You can switch to consumption-based usage and bypass this all together but it can be expensive. I run an enterprise account and my biggest users spend ~2,000 a month on claude code (not sdk or api). I tried to switch them to subscription based at $250 and they got rate limited on the first/second day of usage like you described. I considered trying to have them default to subscription and then switch to consumption when they get rate limited, but I didn't want to burden them with that yet.
However for many of our users that are CC users they actually don't hit the $250 number most months so its actually cheaper to use consumption in many use cases surprisingly.
I had a similar thought at first but then read the actual ruling and it made more sense and it all stems on the 3rd prong of the Howie Test. It states there needs to be a "reasonable expectation of profits derived from the managerial efforts of others" which a share of stock has via dividends, etc. regardless how it was acquired.
For XRP, there is no explicit rights to profits via the efforts of others via the instrument so you then have to look at the agreement made via the contract between the purchaser and the issuer.
On page 18 of the ruling it outlines this for Institutional Investors:
'''The third prong of Howey examines whether the economic reality surrounding Ripple’s Institutional Sales led the Institutional Buyers to have “a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others.”... Based on the totality of circumstances, the Court finds that reasonable investors, situated in the position of the Institutional Buyers, would have purchased XRP with the expectation that they would derive profits from Ripple’s efforts. '''
However for "Programmatic Buyers" on exchange the ruling said:
'''Having considered the economic reality of the Programmatic Sales, the Court concludes that the undisputed record does not establish the third Howey prong. Whereas the Institutional Buyers reasonably expected that Ripple would use the capital it received from its sales to improve the XRP ecosystem and thereby increase the price of XRP, Programmatic Buyers could not reasonably expect the same.'''
So because there is both no expectation of profits tied to the managerial efforts of others, nor from the contract made by a buyer on exchange, the court ruled the 3rd prong does not apply. Stocks fail the first part of this.
> '''Having considered the economic reality of the Programmatic Sales, the Court concludes that the undisputed record does not establish the third Howey prong. Whereas the Institutional Buyers reasonably expected that Ripple would use the capital it received from its sales to improve the XRP ecosystem and thereby increase the price of XRP, Programmatic Buyers could not reasonably expect the same.'''
I don't get this - why were Programmatic Buyers buying it then? I would agree if Programmatic Buyers were buying XRP to immediately use to then buy pizza or whatever, but nobody in cryptoassets does this.
Every individual person buying XRP seems to me to be buying it for the same reason as the institutional investors.
Hmm, I guess that makes sense - I had forgotten that 'institutional investors' were probably buying direct from Ripple. But if I tie it back to stocks, I guess I see institutional investors here as the ones buying at IPO, but individual investors are buying from each other on an exchange are still buying 'securities', are they not? Maybe they just are not that analogous.
Yes this is great but the way non-competes are enforced for many in the industry this won't have a huge impact because of the way deferred compensation is structured. Most people when they leave are bound to two separate forms of non-competes.
The first is what is being invalidated here, which is a contractual non-compete. The second is a non-compete clause that is a function of your deferred compensation. Here the firm pays a portion of your bonus into the fund that vests over time. Often times a condition of the vesting is that you can leave, but if you do anything competitive for a 1-2 year period following the end of employment with the firm, that deferred comp will be clawed back. For most people this is the most important. It is common for a new fund to offer the employee a make-whole agreement where they will transfer your marked to market deferred comp into the new fund knowing that your prior employer will zero out your deferred comp. This will now in theory allow employees to switch employers that are competitive and start immediately with zero downside as long as the new employer makes the employee's deferred comp whole.
Where this is the worst is for new entrepreneurs leaving these funds that want to start on their own. Even if their contractual NC is no longer valid, there is not a new employer to make their deferred comp whole. Also even in CA where NC's are in theory non-enforceable, I know multiple people whose new employers did not want to test the water with very litigious firms and had people sit out the full NC. Also what this does not address is non-association clauses which are just as restrictive and non-competitive.
Lastly NC structures in this industry change every year and vary significantly across firms so you can't paint with too broad of a brunsh. But all in all I love this change. There is a lot of passion and talent that is forced to sit idle because of NC's.
> The second is a non-compete clause that is a function of your deferred compensation.
Over the decades, I've learned that deferred compensation is such a double-edged sword that I no longer take it into consideration at all when I'm considering a job.
My primary compensation has to be satisfactory assuming I'll never get a dime beyond that. If I end up getting deferred income, gravy! But if I don't, I'm still fairly compensated -- so no loss.
This is a GREAT point, but hard to do in practice when deferred can be several multiples of base. I know many people who internalize large sign on bonuses and deferred comp as though they already earned the income. They are psychologically unable to accept writing this amount of money off, and force themselves to stick in situations that are at times not healthy or at least sub-optimal. Often times this is called life, and you deal with it because it is putting food on the table and providing above and beyond for your family. However a lot of times it would be better to just find something that makes you happier which is easier if you don't factor in deferred comp when thinking through personal finances.
So let's say you strip it down to the bare minimum. If an employer said I will pay you X times your a salary to not start a competitor for 2 years, should that be legal?
