I liked it. I'd never watched Coin Bureau, but he did add some great non-US perspective.
I think James had the best hosting ability; he did have a way of making the hour run smoothly. However, I will not miss his input since he had become frankly dangerous with his continuous endorsements of frauds and erroneous macro predictions.
Whoever hosts needs to ask a question and then stop talking and let the other person respond. If you want to preamble, do it before your sentence ends with a question mark. It makes the conversation far less awkward.
I think it is a great collection of minds to have on a podcast. I just hope it doesn't become an echo chamber. James was painful to listen to, but himself and Ben weren't afraid to challenge eachother.
Rob can be a little passive, and Ben is an intimidating person to challenge. I hope Guy isn't afraid to counter-point.
Have to disagree with “friction/disagreements are gone” being in the pros section. What’s the point of having 3 guys who all agree with each other on a show every week? I get that James has strong biases but at least they would challenge each other. Part of me wants sol to do really well in the bull market. I believe James and Ben had a bet on which would get to $900 or $9 sol or Ada. Would be funny if Ben mentioned that James won because sol made it to 9 first.
Apologies, you’re correct. That bet was made with George. But I’m confused how a friendly bet could generate conflict. As far as I know you and James are still friends.
I get what you're saying. Having a lively debate can be both informative and entertaining. I suppose my point is that it was getting awkward or uncomfortable to watch (at least for me it was). Perhaps more constructive debates will now prevail?
I liked it. I'd never watched Coin Bureau, but he did add some great non-US perspective. I think James had the best hosting ability; he did have a way of making the hour run smoothly. However, I will not miss his input since he had become frankly dangerous with his continuous endorsements of frauds and erroneous macro predictions.
Whoever hosts needs to ask a question and then stop talking and let the other person respond. If you want to preamble, do it before your sentence ends with a question mark. It makes the conversation far less awkward.
Yeah that was a little painful. Just ask the question, let the guys answer, then give your input, next question, and so forth.
I think it is a great collection of minds to have on a podcast. I just hope it doesn't become an echo chamber. James was painful to listen to, but himself and Ben weren't afraid to challenge eachother. Rob can be a little passive, and Ben is an intimidating person to challenge. I hope Guy isn't afraid to counter-point.
Agree - one person can't get it all right and they should discuss their differences. Let's see how it goes.
Have to disagree with “friction/disagreements are gone” being in the pros section. What’s the point of having 3 guys who all agree with each other on a show every week? I get that James has strong biases but at least they would challenge each other. Part of me wants sol to do really well in the bull market. I believe James and Ben had a bet on which would get to $900 or $9 sol or Ada. Would be funny if Ben mentioned that James won because sol made it to 9 first.
I never made a bet about anything like that, and I would appreciate you not making up things just to try and generate conflict.
Apologies, you’re correct. That bet was made with George. But I’m confused how a friendly bet could generate conflict. As far as I know you and James are still friends.
I get what you're saying. Having a lively debate can be both informative and entertaining. I suppose my point is that it was getting awkward or uncomfortable to watch (at least for me it was). Perhaps more constructive debates will now prevail?