What's funny about this is that I can recall discussions here and elsewhere from only a few months ago questioning the "guaranteed" super-high returns. I forget who said this but someone awhile ago said in finance said that if someone is promising you consistent above-market returns it's either a scam or there is unknown or undisclosed risk.
And the Crypto Andys were all like "you just don't understand DeFi!" to which the retort is "No, you just don't understand finance".
Finance is the way it is for many reasons. There are thousands of years of lessons that have made the system the way it is. I get the innovator mentality of sweeping away the old but there seems to be a fine line between innovation and ignorance.
I'm just sitting on the sidelines watching people relearn all the lessons of finance the hard way, some because they think they understand finance because because they understand merkle trees and consensus protocols but really most just want to get rich quick.
What most people don't understand about finance is that there are fundamental rules that you really cannot break without consequences.
Anyone who has studied quantitative finance knows that it is a HARD science. I worked with a Nobel prize winner in economics, and the math dominated. There was no politics, no opinions, no ethics involved. It really is a science.
Most social media characterize finance as some ethical vice or organized political power structure - and those people simply don't understand finance.
Talking to people who are looking to just tear down modern finance are no different than climate change deniers, antivax, or flat earthers... and yes, they even exist in crypto (and on HN).
> Anyone who has studied quantitative finance knows that it is a HARD science. I worked with a Nobel prize winner in economics, and the math dominated. There was no politics, no opinions, no ethics involved. It really is a science.
Your comment makes no sense. Just because there's modeling involved that does not make it a hard science. A hard science requires stuff like the ability to perform controlled experiments and replicability, in order to arrive at a high degree of accuracy in predictions.
Throwing around partial differential equations does not turn something into a hard science. You need to meet way more requirements before you're in a position to claim that.
It doesn't necessarily invalidate your point, but I would say astrophysics is a hard science, and yet a ton of it is based on observation and modeling of events we can't control or reproduce.
Some part of physics are not hard science at the moment as long as we can't perform observations/experiments to validate or invalidate theory (for example string theory). Some part of astrophysics are clearly not hard science at the moment.
The controlled experiments are in the trading. The market validates the model, not the peers.
The scientific mindset is there, but not the publishing because
the publishing destroys the value of the model. Once your model is known, others trade against your model and it becomes invalid.
Physics is a science. Math is. Or Biology. Finance is not. Because it deals with the madness of crowds.
> Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street
> And Li's Gaussian copula formula will go down in history as instrumental in causing the unfathomable losses that brought the world financial system to its knees.
> Nassim Nicholas Taleb is particularly harsh when it comes to the copula. "People got very excited about the Gaussian copula because of its mathematical elegance, but the thing never worked," he says. "Co-association between securities is not measurable using correlation," because past history can never prepare you for that one day when everything goes south. "Anything that relies on correlation is charlatanism."
> Physics is a science. Math is. Or Biology. Finance is not. Because it deals with the madness of crowds.
If you follow the scientific method, it's science. If you write an observational essay, it's not. You can build theories around falsifiable, replicable experiments pertaining to the madness of crowds. The error bars are longer. But they are not infinite.
If you generate a process using a Cauchy distribution, you can observe finite error bars, but actually the variance of the generating process is infinite.
No matter how hard you model you won’t be able to predict processes that are fundamentally unpredictable. And you would get fooled because you only observe finite amount of data.
It is surprising how complicated the math gets even if you try to model very simple processes (eg think of the n-body problem and how complexity increases with every addition of a body). It is not a given that complicated models mean you’re modelling a complicated process.
But when people say "finance is science" what they usually mean is "here is the complicated math that proves you can't lose money on this, we've modeled everything".
As the joke goes, 6 sigma events happen in finance every week.
> when people say "finance is science" what they usually mean is "here is the complicated math that proves you can't lose money on this, we've modeled everything"
100% agree. When I was an algorithmic derivatives trader, we joked that the math was there to scare up investors and scare off compliance. Little did we know...
This is like saying physics is not science because the nutjobs claiming we will recieve divine revelation by praying to "the quantum energy field" use physics-y terms in their BS.
Of course that can happen. But it's a low-risk event that falls outside the, say, 99% confidence interval.
It's like the notion of a 100-year flood. Of course there could be a tsunami or a dam failure that completely inundates an entire city, but at some point you've got to accept a small risk and ensure you are covered for it.
