I mine Ethereum when I go to bed. I'm an anxiety-ridden wreck who's never even checked his wallet.
>Do you use any form of cryptocurrency?
Not to sound like a downer, but no. Why enforce capitalism online when capitalism is already so prevalent offline? Why not break free? Do you think cryptocoins can actually help the world?
Freed markets and FairCoin are interesting to me as an anarchist
But aren't anarchism and capitalism mutually exclusive?
>>61>Do you think cryptocoins can actually help the world?
Nope, not at all.
But I don't either believe that there's anything that'll make the world a better place, we're spiraling down and past the point of recovery.
Capitalism is the employer-employee social hierarchy where the employer through the promulgation of private property and the wage system subordinates the working class into dis-empowered servitude.
Capitalism isn't the only market economy in existence.
In fact there are anti-capitalist markets as well.
Mutualism is the robustly anarchist market economy which takes use of non-FIAT monetary systems and/or labor vouchers (thus untaxed) in conjunction with collectivization of private property (co-operative workplaces, no bosses) and decentralized federation (working class internationalism, anti-statism).
Lately with the influence of American neoliberals like Murray Rothbard, theorists set it upon themselves to radicalize some of his theories away from his conservative practices (parliamentarism) and toward more 'guerilla' tactics (creating black markets, or "counter-economics" everywhere - the tactic of "agorism"). With no intention of abolishing private property this uncooperative theory, praising individual 'entrepreneurs' morally (read 'weakly'), has no actual way of preventing the capitalist hierarchical relations from re-emerging.
FairCoin is quite clearly a mutualist project, capable of inter-operation with anarcho-syndicalist or Communalist projects (something happening right now in the revolutionary region of Rojava): http://cooperativa.cat/en/from-chiapas-to-rojava-more-than-just-coincidences/
Within the "market anarchist" conception I without a doubt prefer mutualism, but that doesn't mean I don't find the more agorist-like projects interesting. Many of their developments in crypto-interaction should be implemented on the anarcho-syndicalist/mutualist side as well (and it seems FairCoin is doing parts of it, I would just also like anonymization).
OpenBazaar appears to be the prototypical crypto-agorist project in the contemporary period.
While FairCoin safeguards itself against degenerating into a free market of babies and "voluntary" hierarchy (neoliberalism/"anarcho"-capitalism) OpenBazaar basically is open for this to happen at any moment if I'm not mistaken. They lately introduced the long-awaited feature of Tor-support, which resulted in OpenBazaar swiftly turning from simply a decentralized artisan market into that plus a better way to get Lysergic acid diethylamide than your local text-messaging chump who's actually selling NBOMe.
I see. Your post was incredibly interesting and informative, despite my preference for economies that aren't market economies.
>>61>Do you think cryptocoins can actually help the world?
Yes. I do. There are many people in many parts of the world living under very authoritarian governments. These people are being tracked and restricted; their spending is being tracked; their lives are being controlled by their government prohibiting them from trading as they see fit to obtain that which they want. If cryptocurrencies enable people to exchange freely without government intervention then I consider that to be helping the world.>>65
As an agorist, I have to say that most
of Proudhon's mutualism seems like quite an improvement over today's systems. However, I find his suggestion of a central bank to be less than palatable. Why organize one central bank? Is that not giving one organization power over all other people? Why not allow for a multitude of banks to spring up, organically, giving the workers and entrepreneurs freedom to choose the source of their credit?
Indeed classical Proudhonian mutualism is showing it's age in certain aspects and is the cause of some different attempts at updating it to the contemporary situation. Kevin Carson is the most influential in this space, integrating Marx, Rothbard and analysis of the current cyberspatial crypto-, free software- and piracy-situation and the potentials mutualist integration in these spaces. Others are trying to do a more "Neo-Proudhonian" approach.
Also it needs to be stressed that Proudhon advocated a >cooperative< central bank, something very different from the central banks we have today. I think the, or at least a blockchain could fill in a contemporary replacement for this cooperative central bank concept, which perhaps has become too dated in today's digital world.
Do you anons come from 0chan by any chance? I should really check out that place, as I'm becoming rather dissatisfied with the current political system, but don't know very much about anarchy. I didn't even realise that you could get market economies in anarchy outside of anarcho capitalism, (which I'm not a fan of). I would leave a polite sage for offtopic, but I'm new to the .jp lain and can't see the option anywhere.
