-
@ 42342239:1d80db24
2025-02-16 08:39:59
Almost 150 years ago, the British newspaper editor William Thomas Stead wrote that "the editorial pen is a [sceptre of power](https://archive.org/details/GovernmentByJournalismWilliamThomasStead), compared with which the sceptre of many a monarch is but a gilded lath". He had begun to regard journalism as something more than just conveying information - **the journalist or editor could become a ruler.**
Times had certainly changed compared to a few hundred years earlier. Before [Gutenberg's invention of the printing press](https://underorion.se/en/posts/gutenberg/), it was mainly the church that controlled the dissemination of information in Europe, but when Stead put pen to paper, this control had shifted to newspapers, schools, and universities. Eventually, technologies like radio and TV entered the scene, but the power dynamics remained asymmetrical - only a few could send information to the many.
However, with the emergence of the internet, and especially with the spread of social media, a significant change followed. Instead of only a few being able to send information to the many, many could send to many. Almost anyone could now create their own newspaper, radio, or TV channel. **The power over information dissemination was decentralised.**
[Ten years ago](https://www.di.se/ditv/rikets-affarer-medierna-ar-splittrade/), Roberta Alenius, who was then press secretary for Sweden's Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of the Moderate Party, shared her experiences with Social Democratic and Moderate Party internet activists on social media. She reported that social media played a significant role in how news "comes out" and is shaped, and that **journalism was now downstream of social media**. [Five years later](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_166392.htm), NATO's then-Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that "NATO must be prepared for both conventional and hybrid threats: **from tanks to tweets**." This finally underscores the importance of social media.
Elon Musk, who took over X (formerly Twitter) in 2022, has claimed that "it's absolutely fundamental and transformative that the people actually get to decide the news and narrative and what's important," and that [citizen journalism is the future](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1870485116474278240).
While his platform allows most expressions - for better or worse - the reach of messages is instead limited ("[freedom of speech does not mean freedom of reach](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/R9TuhTz0vmo) "). X has also opened its recommendation algorithm to the outside world by making it open-source. Although this is a welcome step, the fact remains that **it's impossible to know which code is actually used** and what adjustments are made by humans or algorithms.
William Thomas Stead's "sceptre of power", which has wandered from the church to newspaper and TV editorial offices, and now to citizens according to Elon Musk, risks being transferred to algorithms' opaque methods?
Instead of talking about "toxic algorithms" and TikTok bans, like the so many do today, we should ask ourselves more fundamental questions. What happens when algorithms are no longer objective (how can they ever be?), but instead become tools for shaping our reality? **Perhaps our greatest challenge today is not deciding who should govern the information landscape, but instead recognising that no one is up to the task** - not even well-ventilated computers.
-
@ c3c7122c:607731d7
2025-02-16 07:48:35
At my meet up (the SD Bitcoiners Cete) on Thursday, I presented trends on the Bisq protocol. One of its features is that anyone can export the trade history and analyze it.
Bisq is a private, peer-tp-peer way to buy and sell bitcoin. All data are based on the BTC-USD market.
Trade number decreased in 2024
But USD volume increased ($/year)
(same graph but $/day by year)
Which means more higher value per trade
Interestingly, trade counts and price volatility lead to interesting BTC volume per year. The peaks are nearly identical (330 BTC)!
Not so surprising when you compare BTC volume traded to the average BTC price that year, local price valleys mean local peaks in BTC traded (and vice versa).
I separate fiat payment methods into three groups.
All USD payment methods used in 2024 by average value (y-axis) and number of trades (bubble size)
This is the same graph as above excluding Zelle and Strike, since they throw off the relative circle size (face-to-face only had 1 trade in 2024).
Two fiat methods had >1000 trades in 2024. Strike came on the scene hot in 2021 and ate some of the Zelle volume but that may have stabilized.
Six fiat methods had 200-1000 trades in 2024. Amazon Gift Card dwindling, Cash By Mail still top of this group, and Revolut surging (wtf is Revolut?)
Same group, all years
Last group is <200 trades in 2024. Basically unused, except for Wire Transfer increasing.
Same group, all years
What's the average trade size by fiat method? There are different reasons for this, largely driven by fiat fees and bank limits. Amazon Gift Card is an interesting option for smaller payments (note: you can't just send any gift card, there is a very specific process, see the Bisq [wiki]( https://bisq.wiki/Amazon_eGift_card))
There no KYC premium, but there is a small Surveillance Discount
If you open Bisq for the first time, you'll likely see spreads 3-5% or larger. These offers persist because no one wants them. So people think that Bisq is "too expensive." But let's dig into the actual trades...
Comparing the daily trade volume to daily market rate (I used coingecko), and creating a monthly weighted average, the true surveillance discount emerges. It's not 3-5% as you might see in the order book at any given time. In fact, it was cheaper to trade on Bisq than exchanges in November and December! (Note: this does not take into account the 4 on-chain transactions required for a trade or price spread/fees used by exchanges)
In 2024, Strike had the worst surveillance discount and Cash By Mail had the best. This isn't surprising because receiving cash is convenient and low risk for a seller so they're willing to accept a lower price. Zelle (the most common USD payment method) had the second best surveillance discount.
Now let's compare the surveillance discount by week in 2024 for select payment methods.
Strike was consistently worse than Zelle
Revolut was sometimes way worse than Zelle but sometimes a little better.
The two most private payment methods are cash and money order. They're pretty competitive regarding surveillance discount.
Take aways
* Be a maker and get a better price (fees are better too)
* Zelle is better for speed + convenience
* Amazon gift cards are good for speed + privacy (sorta)
* Cash or money order are better for privacy + volume