This is a message we will hear echoing over and over again across multiple timelines, philosophies, and religions.
- People should be kind.
- People should share.
- People should give more to their community than they take.
- People should forgive trespasses against them.
- People should not be greedy.
Give what you can; take what you need.
In fact these are the very tenants of communism itself. Everyone should just share everything and do their part to make society a better place. Everyone getting along, kumbaya, so on and so forth happily into the sunset.
So simple!
Not quite how it works out here in the real world, is it? Time and time again we see that communism is extremely lucky to scale up to even 1000 people before the blatant corruption of the leadership sets in. The thing that most people think is communism... absolutely is not communism. It is an abomination. See: China.
At the core of the problem lies tribalism.
Humans are not designed to give a shit about 1000 people, let alone a million or even a billion people. We have our friends and we have our family and that's pretty much it. Once the tribe in question becomes too large it breaks off into splinters with every one of those splinters competing with each other. This creates a lot of friction when one of those splinters is already in control of the others within a pyramidic hierarchy.
Related to this problem is the concept of nepotism.
Okay so say you're going to boot up a communist group and everything is going great. Everyone is working really hard and doing their part. Friendships are forged, so on and so forth. One day you catch a good friend of yours exploiting the system for personal gain. What are you gonna do? Rat them out? Most people wouldn't. Probably a better chance that you'd join in on the activity than to put a stop to it.
And even if you did flip what is the community going to do? Kick them out of the group? The point here is that it's much much easier to let people into a group than it is to kick them out of it. The social dynamics of the human race ensure this to be true in all cases. At the end of the day when the planning and enforcement are done by people eventually we are going to run into problems of corruption. The chance of this corruption festering grows exponentially as the group grows in number and in power.
The Tragedy of the Commons is also a reason why communism breaks down when faced with reality. At the end of the day it all comes down to greed. Statistically no matter how awesome the community is there's always going to be that one person that fucks it up for everyone else. This is why we can't have nice things.
Rather than trying to fight against these social constructs and our very nature, it is rather much smarter to lean into them and create governance structures that are in fact not controlled by people at all. Cryptocurrency is the foundation of this movement. We are creating digital governments that are enforced by algorithms. Soon we may even see governments that are enforced by AI.
For example: what if someone cloned Hive, stripped the reward pool from the users, and gave it to AI? What if that AI was then manipulated by the users via governance votes? Could it work? Maybe?! Do I think it's a good idea? Probably not, but bad ideas are going to happen whether we want them to or not. That's the nature of the bleeding edge of technology.
In theory social credit scores are an awesome idea.
Great incentivization mechanic to promote citizens to do the "right thing". But who decides what is right and what is wrong? And then we see it play out in practice in China and people are getting their face scanned to get a sheet of toilet paper from a public bathroom. How did it go so wrong? Again when people are in charge we can assume they are going to mess it all up. People control AI, and the AI will reflect that until someone actually builds one without such ridiculous bias.
In the context of orderbooks:
Taking the Hive internal market for example, those who place market orders want to make a trade right now this second. These people are the takers. They put in an order and liquidity disappears from the books as the trade is processed instantly. Those who put liquidity on the books with limit orders and wait for those orders to fill are the makers.
It's important to note that every trade needs both a maker and a taker to actually become an exchange of assets. However, Hive is a great example of a network with notoriously low liquidity. Token price can pump x2 out of the blue because people want what they want when they want it. Add to this the idea of curation training an asset (aka manipulation) and we really start to see fireworks.
There's also another argument to be made that Hive lacks liquidity partly due to the temptation and utility of powering up tokens while earning bandwidth, yield, and governance powers over the network. Perhaps through no fault of our own Hive is volatile simply because our market cap is relatively tiny in the grand scale of things. There are many variables to consider
What I have figured out for sure is that Hive needs as much liquidity as it can get and I'm done powering up 100% of everything I have when the network is in such a clear need of liquid tokens. I've added several deep limit orders that should catch any big pumps that come our way. As those orders fill I will then take the HBD and create another stepladder down to offer support during the dumps.