>>69>Do you anons come from 0chan by any chance?
) No, I don't. I find it far too edgy leftist for my tastes.
Do you guys think that cryptocurrencies will soon be federally regulated? After all, it's a non-governmental form of money, to which taxes don't apply. Will cryptocurrencies be derezzed outright?
Not unless you can buy property or food with it. Right now you can just buy shirts and other trinkets so it's basically a joke being played out on some wanna be stock market.
I used to be on btc back in the day but the community got invaded by speculators and some of the worst human garbage I ever seen. Now the community is broken between western speculators and chinese speculators, ether is nothing but a bigass scam that somehow still exists because old bagholders need new bagholders to get their money back
All alts are bullsoykaf, most projects to build a new internet on the blockchain are just made up crap to inflate the value of worthless tokens before the few people involved in the scam dump it all at once and make millions>>61
Move to north korea chummer
Why do you people have to keep coming to communities and soykafting up the place with your politics?
I come here for /Cyb/ and all I get are Marxists and god damn Neo Libs pushing their view point.
Will you kindly stop?
Agreed, I think the world would be a far better place if we made them trade places with people like you, its a globalized world after all! No borders, lets move them!
I think cryptocurrencies fall victim to the pitfalls of centralization when they grow too big, I think we should avoid them or use lots of them together, but never just one or two. A piece of software that keeps tens of wallets of different cryptocoins and uses them all would be useful, say you transfer 1 USD worth of "AsteriskCoin" with this app, but in reality it would be transfering 0.2 USD worth of FairCoin, 0.1 USD in LiteCoin, 0.001 USD in Bitcoin, 0.1 USD in DogeCoin, and so on until you send that distributed buck. Maybe it could do the math to keep itself stable averaging out other coins' fluctuations, but one should do the math before the features.
Also they depend on the Internet. A distributed coin you can use locally (like firechat or piratebox) would be great, but I don't know any examples.https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/blockchain-of-command/528543/>But Bitcoin’s success has accidentally undermined its viability. Each Bitcoin transaction adds more encrypted data to the blockchain, requiring increasingly more computer power to verify (and to earn the associated commission). More computing power means more energy cost to run and cool the machines, which requires more capital and physical infrastructure to support. Those rising costs inspire centralization. Adam Greenfield tells me that two Chinese giants can control over half of the global Bitcoin mining operations. If they collaborate, a majority-control of the blockchain could allow them to manipulate it. That’s precisely the risk a decentralized currency was meant to avoid.>Future cryptocurrencies operated by banks or governments might enjoy more productive use than Bitcoin.>Picture China mandating state cryptocurrency, tying the country’s proposed social credit system to that ledger. Or imagine if the North Carolina State legislature decided to issue all food stamp vouchers in crypto form to better manage their future use.>People adopted technology in sufficient numbers to allow industry, and the culture that follows it, to conclude that the market had decided what was best.
>What do you think is the future of cryptocoins?
Big companies will start their own coins for their users, as they start providing meatspace services. Upload data about your friends, +1 FaceCoin. Report on fayk noos, +1 GCoin.
>>76>Big companies will start their own coins for their users, as they start providing meatspace services. Upload data about your friends, +1 FaceCoin. Report on fayk noos, +1 GCoin.
You said it right here.
cryptocurrency is just a glorified points system that gets suckers to buy in using real money. A virtual version of snake oil that has fooled so many and continues to meme and clone itself into other fake currencies using pseudo-math and decentralization(tm) as it's selling point.
>>75>>I come here for /Cyb/ and all I get are Marxists and god damn Neo Libs pushing their view point. Will you kindly stop?
I completely agree with your point of keeping politics out of things as much as possible.
>>its a globalized world after all! No borders, lets move them!
Shouldn't a globalized world have a globalized currency? Bitcoin is the closest thing we have, but if that is taken up by the general populus, will it create a more volatile market due to being used absolutely everywhere, or will it make things stagnate?
It should, we are seeing this with the Euro, but dont we already have global currencies?
The Euro is one for sure, but the USD is used everywhere, its just that we use local currencies to compartmentalize failure. Look at the impact Greece has had on the Euro. One bad nation can bring down everything with a single currency.
