Honestly I didn't read the entire post in detail, after I realized I have a difficult time distinguishing which paragraphs are yours, and which were quotes. Regular markdown quote blocks, with a > beginning each paragraph or standalone line, should preserve any formatting within a longer AI response, while being clearer to your readers.
Maybe all the paragraphs after the prompt are from the LLM response, and only # headings are your comments?
As for the claim about "financial engineering", lots of collective worry ends up spending itself on accelerating the eventual efficiency of markets; it is no good if they are only asymptotically efficient, while being far enough away from any theoretically ideal value that the data become a haze of anecdotes. So it is logical that some economic effort goes "meta"; what worries me is when financial engineers bring to market some deceptively simple product [e.g., MSTR can be bought and sold like any ticker] which might influence "followy" liquidity the way any rattle lures children, while the leading liquidity reacts to externalities in qualitatively different ways than it does in e.g. commodities [which at their simplest aren't even a financial product, just literal stuff with physical bounds on its behavior].
tl;dr I don't like the hype that developed around MSTR, despite still respecting their general effort
Honestly I didn't read the entire post in detail, after I realized I have a difficult time distinguishing which paragraphs are yours, and which were quotes. Regular markdown quote blocks, with a
>beginning each paragraph or standalone line, should preserve any formatting within a longer AI response, while being clearer to your readers.Maybe all the paragraphs after the prompt are from the LLM response, and only
#headings are your comments?As for the claim about "financial engineering", lots of collective worry ends up spending itself on accelerating the eventual efficiency of markets; it is no good if they are only asymptotically efficient, while being far enough away from any theoretically ideal value that the data become a haze of anecdotes. So it is logical that some economic effort goes "meta"; what worries me is when financial engineers bring to market some deceptively simple product [e.g., MSTR can be bought and sold like any ticker] which might influence "followy" liquidity the way any rattle lures children, while the leading liquidity reacts to externalities in qualitatively different ways than it does in e.g. commodities [which at their simplest aren't even a financial product, just literal stuff with physical bounds on its behavior].
tl;dr I don't like the hype that developed around MSTR, despite still respecting their general effort