> I will pay you X times your a salary to not start a competitor for 2 years, should that be legal?
What about joining an existing competitor? How is "competitor" defined? Is it competition if someone left Apple's iWork team to join Microsoft's Office team? Or just left Apple to join Microsoft even if it's in a non-competing, or even a team that's actually beneficial to Apple's bottom-line (e.g. Azure, as iCloud runs on Azure+AWS+GCP)?
...these difficulties in nailing down "competition" is what leads to overly broad and ultimately unconscionable noncompete agreements.
Ultimately I wouldn't trust an employer to define it for me - so if I were in that position I'd tell them I'd treat a noncompete as a gardening-leave clause and require 200% my final TC for the same time period (so 4x my salary for 2 years) - if my ability to compete with the company is really worth that much then they'll gladly have no problems paying it - and if they don't, then they're clearly a company that wants to exert undue interference (i.e. punishment?) on former employees for no good reason and I'd interview somewhere else.
Nah. Any society probably suffers when people are legally limited in doing something they're trained to do.
On a philosophical level, I'm not sure it's good to allow people to sign away any kind of freedom, including the economic liberty to start your own company. Competition is also very important for capitalism to work for people who don't own capital...
Why not? If they want to buy your time & experience, and don't even require you to show up in the office but just do nothing - what's wrong with that? If the competitor wanted, they could counter with X+2 times and win.
Why would society want to prevent the employee from freely entering into such an agreement? I don’t see sufficient upside to warrant the restraint on freedom that making this illegal would impose.
“You’re allowed the pursuit of happiness, but not in this particular way.”
I mean money is money and its all a negotiation tactic.
For example I've never had deferred comp til my previous firm.
Every time I moved I asked for a signing bonus and they told me to get out.
This time I mention "Well I have some deferred comp I'd be foregoing".. verbally give them a number, and now they are offering me a sign on bonus, cash, in first paycheck 33% above what I was losing in deferred.
Hilariously they didn't even ask for documentation..
Another place sounded like they were going to to through the documentation on prevFirm deferral and put me in some form of deferred comp equivalent with a worse vesting schedule, but again, money I have never had anyone offer me before.
This: <<the way deferred compensation is structured>>
A tiny fraction of the industry qualifies for "deferred compensation". I guess about 1-2%. It is wildly overstated in the media. A huge number of people work their entire career on Wall Street as software developers and are 100% cash comp. Even if "deferred comp", it is RSUs, not cash. And the RSUs are no strings attached -- no clawback -- because the average Joe Blow has no chance to commit any real financial crime from their seat.
It's even worse - you aren't allowed to work with anyone that you previously worked with for the duration of the clause.
I worked at an NYC based hedge fund until April 2022, and am not allowed to work with anyone that I've worked with at the fund until April 2024, regardless of when they left. This applies even if we don't work on anything competitive to the fund, or even related to finance.
Does this apply to working with them in, say, a lobbyist's office? In certain, narrow circumstances I think this would conflict with various laws governing the right to free association and petition. And if you were both elected/appointed to office in the same legislative or executive body I presume the sovereign political interest would trump this clause.
Non-compete (and non-association) clauses aren't government regulation, it's agreements you make when accepting the job. Your first amendment rights aren't infringed by work dress codes either. You aren't at risk of criminal penalty, just whatever civil penalty is specified in the contract.
Not that that means they're necessarily okay, it's just unrelated.
This is why I wasn't citing the first amendment. It is not the only such law that exists. Even if it was I wouldn't have cited it because of the US Constitution's contracts clause. Some contract terms are unenforceable though, at least under certain circumstances. I just wonder how these things balance out in edge cases.
I don't know about the law of the United States, but here in New Zealand a contract purporting to interfere with the right of a citizen to stand for election to Parliament would be void as contrary to public policy (Peters v Collinge [1993] 2 NZLR 554), and there are various common law precedents on similar matters going all the way back to 1785. I would guess that a contract that purported to bind one of the parties not to vote in an election would be void in the United States, right? And probably one requiring the person not to stand for election too. Whether that extends all the way to a contract preventing someone from working in a politics-adjacent area like lobbying is questionable, of course, but it's worth bearing in mind...
Yeah, these are crazy.
I had a 3 month non compete (paid, it's great if you time it in summer).
BUT also a 5 year non-solicitation clause. The language is strict such that even if I & coworkerX move elsewhere, if I solicit coworkerX in that 5 year loopback they threaten to go after me.
So are these agreements legal in the sense that they'd stand up in court? No not really.. but you don't want to risk it.
All firms in the industry enforce similar clauses and defacto respect each others, such as to keep the facade up.
I had a firm make me a very generous offer and ask if I could get my PAID non-compete waived at old fund.
I asked - well you are asking me to ask to get my 3 months paid time off waived, can you offer me something in return.. like you'll pay me for 1 month and I'll start 2 months earlier?
They said absolutely not, they don't want to be seen as soliciting me to violate my contract with old fund.
You cannot work with a former colleague for an explicit duration in an economic capacity for a fixed period of time. This may or may not be dependent on the nature of the work being conscidered competitive (I have seen both). I have only seen these clauses referenced in deferred comp, not contractual non-competes.