I sure wish I knew how to anonymously buy and store bitcoins. I have plenty of hard currency I just don't know how to get the virtual kinds.
If you want to do it anonymously you'll have to use a meatspace exchange like LocalBitcoins.
>Agreed, I think the world would be a far better place if we made them trade places with people like you, its a globalized world after all! No borders, lets move them!
Joking aside you know you could marry a third-worlder so they get citizenship and you get theirs, then renounce your original citizenship and move to their country thus essentially switching places
Why currency at all, why not a internet gift economy of sorts,.
You could say a gift economy doesn't befits you individually, but it gives a collective benefit and can build sense a community.
Because that requires trusting other people to not be dicks. The one lesson that all of history teaches is that you cannot trust other people to not be dicks.
All society's run on trust, if they didn't they would quickly collapse.
Everyday you trust people to do things even if you don't think about it, you trust a mailman to give you your mail, you trust the doctor that he knows what he's doing, you trust a bank with your money and when you call the firefighters you trust them to come.
Imagine all the examples of people you trust and then imagine what would happen if no one can trust them, absolute chaos.
Trust isn't absolute; it's a matter of risk vs. reward. Trusting other people with a parcel is one thing. Trusting other people with the entire economy is quite another.
The entire point of Bitcoin (and subsequent cryptos) is that it provides a completely trustless platform for commerce. The proof-of-work secured block chain provides byzantine fault tolerance, creating an immutable ledger that allows people to transfer funds without worrying that someone else is up to something.
It's true that something like bitcoin can give perfect security, but there's a cost, the reason you don't need trust for it, is because no ones in control .
If you take the logic of the security of bitcoin and apply it to the economy, you would have a case where people would have very little freedom since everything would be organized by automated procedures, to eliminate the need for trust .
Something like Bitcoin works, but it isn't really something you can base a economy off of, unless your willing to make the cost.
How is nobody being in control of the currency a "cost" - I see that as a benefit. TPTB controlling and manipulating currency is a big part of how the world got to its current state. A truly decentralized system that grants nobody power over any other is an objective, not a sacrifice.
If you take a system such as Bitcoin and apply it to a larger economy then you would have an economy in which people are free to trade as they see fit without worrying about interference in their transactions.
Because in such an economy there wouldn't be any clear link between what people want and what is being produced, so we would end up with people using resources to produce stuff other people don't want.
Don't get me wrong though, there is definitely room for such initiatives and I'd participate in something like this but a whole system based on it would probably be more wasteful than currency
But there are a lot of things people will always need and therefore want,
food, water, homes, clean spaces,clothes.
Plus there are jobs like doctors, janitors,scientists,engineers and fireman there will always be a demand for.
There are a lot of things which are social goods, there not individual goods, but goods that can befit everyone with there existence, things like roads,healthcare,homes,farms.
A gift economy would probably be best based around things like these then any other kind of economy.
My comment has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I just want to suggest that "Mr. The Plague" be added to the name pool.
lol I didn't choose that name, it was assigned to me it's already in it I think>>91
Well aside from water which is evident I have no idea whatsoever about what people need, everyday I see people making choices I don't comprehend yet they seem perfectly happy with them. I consider value as something subjective and since I'm not in everyone's head having prices on goods helps me knowing what people want.
Then all the things you stated will always be in demand you're right, but how would you quantify that demand and produce accordingly without any feedback from the people who want the goods nor any incentive to produce them?
Maybe I'm missing something but soykaf doesn't make sense, is seems we would end up with 9000 firemen while there aren't any fire because girls think they're hot and 3 janitors because well janitor
Value definitely has a subjective aspect, since a thing can't have value unless somebody's subjective need can be fulfilled by it.
By value has a objective aspect in addition to this subjective aspect. There can't be anything that can meet someones subjective need unless it already exists either in nature or is made by human labor.
So in order for a thing to have value it must meet a subjective need and also exist in nature/be made by human labor.
Subjectively can't account for value and therefore prices alone.
Also just because something is subjective, doesn't mean it's not universal or contingent , for example look at food ,people always need to eat food or they die and no one has any agency for if there hunger or not it's something necessary, even if it's subjective .
Hunger is also universal, everyone can have hunger and all will have the desire to eat food through out there life. It's subjective i.e it is not independent of the mind but it is universal.
But of course there are subjective needs that are not necessary, nor are they universal.
