What are you willing to pay for? More importantly perhaps, who are you willing to pay?
I believe that in order to earn value in this world, we should have to add value to the world, which means that I agree with this statement form @azircon in regards to the future of employment in the digital and physical spaces of the future.
The key thing, from my point of view, it’s not free.
Either you pay money (invest) or pay in time and/or skills. If you have none, sorry…. Next! As there are a lot of people in the world with either money or time or skills.
I feel that too many believe that value should be provided, even if nothing that is valued is being offered. For example, I work in a small team of trainers and content developers who reside in a larger organization, which is part of a company. Each person has responsibilities that add value to the company at various levels, and in order to meet our responsibilities, we use the skills we have obtained and developed. All of us in the team have skills we can utilize, because we were hired based on what we could offer, not because of what we wanted to receive.
I think that this seems to be lost on many people these days, as so many think that they should have access to opportunity, regardless of whether they have the skill or will to be able to take that opportunity. In essence though, I guess we all have access to opportunity, but the question is more about our likelihood to be able to actually take it and make it viable. some of the hurdles in our way are external and we have little influence over, some are self-imposed and a hurdle by choice - but there is no on or off, everything is on a spectrum.
However, because of all of the dynamics in play, with each factor living on a spectrum and being affected by weightings that are largely opaque, it is very difficult for an individual to hold all of the ecosystem they operate in, in mind. This means that we end up simplifying our visualization, often leaving out key factors or, including narrow edge cases and missing the averages.
For an example that is easy to visualize, if two obese parents have a child, the likelihood that the child is going to be obese is very high and since being overweight is correlated to many other issues across the physical, mental and emotional planes, predictions can be made. But, predictions are going to look at averages, meaning that it isn't guaranteed that a child born to overweight parents will be overweight too - just likely. But people will use the exceptions to the average as evidence that the average is incorrect.
Another case which I think has the potential to change and is changing already, is in regards to education. Previously, if a person wanted to earn consistently well in a specialized field, some kind of formal education was required in order to prove worth. But, this is a little less true, as there is more opportunity to build consistent results without that education, firstly as an entrepreneur and secondly, as someone who can prove they have the necessary skills. Of course, some fields like medicine require that piece of paper by law, but others like coding might not. for example, there are a few (not many) coders I work with who have no formal education, but they are among the most brilliant we have.
However, going back to @azircon's comment of money, time and skills, what he is actually saying there is that in order for someone to earn, they have to have something to trade and in order to be employed (in some way) they have to be able to "prove" that they have something to trade. Money is a simple one to evaluate, as it is a tangible. Being ale to buy assets, pay salaries and the like, takes money. But, what that money is actually doing is buying the time and skills of others to forma a team that is able to solve some kind of problem together. If that money is being used to pay the salaries of people who have no time or skills that they are willing to put toward solving the problem, it is money wasted.
On Hive for example, we have the concept of Proof-of-Brain. where someone has to prove they have a brain, but what that "brain" is, is disputable. Some people think it speaks of intelligence, but I disagree. What I think it speaks of is the ability to use our resources, (money, time, skills) in some value-adding way that is valued by the community. There are many ways that value can be interpreted and many ways value can be added, but it is up to the laws of supply and demand to decide what reward value is allocated where.
For example, I write (among other things) to try and add content value to the blockchain, which utilizes my time and skill resources. I stake a decent amount of HIVE and vote, which utilizes my "money" resources. I get rewarded for all of these, with the time and skill reward coming from the community, and the reward on the money coming from the blockchain curation mechanisms and the like. This is "Proof of Brain" as I see it, as I am trading my resources, for other people's resources.
Skills however come in many forms and on Hive this is growing. for example, I will leave the numbers up to @azircon to add if he wishes as it involves others, but while he owns a lot of Splinterlands resources, he employs someone to use their time and skill to play the game with one of his decks. That person is very good at what they do and in a season needn't play that much to "solve the problem" that Azircon has, which is, he can't play it himself, since he isn't as skilled, nor hasn't the time. So, he uses his assets to earn, while also providing someone with talent and dedication value for themselves. This person can then earn and build their own asset profile to do the same. I know that @mattclarke does the same with his cards, empowering people who might not otherwise have the possibility, to participate and grow.
But, in order for this to work effectively, the trade has to be mutually beneficial, otherwise it becomes charity, which ends up unsustainable at scale, which is why charities struggle. It is the "Give a mana fish, or teach him to fish" complexity. People expect that because some group doesn't have opportunity now, every change has to immediately empower them - yet, it is a process.
Looking at the future of a Metaverse where a lot of opportunity will arise that cuts out a lot of the hurdles to participation that currently exist, doesn't mean that some utopia is formed immediately, or ever. However, what it does allow is a decentralization of all of those things that are valued and lowers the level needed to access across the various dynamic spectrums. This means that there effectively, more people are able to participate and generate and earn value in a far wider cross-section of the global population, which also drives change through the supply and demand models and in time, shifts the balance of economic power to be well, more balanced.