Your analysis is not likely correct. The bill appears to be aimed quite generally at restrictive covenants, outlawing any contract restraining a covered individual's employment.
This would void any agreement predicating the terms and conditions of deferred compensation on employment restraints.
It would also likely defeat any gardening schemes since contracts could no longer prohibit a covered individual from practicing their profession.
(I am not an expert on NY Law and it is possible that I am wrong and this bill isn't really intended to cover finance or tech professionals making solid money.)
> Also even in CA where NC's are in theory non-enforceable, I know multiple people whose new employers did not want to test the water with very litigious firms and had people sit out the full NC.
It's a known effect that not working can take a physical toll on some people (i.e. the mortality effect of retirement - https://www.nber.org/bah/2018no1/mortality-effects-retiremen... ). I'm sure no one would ever do it, but I wonder if an employee would win if they sued both the old and new employer as co-conspirators to violate California's non-compete prohibition, citing the not-working health toll as their standing to sue.
It comes up durring hiring processes. Pretty common to have someone ask, "Have you entered into any legal agreement that would prohibit you from working with us or have any conflict of interest? If so please explain."
It is not lying if the question is "Have you entered into any legal agreement that would prohibit..." when in California that agreement is void. That means there is nothing that would prohibit you.
For anyone who hasn't signed an employment contract in California, it'll have the boilerplate noncompete they use everywhere but it will also have an addendum page that says basically "the noncompete back on page x doesn't apply to you so ignore it".
i’ve never heard of the second form of non-compete. how would the former employer even know? how is that legal? any amount of compensation that is finalised upon leaving the company (e.g. RSUs) should be yours to own, period. that’s akin to saying they can legally demand your paycheques back because they didnt like the company you went to.
In this arrangement you don’t yet own the deferred compensation when you leave the company. It does not belong to you. Instead your contract with the company might say “we will set aside an amount of money (which isn’t yet yours) and portion it out to you for 1-2 years after you leave, conditional on you not joining a competing firm in that period. If you join a competing firm, we will stop paying you.” Alternatively, the company will just pay you your full salary (plus maybe a fraction of what you used to get in bonus) for this period.
Essentially you’re being paid an income not to work for the competition. Most people take this deal as it tends to be pretty good — think several hundred thousand dollars for you to take an extended holiday or work on personal projects.
If you do take a competing offer during the non-compete period, the company might also use legal action against you, which is another story entirely and one whose threat most people would prefer to avoid.
It is my understanding that you quitting big meat, doesn't affect your risk. If you are exposed to a new drug resistant pathogen that was the result of anti-biotics in cattle, chicken, pork, etc, it doesn't matter if you even eat meat.
That said am I interpreting this right? How much of a risk does the use of antibiotics in meat present to a vegetarian?
> How much of a risk does the use of antibiotics in meat present to a vegetarian?
Whatever the exact value, it's most likely much lower. At least you're not ingesting whatever is left in the meat which, by reading some of the responses here, seem to come with significant risk.
The jump of going from model -> webserver by placing the webserver in the same process as the model is enticing because you can get it to work in under an hour by adding flask/django/fastapi to the env and decorating a function. The problem is that that your model and webserver do NOT scale in the same way, and if you don't realize this fast, you are going to be trying to fit a square peg through a round hole once you have adoption trying to make it work.
All models at scale eventually need to be executed by an async queue processor which is fundamentally different from a request response REST API. For simplicity managing this outside of the process making the web request will help you debug issues when people start asking why they are getting 502 responses. If you are forced to use python for this, I would always suggest of going to celery/huey/dramatiq as an immediate next step after the REST API MVP. I hear Celery is getting better but I have ran into issues over the year so it pains me to recommend it.
Going to be very interesting to see how they glue together R2, edge workers and sqllite. They can manage replication using R2 and make the sqllite process aware of this for eventual consistency. Having edge compute with edge data on a globally consistent data model is the dream.
Seems pretty obvious OP is addressing a conservative audience that tends to be pro-free-market. For better or worse it is a VERY political topic and this argument attempts identify contradicting agendas of conservatives that take issue with this.
Accidentally transferring half a million dollars to the wrong external account is going to be an absolute mess to recover. There are ways to stop it if you catch it RIGHT away, but it will turn into a nightmare pretty quickly.
Treating this transfer of WETH as just 'money' is an overly simplified model that is going to get someone burned in the same way as this reddit user. You are interacting directly with low level APIs that are irreversible while sending a lot of money to them, without knowing what they do. This is NOT good, and believe anyone without thorough understanding of these risks and how ERC APIs work should NOT be doing this.
There is an absolute need for cleaner UX on top of this with assurance/insurance to avoid this scenario (both of which exist and are being improved regularly). In the same way you don't directly interface with SWIFT APIs when doing bank transfers, you should not interface directly with ERC20 approve/transferFrom APIs in Ethereum, unless you really know what you are doing.
However for many of our users that are CC users they actually don't hit the $250 number most months so its actually cheaper to use consumption in many use cases surprisingly.