For example a need for paintings, you have agency over if you want paintings and you won't die if don't have paintings. The need for paintings is not universal some people would want it and some won't want it.
You might not agree with i said but it is the logic behind what i have been saying.
>>94>for example look at food ,people always need to eat food
"Food" is not one single thing; it is a category. Sure, there will always be a demand for food. But, how do you know what type of food is in demand? Should we have more dairy farmers? More corn farmers? Maybe we need more turnips. How would anyone know what sort of food to produce without proper economic signals?
>Subjectively can't account for value and therefore prices alone.
Yes it can. If literally nobody wants a thing, then it has no practical value.
>>95>Yes it can. If literally nobody wants a thing, then it has no practical value.
No it can't, if you read my post you would see i recognized that subjectively is an important essential aspect of value but it is NOT the only essential aspect.
I thing can't have value if it doesn't exist, things that have value are a product of human social labor, so a things value is both the subjective need it meets and the social labor that went in to it .
A thing in order to have value it must be produced.
>>96>A thing in order to have value it must be produced.
These cryptocurrency suckers can't even grasp understand this basic concept. When was the last time someone traded in gold directly for bitcoin or whatever stupid coin is nerd-trending now?
I swear it's like the Rube Goldberg version of "points" that chain stores give out. Except that points are actually worth something.
A thing has value if its holder can exchange it for something else of value. If it can be exchanged for goods and services (or can be exchanged for money which in turn can be exchanged for goods and services) then it has value. If that condition is not fulfilled then, for all practical intents and purposes, the thing has no value.>>97>When was the last time someone traded in gold directly for bitcoinhttps://www.vaultoro.com/
And on half a dozen (at least) other exchanges.
In order for things to be exchanged they need to be first produced by social labour, while the ability of a thing to fill a human need enables a thing to have value, it does not determine there value, nor there exchange value.
The use of a thing is un- quantifiable, by what metric does say the use of a book and the use of a bath be represented as exchange values, they can't.
Value and exchange value of a thing are determined by the average social labour time it takes to make the thing.
>>99>In order for things to be exchanged they need to be first produced by social labour
If I pick up a rock off the beach then I could exchange it for money if somebody else though it looked nice. What "social labor" has been put into that?
>by what metric does say the use of a book and the use of a bath be represented as exchange values
If I say "come take a bath for $50" and nobody comes, then it clearly isn't worth $50. If I say "come take a bath for $40" and tons of people come, then it's clearly worth $40. Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. If I can get $XX for a thing, then that thing has a value of $XX.
>If I pick up a rock off the beach then I could exchange it for money if somebody else though it looked nice. What "social labor" has been put into that?
Do you live on a desert island, i will take a guess you don't and you live in a society, and if you manged to sell a nice rock that was on a beach to someone the amount of money you get for that nice rock is next to nothing.
The reason for that is that it takes very little effort to get nice looking rocks in that society the average social labor time for getting nice rocks is quite small, in other words the bare average minimum time in that society for getting nice rocks is very small therefore the value is very small.
But say if the the average social labor time for getting nice rocks is very high, that might be because the nice rocks are deep underground or there very rare or not a lot of people are getting nice rocks, then the the bare average minimum time in that society for getting nice rocks is very big therefore the value is very big.
>If I say "come take a bath for $50" and nobody comes, then it clearly isn't worth $50. If I say "come take a bath for $40" and tons of people come, then it's clearly worth $40. Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. If I can get $XX for a thing, then that thing has a value of $XX.
You realize you haven't really explained anything, people are willing to pay $40 dollars for a bath therefore that's why it's worth $40 dollars is about the same as saying it's worth $40 because magic.
You need to show how $40 dollars and the need of having a bath are equal to each other, you have described but you haven't shown why.
>>101>the amount of money you get for that nice rock is next to nothing
Okay, let's say I was out for a leisurely hike - enjoying myself, not working - and, upon stopping to cool my feet in the steam, found a honking big gold nugget. Is the "labor value" of that shiny rock equal to the ten seconds that it took me to bend down and pick it up or are there other factors that come into play?
