Why review trading so much?
Are you familiar with the Matthew effect? The phrase describes 'the tendency of individuals to accrue social or economic success in proportion to their initial level of popularity, friends, wealth, etc'.
The effect centers on preferential attachment, an idea that suggests wealth and credit go typically, to those who already possess it. In turn, a self-reinforcing effect of those less of attaining less, as a result of having less to risk takes place. The same pattern appears conversely, with the those possessing more, increasingly able to risk additonal amounts as well.
The Matthew effect intially centered on the inequality in scientists' recognition for their work. Norman W. Storer, of Columbia University, would bring the issue to larger lights, with other subjects under a similar effect.
I mentioned attention inequality the other evening, in a blog post about trading.
- Attention inequality means those with eyes on them, end up with more. It relates closely to another subject for another post.
Yet while eyes seem to center on social media trends teaching people how to carjack, the attention profiteering by politicians wanes. All the while, politics seem to insist alternatives to traditional investments are 'rat poison'. Comments under a popular journal's article detailing the SEC's legislative lunge at stablecoins and their issuers host two sides.
What's the common denominator for just about all issuer's of crypto ?
FRAUD
The SEC should be in everyone's drawers as should regulations to reign in an industry rife with corruption
We thank JOHN JEFFS for his nuanced opinion. It sets the backdrop for today's 'hack'.
We explore the fraudulent behavior set at the top.
- Politicians continue to 'win'- trade successfully, despite largely unfavorable market conditions.
- Unusual trading- large share purchases taking place at uncannily profitable timing
Below are highlighted instances of several politicians returning upwards of 20% returns. For context, investors this year have a "more optimistic" outlook on the stock market, expecting returns of 11%. How exactly did politicians do this well?
Conflicts of interest.
In short, politicians on numerous occasions are trading securities for the very same industries they regulate with their bills. Imagine if your bank, had a loan out, to itself? Or, worse yet, your baker used your kitchen to produce your wedding cake? These self-serving abstracts pale in comparison to the real culpability of foreknowledge of market-bearing actions and the freedom to execute ahead of time given the omniscience.
I support alternative solutions because optionality is a privilege, when I find it to be a natural human right. Only one course of action available in many settings walks the fine line of totalitarianism. Options improve the quality of life, given moderation.
In addition, those who have, hold many cards that allow them to stack the deck in their favor. How might I survive, with my means against those with an entire, platinum kitchen set when I only have a wooden spoon?
Might I wisen up and learn a few tricks of my trade, increase my means by only dealing in good business, that is business with intention of improving the quality of my life- my family's, my loved ones' lives.
Post Summary
- The relationship between attention and success is explained by the Matthew effect.
- A prevalence of fraud in stock markets doesn't abet fraud in the blockchain industry. However, one must recognize bias and nuance all the same.
- Options are a privilege, but when the are none, we deny natural human freedoms.
Those who have, get more.
Guess that's why I got so much knowledge. Could use some other things though, if I'm honest.