Assuming you're being facetious, I have always wondered where the line is. If I discover ten thousand dollars in cash in a hole in the ground and deposit it, will the IRS notice? Will the bank require some kind of information? What about if it's a hundred thousand?
Yes, When large amounts of money are deposited into an account there is an automatic notice sent to the government. A One time event shouldn't be an issue however if you have multiple events of large deposits then it's going to trigger algorithms and the government is going to start asking where you got the money from and they'll perform an audit. If you attempt to bypass the system they have systems in place to detect that and will perform an audit. Just pay your taxes
The bank will have to report it to the IRS. They will cross-reference it with your taxes. They will also come talk to you if you have a pattern of doing it regularly. But you will probably not have an issue with it.
To your bank? Presumably if you made a lot of money, you'll be buying some houses and maybe some cars or creating your own businesses or something. If you transfer large amounts, it might get frozen if you can't explain the origin (kyc/aml).
> That's a problem. The average person on the street has likely never even heard of Blue Origin, or know what they do, while they most likely have some idea of what SpaceX is and does. There is a tangible excitement about SpaceX.
Why is this a problem? There is only one reason in business why you'd want to grab the attention of the average person...and that is advertising .
Will SpaceX start advertising during launches? Maybe...up until then being known to the average person is not an advantage.
Some people claim going public would enable SpaceX to cash in on its fame by offloading loads of stock to the aforementioned normies...but that practice scares away smart/value money so again...until SpaceX starts advertising during launches the only person benefiting from the social media fanfare is Musk who gets to be invited on SNL to show how socially akward he is.
It's a problem contributing to Bezos' enviousness that the article was talking about. SpaceX gets all of the glory because they are actually doing things, so they are in the news and building brand recognition (for free!!). Hardly anyone has even heard of Blue Origin except mostly for people who already had an interest and seek it out. How many times has Blue Origin made it to the front page of HN vs SpaceX, which is a niche news site of higher-than-average technical readers?
> Will SpaceX start advertising during launches? Maybe...up until then being known to the average person is not an advantage.
Each time SpaceX is talked about, it's effectively a free advertisement for SpaceX. Look at all the talk about StarLink. Have you seen any paid ads? They don't need to, because they have been building their brand recognition for free with every launch for several years and people are excited about it and talk about it. Bezos company just does not have the same caché.
SpaceX doesn't sell to the public, it doesn't have normie consumers who make purchasing decisions based on brand, at least not as yet.
That can change when they start selling their internet services, but again up to now all the promotional energies to build a brand have not been monetized.
The Free Advertisement and brand rising that you mentioned is only valuable if you monetize upon it. As of NOW the only way they have to monetize is selling advertising space during launches and I suppose they get the ads on Youtube as well.
You can buy Starlink right now if you live in parts of the northern US or parts of Canada. They're expanding constantly. I've have one for a few months now and love it. Interest was so great they asked the FCC to expand licensing to 5M people. Search "starlink review" on youtube for many examples.
> "Despite the fact that SpaceX has yet to formally advertise this system's services, nearly 700,000 individuals represented in all 50 states signed up over a matter of just days to register their interest in said services at www.starlink.com. To ensure that SpaceX is able to accommodate the apparent demand for its broadband Internet access service, SpaceX Services requests a substantial increase in the number of authorized units."[1]
> Some people claim going public would enable SpaceX to cash in on its fame by offloading loads of stock to the aforementioned normies...but that practice scares away smart/value money so again...
This is the worst kind of investor to have. Not having them is a good thing. Look at Tesla
Amazon simply can't afford rockets blowing up publicly like Tesla can.
This is all there is to it.
Bezos stepping down and distancing himself from Amazon should provide new lift (no pun intended) and much more risk taking to Blue Origin.
We should all remember that this is a marathon, not a sprint. It's not like the frentic months of the software wars where Apple put together the iPhone and its app ecosystem in 48 months and others never caught it.
This is a terrible business (like everything Musk is involved in except Neuralink).
Bezos should learn from Google and understand that there is no shame in killing a project....but I suspect the ego wars against Musk are too big now.
Bezos should have known better. When Musk insults you, you just do what Bill Gates does: You smile, compliment him, stroke his ego a bit and then go back having de-facto veto power in institutions such as the WHO and UN, operating way above Musk head.