>you have described but you haven't shown why
Existing in modern society costs money; I don't think that you're going to dispute that assertion. There are costs associated with food, housing, medical care, transportation, entertainment, and a whole host of other things. Let's presume that the cost of maintaining the lifestyle to which I am accustomed averages out to about $100/day. Now, let's imagine that I take up woodworking and make myself a pretty nice chair. I already have enough chairs; I don't really need it so I decide to sell it. By looking around, I can see that similar chairs have recently sold for $100 and thus can presume that a buyer would be willing to pay me about $100 for my chair. So, this chair has the ability to support, to pay for, to enable one day of my civilized life. It is not just a thing; it a thing that has utility
. That's what value really boils down to: value is a measure of utility. A chair that can support one day of my life has utility and therefore has value to me; a chair that can support two days of that same life has more utility and therefore has more value to me; a chair that can only support half a day has less utility and therefore has less value to me.
Utility is, of course, subjective. I value the chair because I can sell it and support my life. Why does the buyer value the chair? What utility does he see in it? I don't know; that's his business, not mine. Maybe he wants it to support his fat posterior; maybe he thinks it's pretty and wants it to fulfill a purely decorative function; maybe he thinks he can turn around and sell it again to fund another day in his life. Frankly, though, his reasons don't matter to my position as the seller. The only thing that matters is that I think it is worth $100 or less and he thinks that is is worth $100 or more and so we can agree that $100 is a fair price for the exchange.
>>102>Okay, let's say I was out for a leisurely hike - enjoying myself, not working - and, upon stopping to cool my feet in the steam, found a honking big gold nugget. Is the "labor value" of that shiny rock equal to the ten seconds that it took me to bend down and pick it up or are there other factors that come into play?
The individual labor time you put into getting that nugget is irrelevant to the nuggets value, what is relevant is the social labor time.
Your individual labor is a part of the social labor and so is everyone else individual labor, social labor is the sum of all the labor of individuals in a society.
Labor can be quantified as labor time, for example the individual labor you put into something like say making a bucket can be said to be 10 mins of labor time, but even if you put a lot of individual labor time into making the bucket that wont mean you will get a lot for it. That would be because in the society you live in many individuals would be making buckets, your labor of making buckets is not merely a individual isolated thing but part of the social labor of making buckets, the social labor time .
But the value of buckets would not be simply the social labor time but the average social labor time,
the average labor time for making buckets in that society.
I would also like to add that by value i don't mean price.
>Utility is, of course, subjective. I value the chair because I can sell it and support my life. Why does the buyer value the chair? What utility does he see in it? I don't know; that's his business, not mine. Maybe he wants it to support his fat posterior; maybe he thinks it's pretty and wants it to fulfill a purely decorative function; maybe he thinks he can turn around and sell it again to fund another day in his life. Frankly, though, his reasons don't matter to my position as the seller. The only thing that matters is that I think it is worth $100 or less and he thinks that is is worth $100 or more and so we can agree that $100 is a fair price for the exchange.
I like to point out that in this exchange the actual utility of the chair(i.e as something to sit on) has nothing to do with the exchange value, you said you only considered what you could get for it i.e it's exchange value, so what you mean when you say " value is a measure of utility" is that value is a measure of exchange value, the actual inherent utility of things like say things like books, cars, beds whatever has nothing to do with exchange , what does have to do with exchange is merely what you can get for it.
From the purely economical perspective of exchange, usefulness(i.e the individual uses of things) is useless.
In our modern economy we do not produce things for there uses but purely for there exchange value, for money .
But if we say the exchange value is value, that would be wrong since it would be circular reasoning.
The individual uses/utility of things can not be value since in exchange and production in our economy we only are about what we can get for things i.e there exchange value rather then any kind of usefulness that is inherent to them.
>>103>But the value of buckets would not be simply the social labor time but the average social labor time
How is this measured and whose measurement is authoritative?
>in this exchange the actual utility of the chair(i.e as something to sit on) has nothing to do with the exchange value
Are you saying that enabling me to not starve
is not useful, is not a utility of an object?
>>104>Are you saying that enabling me to not starve is not useful, is not a utility of an object?
It's inherent use that is due to its nature of being a chair has nothing to do with the exchange value is what am saying.
It enables you to not starve due to its exchange value, not it's value in use.
If you sell a chair what is important to you is the value in exchange, not it's value in use.
>How is this measured and whose measurement is authoritative?
Are you asking how to measure labour time? I was arguing that value was average social labour time, but I didn't claim it could be determined in some way.
