RT: @tszzl Disagree with "spend money", frugality is undervalued in elite circles imo. Having low expenses and having a 1 year savings cushion from early on helps a lot in preserving your freedom and reducing stress.

RT：@tszzl 不同意“花钱”，在 imo 精英圈子中，节俭被低估了。从一开始就拥有低开支和 1 年的储蓄缓冲，这对保持你的自由和减轻压力有很大帮助。

@tszzl Also, having low material standard of living early in life is good from a hedonic adaptation point of view. Happiness is better when your circumstances are rising, not flat. Heavily saving from early on helps to ensure this.

@tszzl 此外，从享乐适应的角度来看，生命早期的物质生活水平低是好的。当你的环境在上升而不是平坦时，幸福会更好。从一开始就进行大量储蓄有助于确保这一点。

@tszzl Particularly, don't be that guy who has above median income, doesn't have any extreme personal circumstances, but still says "I think my job is unethical but I can't quit because I have a house and I need...."

@tszzl 特别是，不要做那种收入高于中位数，没有任何极端个人情况，但仍然说“我认为我的工作是不道德的，但我不能辞职，因为我有房子而且我需要。 ……”

@tszzl Disagree with "spend money", frugality is undervalued in elite circles imo. Having low expenses and having a 1 year savings cushion from early on helps a lot in preserving your freedom and reducing stress.

@tszzl 不同意“花钱”，在 imo 精英圈子中，节俭被低估了。从一开始就拥有低开支和 1 年的储蓄缓冲，这对保持你的自由和减轻压力有很大帮助。

Thanks to @7StoriesPress @ntnsndr for publishing and organizing!

感谢@7StoriesPress @ntnsndr 的发布和组织！

"Proof of Stake", the (physical and digital) book compiling various writings I've made over the last ~10 years, will be out in a month!
You can get a signed digital copy and NFT here: https://proofofstake.gitcoin.c...
My share of the proceeds all goes to @gitcoin grants public goods!

“股权证明”，这本（物理和数字）书汇集了我在过去约 10 年中所做的各种著作，将在一个月内出版！
您可以在此处获取签名的数字副本和 NFT：https://proofofstake.gitcoin.c...
我的收益份额全部用于@gitcoin 赠款公益事业！

@Kdenkss Kissinger?

@Kdenkss 基辛格？

@0xCana nah I just think this morality of being really really worried about "platforming" people is overrated and deserves to be directly challenged more often

@0xCana 不，我只是认为这种真正担心“平台化”人们的道德被高估了，应该更频繁地受到直接挑战

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB (I know this is "adding epicycles"; the epicycle-free approach is to just bite the bullet and accept the role of speculators in keeping the system working)

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB（我知道这是“添加本轮”；无本轮的方法是硬着头皮接受投机者在保持系统运行方面的作用）

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB Could always also add a delay to when fees can *decrease*, so a 2-week-long bid causes a similar consequence to the amount the holder has to pay as a year-long bid.

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB 也总是会延迟费用可以*减少*的时间，因此为期 2 周的出价会导致持有人必须支付的为期一年的出价的类似后果。

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB But I don't think it's important for the mechanism to be super-convenient for bidders.

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB 但我认为该机制对投标人来说超级方便并不重要。

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB I imagine lots of bidders would just put the bid up for two weeks, see what happens, and withdraw it if they don't get the domain.

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB 我想很多竞标者只会将出价提高两周，看看会发生什么，如果他们没有获得域名，就撤回它。

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB Ah I see what you mean. You're right that the scheme requires a particular type of acquirer: someone willing to make a bid, and keep it there for a while, and maybe get the domain and maybe not.

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB 啊，我明白你的意思了。您说得对，该计划需要特定类型的收购方：愿意出价并在此保持一段时间的人，可能会获得域名，也可能不会。

Yarvin on DAOs:
https://graymirror.substack.co...
I agree with some parts and find the sovereign vs contractual distinction valuable, but disagree with other parts: my views on DAO design are more context-dependent. I may write on this more in the future.
I appreciate the contribution!

Yarvin 在 DAO 上：
https://graymirror.substack.co...
我同意某些部分并发现主权与合同的区别很有价值，但不同意其他部分：我对 DAO 设计的看法更依赖于上下文。我以后可能会写更多关于这方面的内容。
我感谢您的贡献！

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB Right now, you need to pay $n to guarantee ownership for n years. Why not try $n^2?

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB 现在，您需要支付 $n 来保证 n 年的所有权。为什么不试试 $n^2？

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB Not sure what you mean. I'm not suggesting a years-long transfer procedure. I'm suggesting a cap on how quickly the fee can rise, so you can put down a fixed amount and guarantee ownership for N years.

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB 不确定你的意思。我并不是建议进行长达数年的转移程序。我建议对费用上涨的速度设置一个上限，这样你就可以设定一个固定的金额并保证 N 年的所有权。

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB So I think there's a strong case for taking a more pure-private-property approach for long domains and some harberger thing for short ones!

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB 所以我认为有充分的理由对长域采取更纯粹的私有财产方法，而对短域采取一些先见之明！

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB Short domains are the ones that are most scarce, and so the ones where "unfairness to people in 2050" from making them claimable-in-perpetuity today is the greatest.

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB 短域是最稀缺的域，因此“2050 年对人们的不公平性”使它们在今天永久可索赔是最大的。

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB I see the point, but I think the number of years of stability needed to get most of the gains of stability is much less than infinity.
You could also apply the scheme only to <7 letter domains, so people who really want the stability can pay a small convenience tax.

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB 我明白这一点，但我认为获得大部分稳定收益所需的稳定年数远少于无限。
您也可以将该方案仅应用于

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB https://twitter.com/VitalikBut...

@nicksdjohnson @ArthurB https://twitter.com/VitalikBut...