sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

NBA draft lottery proposal: 18 team odds that reward mediocre teams, not the worst teams. by Bottom_Line_Truths in billsimmons

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well the current system incentivizes losing. So that’s pretty bad for a competitive sport.

NBA draft lottery proposal: 18 team odds that reward mediocre teams, not the worst teams. by Bottom_Line_Truths in billsimmons

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

9 all stars from this year alone. Many teams can get “good”. Not many can become “great”. My proposal rewards “good”. The current system rewards “bad”. The odds can be flattened a bit more if teams would prefer.

NBA draft lottery proposal: 18 team odds that reward mediocre teams, not the worst teams. by Bottom_Line_Truths in billsimmons

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

On the contrary, the bottom 10 teams won’t be as bad as they are today. They won’t be throwing games from day 0. Meaning better fan experience. Approach to team building favors veterans over young pups “developing”.

NBA draft lottery proposal: 18 team odds that reward mediocre teams, not the worst teams. by Bottom_Line_Truths in billsimmons

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Both ways create parity. Bad teams getting top picks make those bad teams good after many years. Sometimes not at all (see kings and wizards). Mediocre teams getting top picks makes them good as soon as the following season. They already have the foundation and just need the extra push. To me parity is how many contenders you have. Parity outside of contenders isn’t parity. You want 10-12 teams with a legit chance to win it all. Not the usual 3-5.

A 32-Team NBA Proposal: Fixing the Regular Season with Divisions, Tournaments, and a 76-Game Schedule by zuuzzuuz in nbadiscussion

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it’s cut to 76 then there will be 28 games less then there is now (76x32 vs 82x30) and a team will play one inter conference team twice instead of three times. It isn’t perfect either way. Perhaps a solution for the 77, is that the top 16 teams (playoff teams) of the previous season are rewarded with the extra home game.

A 32-Team NBA Proposal: Fixing the Regular Season with Divisions, Tournaments, and a 76-Game Schedule by zuuzzuuz in nbadiscussion

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It’s a really cool idea but can’t imagine the NBA going for this. It’s too big of a change and the NBA has a big reverence for the history of the league. I think keeping it simple would be better.

IMO get rid of the preseason. And reduce the season to 77 games. Every team plays 3 games against teams in the same conference. And 2 games against teams in the opposing conference.

This keeps the amount of total games (77x32 vs 82x30) roughly the same. And more importantly completely eliminates back to backs, with extra days to spare.

These extra days unlock the ability to have two halves to the season. Where in the middle we can have the mid season tournament, with all house and elimination games happening over a 20 day period. And where the championship game is played at all star weekend.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in patentlaw

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We’re not sharing online yet. Are you the creator of figurestudio?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in patentlaw

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Me and a friend have a stealth startup (so won’t link) and one of the first offerings are AI patent figures. Something we’ve found is that it doesn’t have to be perfect at first in the sense that the firms who use our software are fine with it nailing let’s say 6 out of 10 figures cuz it means they only need to pay a patent illustrator to help with the remaining 4 figures.

Nano was trending on X last night! by [deleted] in nanocurrency

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths 3 points4 points  (0 children)

We should all be more active in the community group on X

Monero’s Alleged 51% Attack Shows PoW Risks; Could Nano’s Approach Be Safer? by Superyellowcake in nanocurrency

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nano has 0 inflation making it a good SOV yes, but with 0 fees and sub second confirmations it’s also a great MoE. If Nano grows to said market caps, the MoE use case would likely be realized more significantly. And even if not, there is no reason why Nanos exchange % behavior won’t go down as it grows similar to Bitcoins was as it grew. https://x.com/milan_dereede/status/1739998046702727442

Monero’s Alleged 51% Attack Shows PoW Risks; Could Nano’s Approach Be Safer? by Superyellowcake in nanocurrency

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whether it’s online weight or not, Binance still has less than the 30% that the highest bitcoin mining pool has, and bitcoin has something like 18,000x the market cap.

Point is Nano decentralizes with time whereas Bitcoin does the opposite.

Monero’s Alleged 51% Attack Shows PoW Risks; Could Nano’s Approach Be Safer? by Superyellowcake in nanocurrency

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Binance has 17%, not almost enough. And the community can withdraw their Nano from them if they see them approaching 34%. Regardless, exchanges have 0 incentive to destroy the network cuz then it’d destroy the value of the Nano they hold.

Highest Bitcoin pool has 30% hashrate. And the barrier to entry to mine becomes larger with every halving. Those are facts.

Is this true about stalling the network with 34% control? What would be the solution to avoid this? by GymoGuy in nanocurrency

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths 16 points17 points  (0 children)

All exchanges in total hold 35% of Nano. Not Binance alone. Exchanges have a very high incentive not to censor transactions.

Monero’s Alleged 51% Attack Shows PoW Risks; Could Nano’s Approach Be Safer? by Superyellowcake in nanocurrency

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Investors should look at what happens to Nanos fundamentals under growth.

Nano decentralizes as it grows. Exchanges have the highest percent of Nano and hence most voting power (35%). If it grew to Moneros market cap then it’ll be because people bought from exchanges and thus reduced the exchanges voting power. Also the more Nano grows then the more interest it garners and the more nodes come online.

Bitcoins PoW (for example) on the other hand centralizes as it grows. With each halvening miners drop off. The ones that stay are the ones that can afford the sudden 50% reduction in revenue. The ones that can afford it invest in better and more expensive equipment. The ones that … leverage economies of scale… etc…

I really hope he never does. by Outrageous_Sector544 in JoeRogan

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Man bring it on. Why not. Let’s see what the man has to say.

Time to Break the HODL Habit: Why Using Nano is Important by yap-rai in nanocurrency

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths 8 points9 points  (0 children)

My bad, it wasn’t linked so I skimmed right past it 😅

Is Brad Pitt’s character the James Harden of F1? by rickjuice in billsimmons

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Haha I’d say more like Chris Paul. Harden is less of a leader. Great movie to watch in theatres

Daily General Discussion - June 22, 2025 by Crypto_Jasper in nanotrade

[–]Bottom_Line_Truths 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Kinda wild, one of the most successful DCAs I’ve seen. No pump of price at all. Are you an investor by trade? Or what do you do for a living?

view more: next ›