>>105>It's inherent use that is due to its nature of being a chair
It's not just a chair; it's a thing; chair is a subclass of thing. Yes, a chair has the property of being able to be sat upon (although that property is not unique to chairs), but it also inherits all the properties of its base class (so to speak), the properties of a thing. All things have the property of being exchangeable. Exchange is
an inherent use of all things, chairs included.
>Are you asking how to measure labour time?
That is half of the question, yes. I take that response to mean "with a chronometer or something". The other half of the question was "whose measurement is authoritative"?
>but I didn't claim it could be determined in some way
How, then, is value to be known if it cannot be measured?
>>106>>106>It's not just a chair; it's a thing; chair is a subclass of thing. Yes, a chair has the property of being able to be sat upon (although that property is not unique to chairs), but it also inherits all the properties of its base class (so to speak), the properties of a thing. All things have the property of being exchangeable. Exchange is an inherent use of all things, chairs included.
Exchange is not inherent or natural, if a coat was worth $5 and you cut it up you would not find $5, exchange value of a thing is not a product of it's physical nature but a product of human activity .
Exchange and economical value is not independent of humans if all humans died they would not exist, i would say be both share this view .
But a things value in use is different, the value in use or use value is the way a thing can fulfill a human need that is due to the physical form or structure of a thing, this is independent of human subjective attitudes, food for example can by it's nature fulfill the human need of hunger, even if all humans died, that would still be true.
Economical value and use value are two complete opposites, economical value is a product of human economical activity and use value is due to the physical form of a thing.
Before civilization people produced things primarily for there use values, but in our current commodity economy things are produced primarily for there exchange value.
>How, then, is value to be known if it cannot be measured?
Even if it can't be empirically measured, we can know value by logical analysis of the commodity.
In commodity exchange the exchanged do not appear as things, but commodities. When you are buying 10 tons of coal, the physical properties of the actual things are not accessible. The best you can hope for is some aggregate metrics, but the actual quality of the thing is hidden.
Because use-value comes from the actual, concrete quality of a thing, exchange-value cannot be based on it. (Of course there are degenerate cases where you go to the farmers' market, choose the perfect apple and start bargaining, but they are extremely rare compared to the dominant form of commodity exchange.) The only thing common in every commodity is that they are all products of human labour, therefore their changeability must be based on this.
However, since in exchange they are not accessible in thing-form, the actual, concrete labour done on them is also inaccessible. Labour loses its concrete characteristics and appears only as labour time. The actual time spent on each thing is lost too. For this reason, the best we can get is something called socially necessary labour time
: the labour time necessary on average to produce the commodity by an averagely skilled worker working at average intensity using the average tools available to society.
So if you want to determine exchange-value, you will have to determine the socially necessary labour time
, which changes with place and time.
>>77>cryptocurrency is just a glorified points system that gets suckers to buy in using real money. A virtual version of snake oil that has fooled so many and continues to meme and clone itself into other fake currencies using pseudo-math and decentralization(tm) as it's selling point.
It's like banking 2.0. It will become truly dystopic when govt regulations stick in and make it legal to use the corporate coins only, because the other ones are used by criminals.
Someone should make a program to roll your own LAN coin and add it to piratebox or something, plus a client wallet. That could be used by particular stores and would be really cool.
You have explained the concept much better in one post then i have tried to do in multiple posts .
Cryptocoins are only good for lowering the price of GPUs: http://www.pcgamer.com/steep-decline-in-cryptocurrency-market-has-miners-dumping-their-gpus-on-ebay/
>What do you think is the future of cryptocoins?
The concept is neat and makes people feel h4x0r but in reality it's a waste of time.
>>109>Because use-value comes from the actual, concrete quality of a thing, exchange-value cannot be based on it.
If you can't base the practical value of an item upon the "true" value of the item, then what's the point of this "true" value.
>you will have to determine the socially necessary labour time, which changes with place and time
Even after all this back-and-forth, still nobody has answered my one question. Whose measurement is authoritative?
that's what reading Marx does for you
>>386>Using peer review as a authoritative source.
I feel like this was much more acceptable in earlier years but now we live in Present Day Present Time, where any old garbage can pass peer review most of the time.
That said, I think their Haskell stuff is amazing and they are by far one of my favorite coins. They have a extremely unique take on smart contract design.