BlueOrigin has the money to do what SpaceX does, in fact they are spending just as much or more. Go look at the launch pad BlueOrigin build in Florida and compare it to the one SpaceX build in Texas.
> This is a terrible business (like everything Musk is involved in except Neuralink).
Based on all objective measures they are not.
> Bezos should have known better. When Musk insults you, you just do what Bill Gates does: You smile, compliment him, stroke his ego a bit and then go back having de-facto veto power in institutions such as the WHO and UN, operating way above Musk head.
Gates was commenting on Musk and his companies before Musk ever said anything.
And the believe that Gates has a veto at the WHO and the UN is nonsense.
No amount of money can give BlueOrigin the freedom which SpaceX has to blow up rockets and telecast failure globally every week like it has happened for the last 5 years.
The CEO of Amazon just can't be associated with such public failures.
For Musk Tesla and SpaceX were parallel efforts, they were never such thing for Bezos, in 2015 when he got serious about Blue Origin , Amazon was already a bigger company than Tesla is now and will ever be.
He simply didn't have that freedom.
> Based on all objective measures they are not.
Q: "How can you become a millionaire mr. Branson?"
A: "Be a billionaire and start and aerospace comapany"
These are not software margins we are talking about, to channel my inner Ricky Bobby: If you ain't software, you are last.
> And the believe that Gates has a veto at the WHO and the UN is nonsense.
Gates can pick up the phone and occupy a week long of Biden time if he wants, same goes for Xi Jin Ping, the WHO director and the climate workgroups at the UN.
This is what happens when you do what others would never do: donate money to philantropic efforts way beyond the marginal PR utility returns of such donations. You get politicians lining up because they know they'd be able to take credit and do vitcory laps after a job well done which Gates would never claim ownership of, that is beyond the occasional Bloomberg conference which only policy nerds attend.
Stark difference with Musk who doesn't do philantropy and frankly scans for causes to inject himself in the loudest possible manner such as the Thai soccer team trapped in the caves.
Musk should thank that Gates is magnanimous enough not bring up the mess which Tesla is when he talks with Biden and John Kerry about climate policy. And Musk attacked him first, because he committed the sin of buying a Porsche so that he'd be able to lap Laguna Seca without the car overheating and exploding such as Teslas.
> The CEO of Amazon just can't be associated with such public failures.
I see no reason for this. I think the opposite is true, having high profile test would actually improve the image of the public figure.
Maybe if it was Amazon himself you would have a point, but a totally separate company? Sorry, not buying it.
It seems to me you are just making up excuses to explain away Bezos failure.
> These are not software margins we are talking about, to channel my inner Ricky Bobby: If you ain't software, you are last.
So first of all Branson is a terrible source.
Second of all, of course they don't get software margin. They are capital intensive business. But that is just terrible analysis, based on this logic no company before 1960 could ever be a good business because its not software?
So I guess anybody not selling software should just go home and start drinking because apparently its not worth it. If the market is large and you compare favorably in terms of competition they are good business by literally any objective measure.
That is other then haters who clearly have personal dislike for the CEO.
This has incredible potential to disrupt the ads business, marketplace business, as well as the software UI business.
In one word. It would completely disrupt the data mining business.
They only know when you click on something nowadays. With this tech it would completely change the data mining business and the info it can extract on the levels of engagements.
I predict there will be a system in place to prevent the cam being used at all times though.
Google can come up with something on Youtube streams where the streamer is using the front camera or maybe revamp GoogleTalk with ads, bottom line is giving the user a reason to use the front camera and then capture the gaze
If 20 years ago, you told me people would use a digital map on their phone that activily tracks their real-time location and habits and then associates that with a unique 'user profile', I would also say: Really hard to pull this off, people won't accept... yet here we are.
All these companies have consistently managed to creep the limits of what we allow by alluring people with frictionless convenience (at the cost of privacy).
No...like the camera being disabled for real unless you give the consent to use it....all that under the penalty of losing the 2 trillion dollar company reputation if you are uncovered doing otherwise.
This thing would only work at 2% of its potential unless you also give users an excuse to use the front camera much more frequently and move the ads from search towards the aforementioned front camera environment.
They have a whole lot of social engineering to do which has to go along with the proper engineering.
