Reviews on SR were rarely negative because the venders didn't do "some bad business". They did really good business, followed by really bad business and disappeared. It was common for vendors to cash out ESPECIALLY on the 4/20 sales and various other sales. They would offer incentives to FE (finalize early, ie release funds from the arbitrage) for months. Then, they would have a big sale. People would FE because they had such good rep, and then the vendors would disappear.
It was a common tactic. I'm not a DNM researcher anymore, but I'm sure it is still a common tactic. I expect that few reliable dealers are around for more than a year. That was certainly the case with SR, and the few that followed quickly in their footsteps.
The new markets are based around forums instead of marketplaces because the markets themselves were bigger targets (everyone considers the forums owned) and the markets offered no real security for buyers or sellers. It was just a costly place to unite the two, and often a source of theft themselves (hacks, or corrupt admins absconding with the funds.)
Acting like it was some sort of utopia is ridiculous. I'm very much on the liberty side of the political landscape, but we don't do anyone any favors by sugar coating the darknet drug industry.
The lack of street violence doesn't mean that there aren't wars raging. From the sources of the heroine (mostly from rural Afghanistan), cocaine (mostly from the jungles of South America), and as close as Mexico thousands die at the hands of violent monsters. Go watch some cartel videos on liveleak if you need a reminder.
We don't need to allow ourselves to be satisfied with violence as an externality. We need to consider massive changes in drug policy and defund the violence.
The comparison being to conflict diamonds (and conflict-free diamonds) - a lot of wars are fueled and escalated by revenues from natural resource extraction, and a pretty simple kind of ethical consumption is to decide to not buy diamonds from, say, the DRC. The market will adapt somewhat, especially if the good is a commodity whose origin can be obscured in the supply chain, but substituting a whole different good avoids that problem. Buy gems other than diamonds, for example.
Sugar is not conflict free- most comes from sugar cane, which is at fault for major deforrestation. In addition renewable carbohydrates are all part of a artesic market, meaning if you push them with subsidies on one market (bio-fuels), the subsidy propagates via demand to all connected markets. Meaning Sugar prizes rising is a indicator for future conflict due to missing food.
IMHO, It's only conflict free if you grow it yourself unfortunately. I don't smoke myself but I plan to summer in Colorado in 2018 and grow a crop to give to oncology patients and the like.
Not to be nitpicky, but why would these patients (who will be depositary of your good will) think any different from you as to "it's only conflict free if you grow it yourself"? They may as well use this moral standing to reject your crop.
I meant that if you buy it in stores, you are generating a lot of taxes that are used to do shit like bomb the fuck out of Libya, fund the mercenaries that intelligence already knew were going to shift from FSA to fighting for ISIS (because we knew ISIS was taking over certain areas in the drug trade and certain oil fields. The ~1M people dead in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last dozen or so years because of our interventionism without any serious plan for success.
I don't care if the patients have my politics. Most people don't. I just want to help people that have serious shit going on.
Commercial pot growing in California comes with some serious illegality (especially when it comes to environmental regulations), but as far as I know the level of violence involved is relatively low.
On a long enough timeline, and with enough at stake, everything is an exit scam.
The only way to fix it is to reduce the stake and timeline. You design ventures around limiting exposure to both and you won't end up getting burned by them when the balance tips, because the balance will never get to the point it could.
One of the hard lessons I've learnt from my many years in crypto.
> offer incentives to FE (finalize early, ie release funds from the arbitrage) for months
Not too familiar with DNMs, but why would someone agree to this? Just to save a buck? Seems clear it is against your interest, good or bad reputation. What's the stated rational from seller for this, just "I want more liquidity"?
That was some of it, but often it was just because cash could be tied up in shipped product for a week or two if you didn't FE. It kept "good" vendors from being able to grow because they weren't able to increase their supply to list new product on the sites.
Reviews on SR were rarely negative because the venders didn't do "some bad business". They did really good business, followed by really bad business and disappeared. It was common for vendors to cash out ESPECIALLY on the 4/20 sales and various other sales. They would offer incentives to FE (finalize early, ie release funds from the arbitrage) for months. Then, they would have a big sale. People would FE because they had such good rep, and then the vendors would disappear.
It was a common tactic. I'm not a DNM researcher anymore, but I'm sure it is still a common tactic. I expect that few reliable dealers are around for more than a year. That was certainly the case with SR, and the few that followed quickly in their footsteps.
The new markets are based around forums instead of marketplaces because the markets themselves were bigger targets (everyone considers the forums owned) and the markets offered no real security for buyers or sellers. It was just a costly place to unite the two, and often a source of theft themselves (hacks, or corrupt admins absconding with the funds.)
Acting like it was some sort of utopia is ridiculous. I'm very much on the liberty side of the political landscape, but we don't do anyone any favors by sugar coating the darknet drug industry. The lack of street violence doesn't mean that there aren't wars raging. From the sources of the heroine (mostly from rural Afghanistan), cocaine (mostly from the jungles of South America), and as close as Mexico thousands die at the hands of violent monsters. Go watch some cartel videos on liveleak if you need a reminder.
We don't need to allow ourselves to be satisfied with violence as an externality. We need to consider massive changes in drug policy and defund the violence.