daily rebalancing are selling cheap near dated contracts for more expensive longer dated contracts. Hence the roll yield tends to be negative. Then add all the transaction costs from daily rebalancing. It should be clear why the futures strategy has inferior returns to simply holding spot.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs truly are a game changer compared to futures ETFSs.

What about music royalties rights? Those are almost always purchased with expectation of profit. Those are even explicitly marketed on the basis of how big an artist is going to be. Yet the SEC does not consider them securities

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1490161/000104746910....

But if you don't have a formal contractual relationship with Rolex SA, then it's quite simply not an investment contract.

Now there's probably some silliness in the fact that if Alice creates a token and sells it to Bob, it's an investment contract, but if Alice creates a token sells it to Mark the middleman who then sells it to Bob it's not an investment contract and therefore not covered by the SEC. But this really comes down to how Federalist society wing of judges have changed Constitutional law.

Up until about 20 years ago, if Congress passed a law that wasn't very well defined or left a loophole open, courts were generally willing to consider the original intent of the lawmakers and interpret the law relative in a commonsense way even if it went against the specific language used by Congress. Federalist Society judges would argue that courts should generally only apply the law as it's actually written (i.e. an investment contract requires an actual legal contract). The argument is that Congress is around and still exists and perfectly free and able to update the existing laws if they're unhappy with the wording or oversight of previous legislation.

This is a fundamental disagreement in Constitutional law. Should courts use commonsense interpretation of the meaning of the laws or should Congress itself, as the actual elected representative, be responsible for updating laws and courts just enforce the plain meaning. It's also tinted by the fact that Congress today has become hopelessly gridlocked and obstructionist, and we're largely incapable of passing sweeping legislation. So generally if you're not a fan of big government or regulation, you're going to be biased towards one view and vice versa.

Consumers benefit from having access to a globally competitive array of products. Including tech products. I wish Chinese consumers could as well, but just because they don't doesn't mean that US consumers should also suffer.

Therefore standardized tests are probably "easy mode" for GPT, and we shouldn't over-generalize its performance there to its ability to actually add economic value in actually economically useful jobs. Fine-tuning is maybe a possibility, but its expensive and fragile, and I don't think its likely that every single job is going to get a fine-tuned version of GPT.