This is a big part of my problem with crypto and why I'm bearish on it breaking through to normies. Traditional financial institutions just seem so much safer all in all, not to mention having far better UX.
The big thing traditional institutions give you is logs of everything. Sure if I get your account number I can take all your money - but there are traces of that and so it is easy to arrest me after the fact.
Don't give out your account numbers, there will be a lot of hassle should an evil person get it. However you have a reasonable change of getting your money back in a couple years. (this is also why you get warning about some countries - a few will not cooperate with traces and so the money is lost)
Is that a US thing? In Europe, companies have their account numbers on their letter heads and websites, and people are quite comfortable giving out their account numbers.
In Japan, that authorisation needs to come together with an official certification, something that’s only valid for 3 months and you have to get it yourself from the local justice branch office.
That’s definitely not the case in Europe. There’s no way to start a debit operation out of my account other than:
1. Something electronic that kicks of the thing where I need to enter the “ID codes” from device or app;
2. Being present at the bank and having been ID’d;
yeah. I am also unsure why we do not see more fraud here.
Is it because of the 8 weeks of no questions asked refund possibility for payers and up to 13 months for unauthorized/fraudulent transactions? Or does the 5 business days lead time to get direct-debit play a role?
It is precisely because of the refund policy. It is so generous that, per my understanding, most SEPA direct debit fraud is abusing the refunds. Most banks do not require much supporting evidence for claiming the debit to be unauthorized, and unlike credit card disputes, the merchant doesn't even get to make a statement in the process.
Surely just knowing someone's account number can't be enough? Sweden's biggest bank uses your national identification number (equivalent to social security number) as your checking account number, and Sweden's national identification numbers are public information.
I don't know how it works in Sweden. Some accounts have more security. In the end if I know the right numbers (which may not be your national ID) I could drain your bank account - but I would be caught if I tried so even hardened criminals won't attempt it.
The reason why traditional works is the fraud can be reversed. If money is stolen from your accounts, as long as you are not the cause, in most cases the institution or govt will make you whole.
It is reinvented by 'crypto' in the form of 'subjectivity' (as opposed to the hard objectivity of 'your keys your coins' and the absolute acceptance of all objectively (though perhaps fraudulent or thieving) valid transactions.
One example of subjectivity is if, and this happens, a bug is found which can drastically increase the supply of coins beyond the intent of the creators; everyone comes together and removes those state transitions manually despite their objective validity. A more practical notion would be some type of "this transaction was fraud, someone has authority to reverse it." Of course, this is a hard tradeoff, but users should be able to make it.
Yeah, it is totally great to have to set up a different account for every service, then having to do AML and KYC, and then having your account suspended for no apparent reason. So great that international transfers takes days and tens of dollars in fees, if they succeed at all. So great how a large part of the world‘s populace is denied access to the global financial system. Great as well how centralized it is, so things go down when there are technical problems at your bank. Absolutely awesome how Canada was able to freeze bank accounts of people who donated to the ”wrong“ cause.
They totally have it figured out, we should stop looking for alternatives. We already have the perfect system for the ages. Anybody who even tries is delusional.
All this means is that brand and distribution matters more than ever. There's 1000 chatgpt clones but everyone still uses chatgpt. There might be 1000 jev clones soon enough but people won't switch unless there's something significantly better about it.
It's also why Meta can make Muse and get a lot of users even though there's 10,000 personal agent startups
In jevs case I think the competing offerings will rear their head rather fast. The ability to label data like it does now leans itself well for distillation. And to switch out a model like fable for Astra is really not all that difficult. Yea jev is alone now. But before the end of the year another lab with the same offering will rear it’s head
> There's 1000 chatgpt clones but everyone still uses chatgpt. There might be 1000 jev clones soon enough but people won't switch unless there's something significantly better about it.
The fact that Jev will be cloned is exactly why brand and distribution matter even more. When 1,000 products do the same thing, you'll use the one you know.
It probably will happen over time as entropy does its thing, but the structure is different than what you describe.
For one, Howard is not the successor, Greg Abel is. Howard is a Stewart of culture, but he is not the leader.
He also isn’t inheriting Buffetts fortune so the generational rot won’t be the same.
Next, both Greg and Howard have been at Berkshire for decades, and however is next up will likely be similar. So there is time to pass on the values.
Laslty, Berkshire is a decentralized company. The company itself has less than 50 employees. All of the companies they own have their own leadership structures and cultures, and Berkshire does not burden itself in managing it. This makes the successor problem a lot easier
Warren was CEO until 9 months ago. While yes, he's been chairman for 50 years, he's been an exclusive chairman for only 9 months. The role is ambiguous anyways and it's pretty obvious that someone else won't have the authority Warren has. And his son has been a director for 30 years so it's not like he's a new hire
> but to oversee their family's share in the enterprise
Not exactly, he's there to oversee the culture of Berkshire and ensure it's continuity. Buffett is donating all of his wealth (and has already donated $66B), so there isn't a fortune to protect.
Berkshire is an institution of sorts at this point, and requires strong stewardship to prevent enshittification (for lack of a better word).
I think the issue is that you're not taught how to interview people. So usually you'll notice that you need to do an interview in a few hours and scramble to think of what to ask and leetcode is the easiest thing that comes to mind.