I guess efficiency and customization junkies would love a GoogleDocs UI which is optimized for their gaze so you can be upfront with them
How much of a negative impact did Google see when it was shown that their smart speakers were recording and sharing that data 100% of the time? Probably wasn't zero, but it also wasn't enormous.
You are crazy if you think Tesla margins are different than other automakers.
They do the exact same thing, and building cars is the worst business there is.
Regardless...now is the moment when the rubber meets the road. Market cap cannot grow more than 1 trillion, Musk now has to start posting margins in line with such marketcap.
> Regardless...now is the moment when the rubber meets the road. Market cap cannot grow more than 1 trillion, Musk now has to start posting margins in line with such marketcap.
Tesla stock is wildly over-valued in my opinion. Even if everything goes fantastically for the company it may not grow into its own stock price. I would like like to short the stock, among others, to hedge my long positions.
I still believe the company will be a success though - just not as quickly as the market seems to think.
Point being. Will all Musk bootlickers be around when Tesla "succeeds" but is a paltry 87 billion dollar automaker company and Musk goes way down in the Forbes list?
My guess is no. People want to talk about success and success is measured with marketcap and net worth. 99% of people who know Musk name have really no business knowing his name and care very little about electric vehicles.
My guess he also can't handle going back to 2014 levels of social relevancy and will try and run for governor or some other thing like that.
Musk is fundamentally an attention whore, he pumped the marketcap before the company was mature, it's not like Tesla marketcap grew spontaneusly.
Nobody loves/hates Sergey Brin, Lawrance Page, Jim Simons, John Overdeck, Clifford Assness, Andrew Beal etc...
If you worked in the promotional industry you'd know that rockstars/popstars have to be dragged kicking and screaming , away from drugs and parties, to do interviews and media appearences.
Entrepreneurs who want to be famous such as Musk and Trump...nobody is dragging them, they are the ones who want to do it.
As per the article, master promoters, because they know their business is not capable of making it on their own merits.
I remind you that Microsoft never ever took VC money, just organic growth and re-investing revenues. People who do it the proper way don't need the flashes, quite the contrary they are busy hiding their margins to avoid other people getting in the space.
No way. The vast majority of people who invest in crypto do so because in the back of their mind they are afraid of inflation
That's the spring which compels them to invest: hatred towards the Fed policy of 2%, the public would really love a -2%.
The sentiment is so strong that they accept the consequences of the vastly inferior settlment mechanism which is BTC as well as all the headaches.
People don't have the same hatred and concern for companies which Eth aims to disrupt. People by and large love their user experience on Amazon, Google, Youtube, Robinhood etc. whereas Eth and DeFi is overtly complicated with 0 liquidity
The only bull case I can see for DeFi is that nerds with money and cryptopunk attitude would think that regular people would want to exchange JPMorgan and RobinHood for DeFi...in that case of course price will pump because a whole lot of people anticipate something, but it won't happen for real, just as an appreciation due to people betting and projecting that everybody is wired as them.
So, your suggestion is that no only are crypto investors worried about inflation, they are worried about inflation more than climate change (it's the opposite for me). I would love to see some poll of the Ethereum and Bitcoin communities to see how representative our respective views are.
Absolutely, inflation you can hedge against, for climate change you need the whole world to play ball. It's something people say in the social setting to look cool and hip, but when the curtains are closed they buy the cheapest stuff no matter the source.
Also at the individual level the only good move is to secure that you'll not be affected by climate change. How? By becoming rich, which is a natural consequence of not losing out to inflation and also by profiting off the appreciation of BTC.
Wow, I definitely disagree that becoming rich is the right hedge against climate change. That's a zero-sum view of the world that I don't agree with or support.
Your comments make me even more enthusiastic for Ethereum to move to proof-of-stake, so that we can (at least!) signal our willingness to collectively address climate change.
Mad respect to Bob Dylan, he's the best at what he does and this inteview proves it, because he touches the social and human aspect.
You need these capabilities to write great songs.
To me the reality is much simpler. A rock n roll song needs more time to be appreciated compared to other styles of music.
Modern society goes much faster than the 60s and 70s. Also competition with other forms of entertainment...music quality has remained essentially the same compared to the 60s...whereas the quality of video based story telling (TV, movies, live sports etc.) improved from distorted out of focus sporadic content to 8K whenever you want
Explain to whom?