Ideally, for this strategy, the PUT is an insurance, so you can buy the longest available period that is priced optimally.
The sold CALL is nearest-date expiry.
After the CALL expiry date, you sell another CALL option and repeat this until the PUT option that you own expires (upon which you can buy a new PUT option and continue the strategy). You collect dividends on the underlying + the premiums on the sold CALLs.
Your long-term profit would include the dividiends + CALL premiums - PUT option purchase price while being protected from drops in the stock value.
In the event of a sold CALL or PUT exercise scenario, you also have capital gains adding to the profit.
The answer will depend on who you ask and what your goal/strategy is. There are numerous places like TastyTrade that go over picking dates and price points.
Why is browser consolidation such a big problem? If the current market leader starts to fall behind, then whoever does it better will gain adoption. Isn't this how Chrome grew a following?
Browsers consolidated down to basically one and then that one just sat and didn't advance anymore. And why should it? It's not like users could go elsewhere.
For years the world was subjected to the absolute crap that ie6 ossified on and wouldn't fix.
We need viable competition to keep a fire lit under the leader to stay ahead.
Scarier is that Google controls Chrome/Blink and will continue to push "features" that make the web better for Google, not better for users. Mozilla are one of very, very few organisations that are in a position to push back against this at standards bodies - and for all the flak they get, they regularly do.
I don't think the problem with IE was necessarily consolidation as much as letting Microsoft be the only ones with the ability to modify or extend the engine. In my mind there would be nothing wrong with Mozilla joining Microsoft in basing their browser on Blink+V8. In fact it might even be a better way to ensure Google can't steer Chrome the same way Microsoft did since no matter how great they make it the competition will always be dragged along with it, there to become the better drop in option should Google decide to stop leading the push.
Another issue I ran into recently is that `Symbol.for(str)` will cause the entirety of `str` to be allocated forever in Chromium, but not in Firefox. (It's inevitable that `Symbol.for()` will have some memory impact, as a global allocation, but it's possible to mitigate it somewhat.)
IMO it's too bad that the effort to create a Node-alike driven by Spidermonkey instead of V8 never got anywhere.
Honestly using Edge has been a great experience for me. When they adopted Chromium over sticking with _another_ browser engine I was happy. MS has contributed a great amount to the Chromium project so far and I really don't think there's an issue with standardizing on an engine as long as innovations can still happen. It seems like being able to have vendor skins on top of Chromium has been a net positive in light of what's happened in the past. I'm a bit of a Microsoft shill as of late so take my experiences with a grain of salt.
I was there for it, but I don't recall it being THAT bad and I jumped to Chrome as soon as it hit the scene. It was only once there was an alternative to compare it too that it was obvious how bad IE was.
I jumped to Firefox 1.5 as soon as it was out and had my entire friend circle in on it within a few months.
When Chrome eventually came out I added it to my arsenal because it was new and there was an expectation that it would be as revolutionary as Firefox had been. And it was pretty good, much faster than ff was by that time. Never did give up ff entirely but Chrome ended up open more and more. Contrast to ie6 that I never opened again as soon as ff was available. I did check out ie7 when it came out but there was no reason to stay with it. Very much a catch up move.
That's true. NFTs seem also failed the test because the speculated price increase is not "derived from the efforts of others". I think that is one of the reasons SEC considers Bitcoin to be a commodity (which probably falls in the jurisdiction of CFTC) but not a security.
You're not quite right about NFTs. For example the "Lucky Block NFTs" entitle you to a percentage of a rewards pool. Or Vee Friends - Gary Vaynerchuk's NFTs - he's been very explicit that he will work to do things to increase the value of the NFTs. In fact, Gary Vee's pitch seems to be almost tailor made to meet the Howey test. I'm sure that A16Z were fastidious in their due diligence when they invested in it though.
I agree with you, but it's also one of those things where if everyone did their part, the impact would be quantifiable. I think these things have compounding effects. The changes have to start somewhere.
Welcome to HN, where crypto is the devil and must be eradicated at all costs. Anyone who thinks otherwise here is either perceived to be an idiot or a grifter.
It should, perhaps, tell you something that a community with one of the most highly concentrated populations of technically literate people on the internet are so vehemently against a technology.
Crypto is just a paperclip maximizer for silicon and electrons that does what traditional companies have been doing for at least 60 years. Only 100000x less efficiently.
> This community is nowhere near consensus on this matter. A small minority of loud naysayers is
There's an information bubble. It's not the crypto skeptics. There's a reason when governments around the world have moved to ban crypto there's been little to no popular resistance beyond angry 4channers.
> more governments have invested time, money, and regulatory effort into the crypto ecosystem than have banned it
Lots of chatting. Looking at actual dollars and laws, we're weighing the elephants of China, India and increasingly the EU against...Singapore, El Salvador and Malta?
Outside young men, disproportionately minorities, crypto has a limited beachhead [1]. It was an easy money phenomena with historic comparison. We're now seeing the regulatory mood shifting decisively against it with limited competent pushback.
> a16z is a large investor in the space and proponent
They're notable for where they're prominent and where they're not. Aggressive fundraising followed by SoftBank/Tiger style deployment. Tweets and blog posts galore. Yet middling returns, even on an internal basis, and absolutely zero presence worth mentioning in D.C.
I'm no greybeard. But I've worked in finance long enough to see the game they're playing.
Yes, but you still need, say, one computer to run what Bitcoin does (without the PoW hashing - just checking and recording 5 transactions per second). BTC uses around 15 GW currently, a computer say 15 to 150 W, so we are talking a factor of 1e9 (Giga) to 1e10.