Everyone knows how difficult it is to make a profit as a day trader.
I believe that this difficultly is exponentially exacerbated by our own greed. Our mindset is totally wrong. We aren't thinking about how we can provide value to Hive, but rather how we can extract value from Hive into our own pockets. This is incorrect. We should do what Hive wants us to do. Hive will reward us. This mindset is correctly aligned with the proper incentives of voluntarist networks.
There is no reason to try to outthink the market.
Trading on an orderbook doesn't have to be this zero-sum game that most people frame it as. Within an abundance mindset we sell high, not to take gains off the table for ourselves, but rather to allow for new users to join us without pumping up the value of the token to an even more absurd level. We don't buy low because we want to capitalize on distressed sellers and siphon value from their pockets into our own. We sell low because we want to keep the price from going even lower and the community becoming even more distressed than they already are.
Buy Low; Sell High
The philosophical combination of buying low and selling high has nothing to do with making money within this context. It is to be a responsible adult in an ocean full of low-disciplined degenerates (no offense) wallowing in a scarcity mindset while gambling their life savings away hoping for magic x1000 gains.
If cryptocurrencies were actually stable and profitable all of that stress that average users experience in this ocean of volatility suddenly vanishes. Ironically this entire ideology becomes self-defeating as it becomes more successful.
Self-defeating prophecy
The more stable and profitable a cryptocurrency gets, the more people will want to ape in: creating the very volatility we were trying to avoid in the first place. There are ways to mitigate this volatility, but no one said this was going to be easy. How many DEFI templates have you seen that are a screaming success? I've have seen zero. Still waiting on someone to figure this all out.
User or Builder?
Builders are the makers and users are the takers, so it's better to be a builder, right? Again, just like with orderbooks, both sides need to exist for the ecosystem to actually work and flourish. Perhaps the common theme here is that balance and stability are actually the most important things to be focusing on.
The interesting thing about WEB3 is that we are returning to the preindustrial era where all citizens are producers and they're all consumers. Remember that one time you traded your eggs to the local cobbler to fix your shoes? Yeah, me neither. Those days are long behind us, but history seems to be repeating itself.
Flat WEB3 Architecture
Within this emergent WEB3 economy being built before our very eyes: anyone is allowed to participate in the system and get paid with network incentives. Anyone can build anything. The protocols are neutral and cannot be biased. As long as the fee is paid the operation is valid. Maximalists are losing their mind because of Ordinals over this fact. If something gets built that we don't like: too bad. This is the tradeoff. This is the Wild West 2.0. Get used to it because we are just getting started.
Conclusion
Scaling is the hardest thing in the world. It's the hardest thing in the world for crypto, and it's also the hardest thing in the world for legacy systems (corporations/banks/governments) as well. However, the scaling limitation for decentralized architecture is completely different than the scaling limitations of centralized systems.
Decentralized systems are limited by their inefficiency and their distributions. We've seen this first hand with $200 Ethereum transactions during the bull market. Centralized systems are very efficient and do not suffer from this problem. Distributions are also not a problem, as they are also centralized by design. Rather, the scaling limitation of the legacy economy hinges fully on the absence of trust and the corruption that causes that mistrust to exist.
It's clear to see that crypto is exactly what this economy needs, but the fetid corruption runs so deep that these jackals don't want to let it happen. We have quite the fight on our hands. It literally may be a fight for our lives if the situation escalates badly enough as our centralized infrastructure continues to implode. To reiterate: no one said this would be easy. Replacing the old with the new creates enough friction to start a fire.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
We are going to have to come up with new words.
Because the old ones have been corrupted, or they never were accurate, or we haven't even had a word that describes what is a necessary element in intertribal dynamics (when tribe becomes too big)
We really need to switch things around.
Sharing the commons is not appropriate, it is better to have one "owner" that cares for and can make the 'commons' better. (like Joel Salatin with his pasture improving cow management methods)
We need to stop talking about "taking" the ore from the ground.