> If you follow the scientific method, it's science.
OP's claim was that quantitative finance was *hard science*. Requirements regarding predictability are way more stringent than merely observing stuff and seeing how it responds to an input.
Math is not science. Arithmetic and geometry were two of the original liberal arts (defined by Plato). Math doesn’t follow the scientific method. Math is a foundation for much of science and social science, but it is distinct from them.
> Most social media characterize finance as some ethical vice or organized political power structure - and those people simply don't understand finance.
Just because quantitative analysis has solid grounding doesn't mean that its use is unrelated to ethics. The finance establishment is an organized power structure whose decisions are political.
If you want an analogy, I'm pretty sure that you'll find plenty of people who used ballistics to achieve goals that you would find pretty unethical.
That can also be said for nearly all specializations/ventures of us humans, right? Physics (nukes), chemistry (explosives and refined sugars), electronics engineering ("engagement optimization"), biology (human experiments maybe), philosophy (started many wars), etc. There doesn't seem to be many things where we haven't corrupted in some way. Everything is about ethics and politics(?)
Using math does not make something scientific. Math is a language based on logic, physics is a science using that language. Economics is Scholasticism that uses math as a language.
This comment is why the humanities should be a prerequisite for all academical endeavors...
The maths used in economics is widely known to be wrong.
When informed the maths in economics is wrong, the economists don't go and fix their maths either.
Economics is more like sociology with some random incorrect formulas written on the black board as set dressing.
Economics might in self loathing claim they are the "dismal science", but the cold hard truth is they simply speaking are not doing their jobs properly. It's a broken research field.
> social media ... organized political power structure
It's not just social media and it is somewhat disingenuous to dismiss the idea that finance, specially specially international finance, does not have (some form of) power [that actually trumps and transcends political power].
This is a somewhat interesting film that I was watching the other day. It's mere existence addresses the first bit -- that perception is certainly not limited to "social media". And of course the film itself is about a super secret gathering of G8 ministers where they struggle with the decision to put in place some (undisclosed) policy change that they all know will have very drastic consequences for the global average joe.
As a single actor you can bend, but never break the rules. So you can achieve way better returns than the market as a whole does. Over time 10 - 200 x returns is achievable, don't think it comes cheap though, you need to dedicate large chunks of your life to it, and nothing is a guarantee.
However, the math approach to finance works because in its essence it is quantifying human reactions and or emotions, which in large crowds turns out to be more predictable. In the short run, still, software holds its edge with its probability approach but its not smart so that it is basically a rent seeker.
look - there are companies out there - Renaissance for one - who do make very good returns consistently. The difference is that not all returns are infinite. in fact, most good investments are finite - the market eventually catches on and then prices equilibrate. saying that there are no guaranteed 20% returns does not mean that with hard work and good strategy there are not 20% returns to be made on some arbitrary amount of principal at any given time.
put another way, its easy to earn 20% on a dollar. its hard to earn 20% on a billion dollars.
What the fuck are you talking about? The Renaissance medallion fund isn't open to the public and is no longer generating double digit returns as of 2020 or 2021. Much of their performance can be attributed to the fact that they just didn't pay their taxes. A $6.8 billion fine just doesn't cut it in the face how much money they were making. The Medallion fund saw $11 billion in net outflows due to low returns in 2021. Their funds that are open to the public regularly offer negative and low single digit returns annually. Please do tell us more about how efficient this market.
I was talking about the topic at hand: the possibility of consistent good rate of return. You are right - medallion has had some hard times recently. But, prior to that, it generated very good returns for a while.
You are not addressing the substance of my comment, namely that many investments are finite, and this is why infinite riskless investments don't work.
> You are not addressing the substance of my comment, namely that many investments are finite, and this is why infinite riskless investments don't work.
I agree that "infinite riskless investments don't work" and agree with the "possibility of consistent good rate of return." Many investments are indeed finite on a human scale. An investor will almost always want their money back with some return, no? At some point they'll take their money out of the investment or market and spend it. The particular issue was the claim that the Medallion Fund from Renaissance Technologies was a good example for a consistent rate of return. They may have done that but how would we know? Their data is self reported, and as far as I'm aware there's no publically available audits of their performance. Even if there were, we have evidence of their cheating at taxes through abuse of options. If I were you, I would take their claims with a very large lump of salt. Do you know who else claimed guaranteed double digit rates of return? Bernie Madoff. We might not have found out about his fraud either if it weren't for some whistleblowing and for his admission of wrongdoing.