But, it can't work on a charity system, it has to be tempered by trade, not handouts. The problems we face as a global population all the way down to the smallest issues at a local level, aren't going to be solved through charity, they are going to be solved by people *adding and receiving value for resources that work together to solve them. The expectation that the "rich" will just handout their wealth is not going to fly, because the rich in this system have been created by doing the opposite, by centralizing and monopolizing to capitalize on what they have. The system incentivizes monopolistic behavior, so that is what people do, even if it brings harm to others.
It is only when we are able to change the incentive profile are we able to make any inroads into building a more equitable society, but that means being able to add broad value to the spectrums of factors that are in dynamic play, rather than focusing on individual factors that are easily available to cherrypick. This is exactly why centralized systems inevitably fail, because they are too unwieldy and ineffective to deal with the nuance of the entire population and all of their needs, so they focus inevitably on what makes the decision makers the most value. For example, socialism which is meant to be "for the people" is the most capitalistic system on earth, as it creates laws to centralize resources for a single entity to control, making it a monopoly with ultimate power, which again, leads to the inevitable, handing out value to some, regardless of what value they actually bring to the table, or what the needs of others are, who may be bringing more.
In order for the world to change, people are going to have to bring something to the table and the individual is going to have to understand that if they want a meal, they are going to have to trade something for a seat at that table. The table is incredibly large and growing and there are many ways to buy a seat, but expecting food without value-adding activity of some kind, is likely going to mean being left at the mercy of handouts and ultimately, fighting for the scraps with others who don't add value either.
This might not be the case today, as the system is very much broken and exclusionary, but more and more, if people aren't opting into adding value, they are excluding themselves by choice. When people are unwilling to try and help themselves, no amount of charity will help them, all it will do is take resources away from those who are trying their best to participate. This makes them a burden on all and a net cost to society, as they lessen the potential for others to improve, by diluting the resources available. It is very possible that when you try to help everyone, no one benefits. But it is also possible, that by helping a few with the skill and will to add their value and earn their keep, in time, all do.
As the world changes to one that has increasing opportunity, the excuses are running out. I am too old, too new, too poor, too tired, too black, too white, too left, too right, too oppressed, too privileged, too smart, too dumb, too slow, too sick, too fat, too fit... If you can't find a way to do something somewhere and in some way that is considered reasonably valuable based on who you are, at some point - people stop trying to help.
You do you. But no one is required to value what you do.
Nothing is free in this world. Nothing.
It is a natural law, not one made by society.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Ahhh.. you just like that didn’t you :).
Okay let’s expand the skill part of it via the Splinterlands game. It is largely true for any games.
I will be specific so that it’s tangible and since you play the game too for a few months now you will understand easily.
When I first have my max deck, I felt excited. Now there is no barrier I thought. I have everything the top players have! Right? No, wrong :) I didn’t have the necessary skills.
Mind you, I am an above average player and I have beaten most top players at least once :). But that is not enough. I saw season after season, with my max deck and full concentration, I typically finish the season ranking between 60-80. (There were some outliers)Such narrow range! Why? Because you can’t hide your skills in a game if you play long enough. When there is no barrier on cards and in the upper echelons player base is constant… the only variable is your skills. My skill suggests that I rank between 60-80. To change that I must to something dramatic. I have reached the plateau I thought.
At that point I decided to delegate my deck. Playing the same deck, now that delegated account ranks in top 20 every season. That’s the difference in skill. There is no magic. My win rate is 55% on average, my player’s win rate is 70% on average. You might say, wow 15% win rate to gain last 40 ranks!! Yes, Taraz that’s true! I think that’s true in life too in the real world. Don’t you think?
Exactly, and this is reflected in pretty much every game, sport and field anywhere. The difference in skill might be minimal, but the outcomes on average are very different. There is a reason (once upon a time) that Tiger Woods or Jordan were paid so much and so highly rated - they are consistent.
With Splinterlands, you can beat a top player 30% of the time, but your jockey can do it 80% of the time, with the same resources. It only makes sense to outsource the job :)
True, and it is immensely satisfying for the both of us. I feel that I am doing something better and getting paid for it at the same time. For her it is total financial freedom.
This is the change in incentive that is needed.
I think another big way we can improve the money and skills system is by eliminating the unnecessary and costly middlemen in a lot of the areas around money. Western union is a prime example. They charge insane fees to send money to areas where it really doesn’t cost them much any longer. It could have been justifiable in the 90’s and early 2000’s but now they are just extorting people. That area pisses me off, how they can get away with that shit. Regulatory capture though..
