Strike is a great tool and I'm excited for what they're doing, but make sure you're using it as a tool, not as a way to outsource responsibility.

Not every company that fails its users is malicious or dumb - some have the best intentions and competence, but they're still people. People have imperfect foresight, imperfect ambition, a tendency to overestimate upside and underestimate downside, and a reluctance to admit mistakes, especially mistakes that seem like they can be fixed/covered up with just a little more risk-taking. Any of these in a tiny amount is enough to create catastrophe.

For me, the biggest takeaway from the FTX saga is that even traditional markers of credibility aren't enough in this space. I'm talking about lines of thinking like, "If a company does ___, it's probably alright" or "If a person is ___, they're probably alright". For example, "If a company is advertised on this podcast, it's probably alright" "If a company has its name on a stadium, it's probably alright" "If a company solved my problem within 48 hours, it's probably alright." Could be anything. In most areas of life, these markers tend to be accurate. Not in this space.

We're way out on the risk curve, way farther out than people like me (who don't come from finance, we got into finance through bitcoin/crypto) realized. Our standard for trust should be something like, "Could I satisfactorily answer every question about this platform/investment from an extremely annoying, extremely intelligent friend who will definitely say 'I told you so' every day for the rest of my life if it fails me?"

Sorry for the essay, I'm just drawing from my own extreme laziness/desire to just trust someone to make me money rather than put in the work to protect myself.