The Medallion Fund may have returned 30-70% over decades. Do we really know for sure? I think you'd have been better off simply suggesting index funds for consistent returns for the average person or citing Warren Buffett or Bill Gross for generating alpha/consistent returns.
Market makers/HFT firms can have astronomical returns, hundreds of percents is not uncommon depending on how capital intensive the strategies are. The returns don't compound since strategies in this space are usually very capital constrained.
It's really striking how in recent years the Godwin point has been replaced from "everybody who disagrees is Hitler" to "everybody who disagrees is a anti-climate flat-vax earth-denier".
It's really not helping getting any point across. In a way it is self-realizing polarization: because you are casting any criticism of "modern finance" into this "bundle of badness" this is likely to reinforce their position.
I think you have the point, and it makes me worried to see your comment downvoted to oblivion.
It is worrying to see that people tend to just click thumbs down when they don't agree rather than to pick the towel and build a strong argument against what they don't agree with.
Well, the S&P (assuming the S&P 500) doesn't represent the entire US economy, but 500 companies that represent, arguably, the "winners" of the US economy, so expecting them to grow 7% while the entire economy as a whole grows less is not unexpected.
How much of that is inflation? If, historically, GDP growth is about 3% and inflation is about 3%, and you're trying to invest in the strongest companies, is that how you get to 7%+?
how many companies lose money for a few years and fold? if the S&P is winners, then it is counterbalanced by all the bad investments, pre revenue startups, and other businesses which are losing money. balancing out to 3% is not impossible.
The 20% APY provided by Anchor was way above the average yields for safe DeFi lending. Which indicated that even among crypto users, this was considered a degen play!
The whole Terra saga was a typical example of speculative bubble. Everyone knew it was risky, but its sheer size and the caliber of people endorsing it (https://twitter.com/novogratz/status/1478535972560195585) was providing an aura of safety. Too big to fail.
It's also similar to the stock market as a whole before it started correcting. Everyone knew valuations were detached from every fundamental except liquidity, yet everyone went along thinking the music just had to keep going.
Every fundamental except liquidity - nice phrasing. It would be illuminating to see more analysis of liquidity in crypto markets and less purely technical analysis.
I'm not surprised the attack narrative is so popular and rarely challenged. Whether there was an actual attack or not, the attack narrative gives everyone a convenient out. The creator can disavow responsibility for creating a stablecoin that doesn't work and the investors get to feel like they weren't taken in by a con but we're instead attacked by an outside entity.
I invested money with Stablegains rather than in UST/Anchor more directly because of the YCombinator branding.
I figured that if the system collapsed, I would be able to notice it early and withdraw, and that YC-affiliated investor money would help compensate me with more luck than if I had to liquidate out of the system myself.
I withdrew after seeing a friend on Cryptography Twitter send a message showing the destabilization; this turned out to be many hours before Stablegains announced "we will honor withdrawals before this announcement at 1:1", and I got all my money back out.
Congratulations? You weren't one of those who lost all of their money to this YC supported scam. Scams and get-rich-quick or get-more-rich off of the backs of others: that's the YC brand here and increasingly elsewhere. Paul Graham started this accelerator to make himself and his wife rich. YC exists to enrich its owners not as your litmus test for trustworthiness. Money over morality is the motto here. Libertarian values, limited government, startups as silver bullets, founding workers working themselves to death to enrich venture capitalists, and Dunning-Kruger for days in the form of Paul Graham. Are you poor? 'Have you tried making a startup?' is Paul Graham's solution to poverty as with everything else. You might as well ask 'Have you tried not being poor?'
Never forget, its always "different this time", even though as you've said its reached the place its in over thousands of years. The mistakes made and mania's are in all the text books and histories so really people should know better, but its seems that nothing is more influential on a person than greed.
> I get the innovator mentality of sweeping away the old but there seems to be a fine line between innovation and ignorance.
I think that this is the "innovator mentality" insofar that, as a group, we tend to idolize/cargo cult innovation as if it was always a good thing. As the pile of things that I miss grows much faster than the things that I feel that I've gained I have come to think of "innovation" as a force for destruction, rent-seeking, and greed, just as much as it can be a force for improvement.
