Wrestleknownothing

And Ross Flood shall lead them all. When it comes to scoring team points at the NCAA tournament Ross Flood average a cool 7.2 per match (combined placement, advancement and bonus). Looking at points scored per match using today's match scoring rules really favors earlier generations as 6 of the top 10 (and all of the top 5) started their careers prior to 1956. Part of the problem with this method is that it assume 16 points for first place even when the bracket is 16, or 8 or 3 wrestlers (yes, there are 3 wrestler brackets). But under today's tournament rules, if you only award to four places, for example, a win is only worth 10. Another caveat is that I have only done this calc for the top 32 per tournament scorers so far, as it is very tedious to gather the wrestler by wrestler data. If I get bored again, I will do some more.

It is wild that he did that without wrestling a pigtail. Nice.

Because we want to have nice things.

Who cares? I just love the writeup.

While there are many token projects whose explicit business model is "haha, let's run a pyramid scheme", I do not think Rokfin qualifies as one because it has an actual business with actual customers who pay actual money. The Dynamic value piece is really just a different model for divvying up the revenue and maintaining ownership of content.

I was looking to re-calc my NCAA all-time leading scorers to do it on a per match basis. I noticed that from 1981-1984 Jim Zalesky wrestled 23 NCAA tournament matches (6,5,6,6). That is the most I have seen so far, but I am only looking at the list of high scorers which generally means that you have won some titles. It occurs to me that the max number of matches it was possible to win would have been 32 (8 per year). This was possible from the mid-1980's to the mid-1990's when there were both full wrestlebacks and more than 32 wrestlers in many brackets. To wrestle 32 matches you would need to place in the 3-8 range and be in a championship pigtail match every year. So my question is, has anyone wrestled more than Zalesky's 23 NCAA tournament matches?

Ok, I will be even more explicit. Rokfin pays in RAE for the same reason that companies sometimes pay their employees in company stock, it is a cost effective and tax efficient way for Rokfin to fund its operations. Yes, it is a risky way to receive your compensation, but clearly some are ok with the risk.

Nope, nope, nope, nope. The cash that was given to Target is currency. The gift card is not. The cash you give your bank is currency. Your ATM, debit, and credit cards are not.

I read Levine every day. Yes, it is the same mechanism that many, many, many tokens (almost all) use. As I said (and as Levine says in the article), it is a bet on the company/project. And some times that is a bad bet. But worst of all is that in FTXs case depositors probably thought they had precedence in liquidation (like with a bank), but in the crypto world equity investors always put their claims in front of creditors. I have little sympathy for people who invest in things they don't understand until they learn the lesson the hard way.

Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Matt Levine.

For Rokfin RAE works very much like shares of stock. In that way it has a different reward profile than cash. In addition to creators getting paid in RAE, others can buy the currency as a bet on the success of Rokfin. Rokfin even has a form of stock buyback (burning) designed to increase the value of the currency. This is, I think, different from what Willie is talking about with regard to Rokfin's revenue sharing model that gives greater control and agency to creators.

Happy to help.

I have a hard time believing that revenue sport leaders would back a proposal like this, so this would mean it would need to be a non-revenue sport proposal. While there have been examples in the past where some revenue sports have had different eligibility rules than other sports, I do not think now is the time the NCAA is interested in limiting athletes' opportunities given its recent loses in the court room. Beyond that, I don't really see the problem that needs solving. I understand the 4 wrestlers getting 5 years of money vs 5 wrestlers getting 4 years of money argument. But I guess it starts with me not caring that some wrestlers took 6 or 7 years to compete 4 times.

Matt Levine is the absolute best. He quoted me once. I can die a happy man.

I have the 10/27 and 11/8 rankings, or ratings, or rankings, or whatever. Is there a specific question?

This man knows his sh*t

That is a heavy hand.

Speaking of which, Brooklyn Dodger has been mute (and doesn't even appear when I @ him). What did you do @Husker_Du?

Your Target gift card is not currency. It is like a deposit at a bank minus the FDIC insurance and any interest payments. And instead of withdrawing the cash that was deposited, you can withdraw goods. You also have credit exposure to Target. If they go bankrupt, you become an unsecured creditor.

I took your advice and just bought a Four Roses Small Batch Select. I used dollars.

Not always. The SEC has been clear that they do not consider bitcoin or ethereum to be securities.

A more complete statement is that no currency has intrinsic value. A currency is a collective fiction, but it works to the extent that it is a useful fiction. A dollar bill is worth a certain amount of a good or service because we all agree it is worth that. Our agreement is based on trust in a central body and its institutions. When the trust breaks down, the currency breaks down. See Venezuela, or any country that is losing a war. The point of a crypto currency is that it does not rely on the trusted central body. It is still a collective fiction, but it does not require trust to work. And the idea that a government could shut it down is not completely accurate. It is difficult to shut down crypto locally, but nearly impossible to do so globally. And there is certainly an argument for them if you are in any jurisdiction that is subject to US sanctions. US sanctions are so effective because the dollar is the world's reserve currency. Losing access to the US banking and money transfer system can be devastating as a result. Unless there is an alternative.

Thanks. Not on Twitter myself, so wasn't sure. As for bitcoin and ethereum, I do think a case can be made that they are unique within the crypto space and not necessarily fantasy, nor strictly neccesary, but absolutely interesting. At least to my way of thinking.