My time was an asset they did not have access to before and they wanted to lock it up. This is not unique and carries enough parallels to this use case to be a relevant example.
-
-
Replying to @rmhrisk @saleemrash1d and
I see, so your claim is that when a big buyer drops out of a market, other buyers will start paying more because there's less competition. Well, I think we definitely disagree on this, your anecdote could be a fluke or shrewd negotiating, no?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taviso @saleemrash1d and
No, I am saying other players will use that big players departure as an opportunity to collect more Pokémon and than over time the market will get better at connecting buyers and sellers which will return prices to market highs and even exceeding them.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rmhrisk @saleemrash1d and
Got it, is it fair to say your rationale for believing that is mostly based on anecdotes?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taviso @saleemrash1d and
Not exactly; read about market efficiency and trends and you see this pattern. That said I’ve observed this as well. Markets are dynamic, up close they look one way, when you zoom out you see the larger pattern.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rmhrisk @saleemrash1d and
In your opinion, should consultants announce they're no longer accepting business from their biggest clients? That way the price they can charge will increase, if your theory is correct, right?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taviso @saleemrash1d and
No, I’m suggesting that if they offer a specialized capability that is not well met by the market their sudden availability represents a new market opportunity for someone. My thesis here is zero days have intrinsic value and as long as that’s the case there will be a buyer.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
In pure buy-sell markets this manifests not infrequently as transactions executing at prices reflecting hidden demand or hidden desire to dump in shallow-depth-of-liquidity circumstances. (Think low trade-volume stocks.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mdhardeman @rmhrisk and
The question that must be considered here is how can a nation-state even pretend to be a rational actor if they presently derive value from 0day purchasing and yet entertain a proposal to stop that behavior. It’s irrational.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I've already explained this. The state must balance the risk of holding exploits with the value provided by that capability. This is the purpose of the vulnerabilities equities process, which part of that is irrational?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.