As you say, in many cases things are the way they are because reasons. And some snot-nosed wanterpreneur is just as likely to degrade the situation as they are to improve it.
Here's a funny little anecdote. In the early life of bitfinex, you could lend money to levered traders at ~1000% interest. I did so personally, but only fairly small sums, and I did not sleep easy at night lol. It was pretty obvious it could blow up at any time, but somehow it didn't. Times were different then of course, ecosystem so much smaller - more room to grow.
What I find upsetting about these developments is that over a year ago I shopped around an offer to borrow at higher rates with an early repayment option, backed by an actual arbitrage opportunity, and raised way less than these scammers.
Usually there is an answer, I’m not familiar with the stablegains service but usually there is enough information for you to tell objectively why to use or avoid a service according to your risk profile.
There was enough in the terra ecosystem to come to a conclusion of avoiding completely
That's a great point. Even if there were actually legitimate products that could somewhat use cryptocurrency as part of their offering, they would probably get rid of it eventually just to avoid the association with the endless scams that fester in the ecosystem.
> Finance is the way it is for many reasons. There are thousands of years of lessons that have made the system the way it is. I get the innovator mentality of sweeping away the old but there seems to be a fine line between innovation and ignorance.
I feel like the only benefit of all this is being able to see posttrade services rewritten with some sane API instead of crazy legacy garbage riddled with CSVs.
And the Crypto Andys were all like "you just don't understand DeFi!" to which the retort is "No, you just don't understand finance".
If you believe the statement "if someone is promising you consistent above-market returns it's either a scam or there is unknown or undisclosed risk" it might be true that you don't understand DeFi to some degree. DeFi isn't a single market, it's millions of micro markets that are accessible through what amounts to a single API.
So when you have millions of markets with different returns that can be traded in every imaginable way (and some you probably haven't imagined), throw in an insane amount of dumb money, people willing to borrow at high interest rates (relative to the real world), and a laundry list of factors that introduce inefficiencies into the market, it's quite easy to find pockets of above-average returns if you're smart. I have no idea if Stablegains was actually smart, but it's more than possible to achieve above-market gains in DeFi without exposing yourself to outsized risks.
> it's more than possible to achieve above-market gains in DeFi without overexposing yourself to insane risks
"Insane" is subjective. The point is nothing safe yields ten or 20%. Someone saying "you will not lose your funds" [1] when paying above-market yields is lying.
I run arb and loan liquidation bots, and have for over a year now. These are atomic transactions almost always using flash swaps/loans that exist only exist for the life of the transaction. I am only exposed to potential losses on transaction fees, but have never had a losing day while running production code. My yield on my investment (mostly infrastructure costs) is closer to 5,000%...per month. I will not lose my funds, whether the market is good or bad.
There are funds out there that conduct these activities, I know because I recently consulted for one. They are promising risk free returns and getting them.
There are things that exist in DeFi (such as flash loans) that have no real world equivalent, which is why blanket statements made about traditional markets don't necessarily apply. If used properly, these things do in fact offer "too good to be true" types of returns.
> My yield on my investment (mostly infrastructure costs) is closer to 5,000%...per month.
As in, $100 in January becomes $500 in February, $2,500 in March, ... $976,562,500 in December?
Edit: actually I read that wrong, that would only be 500%. 5,000% per month (money x 50) would turn the $100 into $9,765,625,000,000,000,000 by December.
Unless by 5,000% yield you mean you get 50x your original investment on top of the original investment, like how 5% yield on a dollar gets me $1.05. In that case it would be more. But I think the 9.8 billion billion would be good enough for me.
No, sadly that return is based on my infrastructure costs, which I can't keep increasing and get the same return. But yes, I'm doing better than 50X my monthly infrastructure costs with this, which are my only actual risk.
Ah, ok, so this is more like a thing where you drive around looking for loose change on the ground, and you find enough to exceed your fuel and maintenance expenses. But you can't scale it up by hiring more drivers, because there is only so much loose change to be found.
Surely you see how even a 10% safe return on investment like these DeFi schemes offer is a whole different thing, when it's a compounding return. There's no way to sustain it. All the arbitrage opportunities in the world can't deliver the funds required to make investors' money grow exponentially.
