Possible loss of the unique prospect to make the world critically thinking and cooperative (extremely high WALY): FTX uniquely uses marketing that motivates critical thinking and cooperation, while Binance (just like almost any other company) uses fear, shame, perception of deprivation, and other negative emotions to attract and keep customers. Assuming the global expansion of the metaverse, whether people are enjoying cooperation and thought processes versus assume an aggressive/hateful environment which they have to pay attention to makes a decisive difference in the global quality of life.
Con:Uncertainty in FTX marketing success: It is uncertain whether FTX would have successfully scaled up this marketing and norms. Possibly, if a prospective trader/NFT collector sees a Binance ad that uses almost subliminal techniques to motivate the impulse to participate (e. g. subconsciously gaining the power to abuse while protecting oneself) and after sees an FTX ad that shows a complex critique on the initial skepticism around well-known innovations, they may just use Binance because, without critical thinking, it is the more powerful/threatening actor.
Con:FTX cannot oversee a decentralized ecosystem: Decentralized ecosystem does not allow for product standardization. Since hundreds of new products emerge, FTX cannot effectively oversee most marketing and product development.
Con:Meta to an extent optimizes for attention so would likely use normal marketing. Since Meta largely optimizes for attention, it is likely that if its stakeholders acquire FTX, the marketing would become normal, similar to that of Binance.
Con:FTX.us is unaffected. The marketing that I was referring to was used in the US. FTX.us is unaffected by the purchase. Thus, it can be argued that the sale does not affect FTX (US) marketing substantially.
Additional con:
Counterfactual investment opportunities for Dustin Moskovitz and SBF: With the sale to Binance, both Dustin Moskovitz and SBF will be able to invest into other ventures. These ventures can be more profitable and/or impactful than FTX. Thus, ‘Profit for Good’ could be maximized.
CZ is in it to donate to charity: According to this video (which is similar to the one with SBF), CZ “plans to donate his wealth to charity.” Thus, this development can be truly seen as ‘competitive cooperation’ rather than ‘taking the money to buy yachts.’
This would suggest that Dustin Moskovitz should not buy FTX. However, that is only a guess.
Thanks, I want to clarify that Dustin buying FTX would not be the same as Meta buying FTX.
I didn’t know about CZ wanting to donate his wealth, that’s insightful. Perhaps EA can try and talk with him about his charitable giving.
The counterfactual is a good reason against the takeover, thanks for als bringing that up. Even if the EV of the takeover is high, but the probability of success low, a failed acquisition might mean EA loses most of its money.
Additional pro:
Possible loss of the unique prospect to make the world critically thinking and cooperative (extremely high WALY): FTX uniquely uses marketing that motivates critical thinking and cooperation, while Binance (just like almost any other company) uses fear, shame, perception of deprivation, and other negative emotions to attract and keep customers. Assuming the global expansion of the metaverse, whether people are enjoying cooperation and thought processes versus assume an aggressive/hateful environment which they have to pay attention to makes a decisive difference in the global quality of life.
Con: Uncertainty in FTX marketing success: It is uncertain whether FTX would have successfully scaled up this marketing and norms. Possibly, if a prospective trader/NFT collector sees a Binance ad that uses almost subliminal techniques to motivate the impulse to participate (e. g. subconsciously gaining the power to abuse while protecting oneself) and after sees an FTX ad that shows a complex critique on the initial skepticism around well-known innovations, they may just use Binance because, without critical thinking, it is the more powerful/threatening actor.
Con: FTX cannot oversee a decentralized ecosystem: Decentralized ecosystem does not allow for product standardization. Since hundreds of new products emerge, FTX cannot effectively oversee most marketing and product development.
Con: Meta to an extent optimizes for attention so would likely use normal marketing. Since Meta largely optimizes for attention, it is likely that if its stakeholders acquire FTX, the marketing would become normal, similar to that of Binance.
Con: FTX.us is unaffected. The marketing that I was referring to was used in the US. FTX.us is unaffected by the purchase. Thus, it can be argued that the sale does not affect FTX (US) marketing substantially.
Additional con:
Counterfactual investment opportunities for Dustin Moskovitz and SBF: With the sale to Binance, both Dustin Moskovitz and SBF will be able to invest into other ventures. These ventures can be more profitable and/or impactful than FTX. Thus, ‘Profit for Good’ could be maximized.
CZ is in it to donate to charity: According to this video (which is similar to the one with SBF), CZ “plans to donate his wealth to charity.” Thus, this development can be truly seen as ‘competitive cooperation’ rather than ‘taking the money to buy yachts.’
This would suggest that Dustin Moskovitz should not buy FTX. However, that is only a guess.
Thanks, I want to clarify that Dustin buying FTX would not be the same as Meta buying FTX.
I didn’t know about CZ wanting to donate his wealth, that’s insightful. Perhaps EA can try and talk with him about his charitable giving.
The counterfactual is a good reason against the takeover, thanks for als bringing that up. Even if the EV of the takeover is high, but the probability of success low, a failed acquisition might mean EA loses most of its money.