Because that really makes a mindset of scarcity, and then the greed follows.
We should stop electing a "leader", and we should start electing a person to get a project done.
Clear start and end, as well as measurable goal.
And so many other little things
I agree, evolving the vocabulary also evolves perspective. Reality is always limited by our own perception of it.
While I was coaching Hearthstone (a digital card game), even those that were really good players, struggled with some parts of the game until we defined some terms around those areas of their play. Those terms would allow them to break down their problem even further and identify their weaknesses so much easier. After that, I would always see faster improvements in their gameplay.
Indeed. Defining the problem is usually most of the way to a solution.
Unfortunately we live a world in which Marx defined the problem as "That group over there".
Which is really easy to get people to go along with.
And since most people do not even have an understanding of basic economics, it is next to impossible to convince them otherwise.
I like that you were able to develop terms for the game play.
And introduce them.
Good job.
Welcome to the club of stress free trading, setting these limit orders is great to make good gains, but you need a lot of patience and wait for the trade to execute.
yup np
People control AI, AI controls people, people control people. AI is designed to be the final authority on all things, but it's smoke and mirrors. Right now we see through it, but what happens next time we see "mass formation psychosis" caused by whatever terror campaign is going on at that time?
It's raining, @skiptvads @builderofcastles @ctrpch @ironshield @beauty197 @mightyrocklee @ivanslait @allentaylor @galberto @gringocheco @awesomeintrigue @edicted received 84 SIM each. Check it at dcity.io
thank you guys!
Wow thank you
Never thought about makers and takers as a market, always had buyers and sellers in the end takers are those who just get out of the market with whatever profit, now based on this post regarding builders and users, would you consider a builder someone who is constantly creating content, engaging and potentially bringing new users and just holding the assets?
Aside crypto market or trading greediness is why corruption keeps increasing because people hardly give out what they don't really need while some even take what they don't need and this has lead to so many evil act, to progress both in business and otherwise we need to avoid greed .
I read long time ago about a country who elected a doctor to the ministry of health, a teacher to the ministry of education and economist as prime minister and so on. Forgot which country it was. Sounded cool.
Very interesting post!
People, by nature, are selfish. Do what is best for yourself and screw the others. The Iron Curtain fell because Communism had reached its tipping point and could no longer compete against Capitalism. The false assumption that many in the West have had is that Capitalism can't implode upon itself in a similar manner. But a rubber band is a rubber band. Stretch it far enough and it will pop.
John Nash had the right idea: Instead of doing what is best for yourself all the time, figure out what is best for yourself AND everyone else. Figure out the point of equilibrium and ride that wave. If enough people do that, almost any system can succeed.
Long live DeFi.
fucking mother. You are a damned person who has discovered the black hole, the kid of the matter, if we had known what you preach here days ago, we would be on the right path and we would be on another level. thanks for the advice i have already taken matters into my own hands and lost any amount of 80% of my stack trying to catch the falling knife. Now I've calmed down and blessedly I've been able to not lose everything, with the little breath I have left, I'm already calm following the same path as yours, and it's going great, Unfortunately, I don't have enough to enjoy whores and alcohol in bulk in an infinite way, but hey, that's the way things are here. When you come to El país del Bitcoin, do not hesitate to invite me a coffee, I will pay for it.
When covid begun somehow I was hoping in two scenarios. That earth will cleanse itself from all corrupted or people will wake up and understand two things - corruption and theirs need to change. Well we all know, that neither one happened.
All the greediness and controll of the masses by elites is something that became so normal nowadays that normal people stuck somwhere between the gears of modern slavery system doensn't even have a slight change to think about all of this and slightly start with the process of change.
That's why I am so grateful anyime I see, that "sustainbility" and "respect" doens't necessarily need to be connected to modern woke youngs, but can be perceived reasonably and logicaly and with that people accepting responsibility and actively trying to help/change the world appear. And that's the moment I am regaining my faith in humanity.. and again realising why I started believe in crypto back when it all started!