The Difference Between Owning, And Having Access To

in LeoFinance22 days ago


I used to think that owning your own house is the pinnacle of financial achievement. For a significant part of my life, I was an owner, but lately, my opinion changed.

When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?

John Maynyard Keynes

So, what else can you do, if you’re not owning? In very few words: you get access to.

This “access to” is an umbrella term, covering a very large area. It may be “renting”, if you’re talking about real estate (or a place to live), it may be “balancing a portfolio”, if you’re talking about financial and digital assets, or “developing”, if we’re talking about skills that can give you an edge in the market.

In any way, you’re not relaying on a fixed, owned asset.

The New Normal

The world that we live in has at least 3 main characteristics that are game changers. These are: algorithm-based social opinions, financial dissolution and under-the-skin surveillance.

I already wrote about algorithmic emotions, but if you’re not familiar with my view, I basically think that a large part of what we consider “ethos” today, is driven by algorithms. It’s not post-factum, in the sense that we’re not developing a certain opinion or view on a certain topic after something happened for sure, it’s ex-factum, in the sense that the facts are secondary, what drives the opinion is the algorithm for attention and visibility. The more visible a certain piece of information is, the more “real” and integrated it tends to be, regardless of how much the actual facts are reflecting it. This hunt for visibility, driven by the attention economy, is largely algorithm based now.

Financial dissolution is about a significant decoupling between money and fundamentals. A black swan event, like the Covid-19 pandemic, showed us how easy it is to print money without any fundamentals behind, just to “get over it”. Money is now a function of “wants”, not of “fair exchange”. We want more money, because we want more money, period. Add to this the horizontal democratisation of money, with the rise of crypto currencies, when we have more and more parallel financial ecosystems, and you get a pretty accurate image of financial dissolution.

The last, but not least, is under-the-skin surveillance. Again, induced by the Covid-19 black swan event, this type of surveillance opens up an entirely new area, one that was private and opaque until now. Your medical data is now part of your public identity and can influence the quality of your life, by access to jobs only if you’re vaccinated, or simply by a new cast system, in which some of your basic rights (like traveling) are ignored or granted based on your public medical records.

So, how these are shaping the “owning” and “access to”?

Cost Of Ownership

First, and most important, is the cost of ownership. Owning an asset, any asset, comes with an attached cost. If it’s a house, it’s maintenance and repairs, if it’s money, is the cost of storage (banks / multi-sig wallets), etc.

In the current world, these costs tend to be unpredictable.

Algorithmic information can very rapidly change the sentiment in the markets, decoupled from fundamentals. In easier words, rumors are more powerful now, and your asset value is much easier influenced by it. Also, under-the-skin surveillance can greatly impact the value of your asset if a certain black swan event hits again. Like, for instance, if the number of cases in a certain country goes up (and that’s an information gathered because of under-the-skin surveillance), travel will be restricted, and if you own real estate there, your asset will suffer.

It’s cheaper, in terms of this cost of ownership, to have access to illiquid assets, by holding a grip on more liquid assets. It’s more profitable, and not only financially, to rent, than to own.

Speed Of Execution

Another difference between owning and having access to is the speed of execution. The overall instability and the weight of regulations are lowering the window in which a certain asset can be acquired / sold. In other words, transferring an asset must be quicker and more effective.

This context favors more liquid assets, those that you usually have access to, rather than illiquid assets, or those that you own and carry over with you.

Even if we’re not talking about traditional assets, like real estate, this still holds true. It’s better to have access to a range of skills, than to have a vertical specialization, that takes decades. Your job may change without warning, and you need to execute the transition to the new one quite fast.

Obsoletion Of Assets

This one is probably the most visible, although not the most pervasive. It may take a while until the markets will understand it.

Obsoletion of assets is driven both by the speed of execution mentioned above, and by a host of new types of assets (mostly digital) appearing and developing very fast. In the time window of just 15 years, which is a second in terms of human history, we went from the sub-prime credit crisis that plunged the world into the 2008 crisis, to the new DeFi billionaires created by something which is mathematically driven, and no one really owns (decentralized).

So, it’s way better to have a lose grip on your assets (just having access to, and not owning) because today’s million may worth cents in a year or two.

The opposite is also true, what is now worth cents, can skyrocket tomorrow, but that’s the topic for another article.

Photo by Paul Stollery on Unsplash

Initially published on my blog.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta


Scarily distopian vision which unfortunately is well based in fact.

The destruction of Facebook & Google is necessary to restore freedom.

The algorithm-based attention economy, of which Google and Facebook are just the most visible players, is what moves the information forward now.

Once we understand how valuable our attention is, and we firmly decide to get a grip on it, and give it away only on certain circumstances, the power that we're now unconsciously giving away, will fade out, and the giants will just crumble.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

You nailed it. I think there is another level that we are transitioning to.

Tokenization creates the situation where nobody owns it because everyone does. It is the true expansion of cooperatives. All those who choose to be involved end up as owners, with it spread out among people all over the world. Users are no longer the product and max profit no longer the goal.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

Tokenization is just the tip of the iceberg. It is indeed a huge step forward from the fixed rules and high barriers we had for centuries.

But there is also governance. I expect on chain governance to go through many, many transformations until tokenization will be a fair representation of whatever collective value is representing.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

When I saw your title, I thought this post would be about NFTs. There's a big difference between owning and having access to. Anyone has access to an image of the Mona Lisa, only one person owns it (I don't know who actually does though). Anyone has access to an image of that Jack Dorsey tweet, but only one person owns the NFT.

Quick thoughts...

  • Regarding "algorithmic emotion", yep, sounds to me like the psychological term "availability heuristic". If it's easily there over and over again, we take it to heart.
  • Regarding "financial dissolution", Amen. Maybe one day folks will wake up to the difference between what money actually is and a piece of paper. !LUV



@dragosroua, you've been given LUV from @crrdlx.

Learn about LUV at @LUVshares. (6/10)

Yeap, you are right, the title also applies to NFT, didn't think about that, though :)

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta




@dragosroua, this comment has been curated by LUVshares.

Learn about LUV at @LUVshares.

The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the person sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at