Okay well my feedback to you is, maybe have a chatbot read what I am saying to you, and ask for a charitable interpretation, which is the site’s rules. It’s simply a “looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck” argument. It’s not complicated. The way I am looking at things is how a lot of execs at giant companies and VCs look at things, you are welcome to ask them too, or ask for that frame of reference from a chatbot. You guys just raised $100m, you should be able to engage over questions of arb or whatever, and just know this stuff, and be able to talk to bankers and talk like a banker.
The stubbornness around interpreting this argument as negatively and as flawed as possible is a bad look.
> It’s simply a “looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck” argument.
Look, I'm not an expert in the field and I think you're making some kind of real point here. But for many organizations, there is no acceptable substitute to physical possession of the hardware, and sometimes even running it in an airgapped environment. You can synthesize a financial instrument of some kind, maybe, but it appearing the same from a financial perspective isn't the same as actual possession.
> You guys just raised $100m, you should be able to engage over questions of arb or whatever, and just know this stuff, and be able to talk to bankers and talk like a banker.
The stubbornness around interpreting this argument as negatively and as flawed as possible is a bad look.