You are correct, but all investments have a maximum size at which returns will stop. That said, even large banks are seeing returns considered impossible in traditional markets with DeFi strategies, often with lower risk. Arb bots like mine are now generating more than $1 billion per year in risk-free earnings, so the pie is not exactly small. Estimates are that statistical arbitrage bots, which do take on some small capital risk, generated over $5 billion in profits last year.
I agree with you that throwing money at anyone who tells you they can take an unlimited investment and offer compounding returns on it is a recipe for disaster. But in DeFi, intelligence and strategy translate directly to greater yield. Math has proven time and again that those things matter very little in traditional markets.
>But in DeFi, intelligence and strategy translate directly to greater yield. Math has proven time and again that those things matter very little in traditional markets.
You're all over the place with your usage of concepts.
Here you say that intelligence and strategy matter little in "traditional" (vague) markets. Yet, in DeFi, they do.
Not buying it. It feels like I could copy and replace your replace all of your uses of "DeFi" in this thread with <insert ponzi scheme>.
It's "different" than normal markets...I made it work personally (but not at scale)...
There are countless articles showing that literal monkeys throwing darts at a dart board can pick sticks as well or better than most fund managers. This is not the case with DeFi. I’m not all over the place with anything, DeFi is a place where skill still matters because of inefficiencies and the presence of a large amount of “dumb” money.
> I will not lose my funds, whether the market is good or bad
Is your counterparty risk always zero (between you and the chain)? Custody? What if a chain is halted or amended?
These systems run on novel rails. You couldn’t honestly tell an investor “you will not lose your funds,” and you’d refrain from using the word “deposit.” Because you’re trying to honestly communicate an opportunity, not to defraud.
In the case of flash loans/swaps, the answer is yes. It's 0.
Further, I never have any capital at risk, all of my bots use flash loans/swaps. These transactions are atomic, which means that either all parts of it succeed or they all fail (it's a "revert" in blockchain parlance). So I can borrow $200 million without any prior permission and do an arb/liquidation or anything else I want with it for the life of my transaction, with the only requirement being that I must return it by the end. If my arb/liquidation/whatever succeeds and I return the loan, I keep the profits. If not, it's as if the whole thing never happened. The only risk is the transaction fee, which on the chains I do this on are miniscule.
I realize that it sounds unbelievable, but it exists. My code does thousands of these daily. I am not the only one doing this. See https://eigenphi.io/ . With the exception of sandwich transactions, every one of the bots you see on there is making profits without any capital at risk.
The risk of the trade on chain defaulting is virtually non-existent, agreed. Custody risk is never zero. Dollar in / dollar out returns involve lots of counterparties.
Hi there.
My name is Bryan, and I'm a member of the EigenPhi team. Thanks for recommending us; twice!! :D Would you please spare a few minutes to have a quick chat? I'd love to receive your feedback and provide more valuable data! Here is my email: bryan at eigenphi.com.
Looking forward to your reply!!
> DeFi isn't a single market, it's millions of micro markets that are accessible through what amounts to a single API.
Millions of micro markets that produce what, exactly? Last time I checked there has to be at least something on the other side of the calculation what a coin is worth.
You think crypto coins magically make people work harder, better, faster, stronger?
That's not how the constraints of the physical world work.
Millions of micro markets that produce what, exactly?
You seem to be asking me to defend the merits of crypto, which is beyond the scope of this conversation. But generally speaking, most of the coins people actually buy are tied to protocols that are attempting to do things that interesting to at least some part of the population.
But, the ability to prove the provenance and ownership of any asset, whether physical or digital, has value. The ability to move value across borders instantly, cheaply, and reliably, has value.
In a world where so much has been made of fake news, imagine if you could know with absolute certainty that a given quote you read from someone in an article is authentic and given to the specific outlet you are reading it at, not taken from somewhere else, perhaps out of context. Imagine if Google integrated such information/quote verification into its search results, and could use it to prioritize sites with real quotes or information. SERPs wouldn’t be full of trash, and small sites that manage to scoop large ones could get instant #1 rankings. Authenticity verification has value.
> In a world where so much has been made of fake news, imagine if you could know with absolute certainty that a given quote you read from someone in an article is authentic and given to the specific outlet you are reading it at, not taken from somewhere else, perhaps out of context. Imagine if Google integrated such information/quote verification into its search results, and could use it to prioritize sites with real quotes or information. SERPs wouldn’t be full of trash, and small sites that manage to scoop large ones could get instant #1 rankings. Authenticity verification has value.
