Conversation

0xJoshua.eth (

)

@0xJoshuaSL

Oct 30

Replying to

@markjeffrey

@SBF_FTX

and

@ErikVoorhees

Watched this earlier today, it seemed like a productive discourse You can tell Erik has a stronger grasp, but showed deference to SBF in a “You gotta trust the person in the room” way I never felt like SBF was lobbying on my behalf, but under Erik’s influence, I do feel better

Replying to

and

I feel like Erik would blow an actual negotiation -- though I highly respect his thoughts and position. I don't think an absolutist, purist position is possible here. If we gambled with that, we'd all get nothing. SBF is practical. He's balancing many, many things.

Replying to

and

yeah I mean tbh I have quite strong feelings about what would happen if you tried those lines in DC with regulators or (most) policymakers and they're probably in line with yours but seems like a bunch of experts on crypto twitter disagree so who knows maybe they're right

Replying to

and

That's what I was getting ... SOMETHING is definitely going to happen here reg-wise. And left to their own, lawmakers will be super overzealous and protect incumbents. So we need to push hard but be willing to deal in some way.

Brad Nickel - DeFi.canto

Replying to

Our biggest problem is we have zero leverage, because this community failed miserably at showing our strength in the primaries and organizing to take out opponents of crypto. So, while I would advocate negotiating at the extremes, we don't have room for it.

Replying to

Hard disagree here. There is always room to clearly state and advocate for your position. We also have enormous leverage—we have millions of users and massive cash flow. Just because we don’t have single-issue candidates and no hardcore voting block (yet) is irrelevant here

Brad Nickel - DeFi.canto

Replying to

Not about either of those things. It's about being able to take out reps that oppose & elect candidates with money & organization & we have repeatedly failed at that. Doesn't matter how much money or cash we have if we never use it to instill fear. The "millions" are passive.

Brad Nickel - DeFi.canto

Replying to

We have the potential power, but we have failed every time to use it effectively. Most of our "users" are passive speculative investors that don't even understand what we are protecting.

Brad Nickel - DeFi.canto

Replying to

We don't need candidates or issues to be top of mind with voters. We need superpacs and pacs to elect our friendlies and attack our opponents on normal political issues. Power in politics is about fear and deals. We don't have either right now.

Replying to

But tomorrow I could set up a Super PAC, funded by

@SBF_FTX

and others, and we could advocate for and educate on the things we’re falling short on. It’s an education problem—these folks don’t understand DeFi, made worse bc journalists (who refuse to try it) who don’t understand

Replying to

uh so I'd only fund it if I thought it was net good for DeFi and not self-destructive what sort of strategy would it be following? and if you think my strategy is wrong (maybe it is!) then probably important to find the right people to fund it/run it/etc.

3:22 AM · Oct 30, 2022Twitter Web App

Brad Nickel - DeFi.canto

Replying to

The edu, the negotiations, etc. are all important, but what is immediately important or rather was more important a year ago is to show we have the power to defeat people in Congress that get in our way, not on the topic of DeFi, but in general. Primaries were best shot.