/biz/ - Business & Finance

My thinking is that the technology is a major game changer, but the current crypto currencies boil down to trying to be three things:

-Cool internet money to speculate on
-Cool internet money to do shady things with
-Totally Not Company Scrip(™)

None of that is remotely new or visionary. The tech behind it is a fucking game changer, but the current products on the market aren't. That isn't to say that people aren't going to make a fuckton of money off of them, but the real paradigm shift isn't going to be kicked off by these.

Colleges are designed to churn out three types of graduates.

1. A white collar worker with a deep set of narrow technical expertise field but with no abstract analytical, creative, or critical thinking ability.

2. A white collar worker just smart enough to fill out the paper work and write a report about a report about widgets, the technical specifics of which he or she doesn't understand. Preferably savvy in communications.

3. Potential elites who make use of their college education to learn broadly and deeply who exit the process as conventionally intended: well rounded, cultured, and equipped with creative and critical thinking abilities.

When did you realize what track you were on? Or have you yet?

If you had a few million dollars from your work, would you opt to invest it in your idea for a startup that, on paper, could multiply that money many times over once it starts being productive, or would you invest it into a diverse portfolio of real estate, stocks, and bonds and just rest easy on your gains?

Asking for a friend.

I come to you with a hypothetical.

Suppose that you have a degree from a prestigious institution. You might have some research published. At the moment you have a good reputation among the communities and institutions in your field. There is a good chance that you could write a book aimed at the interested layperson explaining some of your thoughts and ideas about your field and that it would be taken seriously in public discussion.

Now let's say that financial interests approached you. They want you to make arguments in favor of a position that is very profitable for them. Maybe it's arguing against regulation. Could be that it's advocating for public policy. It could just be straight molding of public opinion. The specifics may or may not matter. What they dangle in front of you are speaking fees at private retreats, consulting fees and possibly stock options, funding for any other research that you might do, and a sweetheart publishing deal if you want one. All you have to do is put your credibility and reputation on the line and stump for them.

Before you answer this question let me branch it out a bit and see if your answer changes depending on certain factors

1. You're certain that you can make a sound argument for that position and you believe in your argument.
2. You can make a credible sounding argument for that position and you're somewhat certain of it.
3. The position is foggy and you could really arguing for any side of it.
4. You're going to have to craft your position carefully and be ready to defend it with rhetorical arguments because it has some holes in it.
5. Damned thing leaks like a sieve and you're going to have to make arguments that you know upfront are fallacious in order to defend it.

Which of these are a "yes", which are a "no", and which are a "maybe" for you and why?

Are you putting the cart before the horse /biz/?

>Trying to invest before you get that high paying job that gives you the money to invest
>Trying to get that high paying job before getting the high end education that opens the door to most of those jobs
>Trying to start your own business without the technical or scientific expertise, or even on the job experience in the area your business is in

Success usually looks like about a decade of busting your ass getting started before you finally take off and are suddenly declared an overnight success. Just remember that.

Who else born into a petite-bourgeois family here? Do you find yourself more or less motivated to seek wealth than those outside of that circumstance?

>Have scientific hypothesis that is provable
>If you could prove it, and patent the ensuing tech, you would stand to make a vast fortune

Worth the investment of 2-3 years of additional education for the risk of being wrong?

It's a good combination of soft sciences/mathematics/humanities with a reasonable level of employability thanks to the economics end of it.

I'd give it a big thumbs up, but I'm biased.