This assumes that 100% of the ecosystem is already some form of blockchain.
And guess what: It isn't and it never will be due to the democratic nature of the proposed system architecture.
The flaws of every coin I've seen is that there are too many assumptions about markets, and dependencies of the markets in the sense of goods and/or services that are just "assumed" to migrate to their blockchain at some point. That's not how incentive proposals should work, as they will (logically) lead to exit scams because a couple of people cannot write and reinvent an ecosystem from scratch.
Look at how long IPFS took to mature. Look at how long DAT was refactored in a backwards-incompatible manner. Look at how long it took to write the hypercore protocol stack.
Systems like this and - especially markets like this - need time to evolve, which means that the proposed DeFi assumptions about rapid growth bullshit are anti-market proposals, and literally the same way hyped and unverified bonds in the legacy financial systems lead to market crashes.
> But, the ability to prove the provenance and ownership of any asset, whether physical or digital, has value.
This only works for assets which themselves exist on the blockchain and for whom the blockchain is the only source of truth - such as cryptocurrencies.
Anything else that involves off-chain activity would require a bulletproof way of keeping the on-chain and off-chain state in sync which is typically a neutral, trusted party, at which point you may as well just let them operate a conventional database and forget the whole blockchain bullshit.
> In a world where so much has been made of fake news, imagine if you could know with absolute certainty that a given quote you read from someone in an article is authentic and given to the specific outlet you are reading it at, not taken from somewhere else, perhaps out of context. Imagine if Google integrated such information/quote verification into its search results, and could use it to prioritize sites with real quotes or information. SERPs wouldn’t be full of trash, and small sites that manage to scoop large ones could get instant #1 rankings. Authenticity verification has value.
I don't see how blockchain/cryptocurrencies help here? Cryptographic signing is all you need.
> it's quite easy to find pockets of above-average returns if you're smart…
Right, but even then how deep are those pockets (what amount of investment can they absorb without being tapped out), how big a time window will they exist for, how will you know if those limits are being reached, and are you really sure you can quantify all the risks?
By definition if it’s a pocket of opportunity, it’s very constrained opportunity. As soon as those constraints are breached it will suddenly stop being low risk and might collapse completely. A lot of people have lost a lot of money on sure fire pockets of opportunity that were great when they lasted.
Of course there are limits to every opportunity. I make money everyday from opportunities that exist on microsecond timescales. I run arb and loan liquidation bots, so I haven't had a single losing day, ever. The last two weeks were quite profitable for me, actually the best two week period I have ever had. There are other strategies that are easier to pull off, such as market making, that have moderate risks and outsized returns.
The point is that these opportunities exist, and they always will exist, you just have to be smart enough to be able to get into them. If someone needed money for infrastructure to run an arb bot, for example, and offered you above market, risk-free returns, it's at least possible they aren't lying to you. That was my point.
> If someone needed money for infrastructure to run an arb bot, for example, and offered you above market, risk-free returns, it's at least possible they aren't lying to you. That was my point.
If you needed money for infrastructure for more arb bot, would you look for random novices and offer them 15% (and raise $3m in VC to market to random novices)? Or would you take out an unsecured personal loan from a bank at a lower rate, or a much lower cost loan from a counterparty involved crypto, especially one who understands the nature your trades?
A market where, with work, you can "find pockets of above-average returns if you're smart" is MILES away from one where companies are "promising you consistent above-market returns"
I'm looking forward to your followup post where you lost all your money and can't figure out where you went wrong.
It always happens with people who think they are smarter than the "dumb money" they're taking advantage of. "Sure it's a scam, but I'm smart enough to not be the one getting scammed!"
And the Crypto Andys were all like "you just don't understand DeFi!" to which the retort is "No, you just don't understand finance".
Finance is the way it is for many reasons. There are thousands of years of lessons that have made the system the way it is. I get the innovator mentality of sweeping away the old but there seems to be a fine line between innovation and ignorance.
I'm just sitting on the sidelines watching people relearn all the lessons of finance the hard way, some because they think they understand finance because because they understand merkle trees and consensus protocols but really most just want to get rich quick.