With the gaming aspect of it, I think it ties in though to the above. Companies pay other companies to find talent to do what they want. With investors buying things directly such as Splinterlands and then looking for someone to use their assets for them for a cut of the profit, I think there’s huge opportunities to eliminate the middlemen in that scenario. Maybe I’m thinking of it wrong and we are too small to have the issues of large scale investors but I think at least one company doesn’t have to pay another company to look for someone with the skills they want in gaming. I invest, post or talk to some folks, about asking someone to play for me and they give me their skills, I give them the assets and we both win without fees. They get a cut of the proceeds and things jive well!
I think XLM is already doing that in Africa and Asia - they are enabling people to send money cheaply, they are investing XLM in startups etc etc
I don't know much about all of the other projects, but soon it is going to be the way charities move their money too.
I am so impressed by how XLM (Stellar) works - it is very similar to XRP (Ripple) but these guys have a mission. The protocol is fast and rather cheap.
I use it if I want to move coins between exchanges, works great, here is my article about it: https://ecency.com/hive-167922/@ghua/transferring-crypto-around-the-cheap-way
I have been using LTC at times for the same reason :)
I used to do it as well few years ago, now it is too expensive :P
Yeah I have heard of them but it's still fees and middlemen. It's a huge step in the right direction what they are doing though! The fees and speed are far better than traditional finance can do.
For sure. Not only that, it can take days, where in that time they are earning on it too. My brother paid I think 13% fees to send my daughter a couple hundred dollars of r her birthday a few years ago. That is insane.
I don't think you are thinking of it wrongly. I think most people are though, as they believe that the current conditions today are the only conditions. A couple years ago, there was no DeFi, no crypto cards, no gaming, no nothing... Five years form now, the products and services that fill this space will be very diverse and they will start being increasingly divergent from what is possible anywhere now.
Yeah the delays are something I forgot about. How ridiculous lol.
Thinking of 5 years from now is wild, to think of all that's happened in just the last year alone!
Sadly, even with the coming of Decentralized finance, many people are still depending on their party institutions for carrying out their financial activities. You couldn't have imagined that people will prefer bitcoin ETF to Bitcoin itself.
Most times it feels that these third party financial services are part of the obstacle preventing the full adoption and use of defi projects and cryptocurrency.
No doubt that nothing is free in this world. If you don't have money or inherit something from someone, you must be somehow skilled in this world or must improve yourself to survive and start from scratch.
We are somehow skilled so that we have been hired. As for HIVE, if you are skilled or improved yourself about blogging and the other stuffs related to the blockchain and have time, you will probably grow your account in a short time than others.
But it is also literally, nothing in this world is free. Every movement costs energy of some kind, so expecting "something for nothing" just can't happen. It is generally just that some else pays the cost.
Turning that table over and making a mess will garner some attention, but it is not going to be the type of attention to likely make things better for the table turner.
Definitely not. Most people who will try, will find they can't even lift it.
I am glad that I was able to buy some hive in the past. That allowed me to have some foundation for growing. Now I am thinking about selling a bit of SPS and buying more hive. But I am still hesitant.
People are always hesitant to buy - selling is much easier - so, just see it as selling SPS ;D
TANSTAAFL!
Consumption always requires prior production, either by the consumer or some other party. If the consumer is not the producer, the producer must be persuaded to surrender that which was produced. Our choices are simple: consent or coercion. The former is the foundation for civilization, the other barbarism.
I think these days, we are raising consumers who feel that they are producers - yet create nothing and own nothing.
It is fairly easy to see the production process for physical goods. Services are sometimes also quite visible, although a lot also happens behind the scenes, out of public sight, in the world of business infrastructure and support. Once we reach the digital realm, things can get muddled. However, the greatest deception is from the political realm where plunderers claim to produce necessary goods and services, those who avoid plunder are portrayed as thieves, and productive firms are corrupted by the influence of politics. That last point is all too frequently blamed on "free market failure" by those blind to the iron fist of the state, and those who want to seize such political power for their own ends.
Just...I donno...I find doing stuff a lot easier than whining about why I can't do stuff but I've come to the conclusion some people just like whining XD
Yes, some do - so, why spend time listening?
Because it usually takes me quite a while to work out when people just like complaining and when they have a serious long term problem that needs a lot of processing XD (I'm not very smart)
Poker. The ultimate skill is not the cards dealt but the way the other players react to the perceived averages of their cards. Many will throw out the known percentages when faced with the possibility of 'easy money'. This is an observation based on my reaction as I read it, not in context of the whole article.
Turns out the observation was at least partly correct. Really top end players are really top end players all the time and their averages reflect that. I remember a verified experiment with on line poker where a top player entered a tournament with out being able to see anything but her cards. She bet the cards as dealt and won a large tournament fairly handily.
The question we all need to answer is 'what do you provide' not 'what do you do'. Everybody can provide something but not all skills are salable OR developed enough to provide return. A line from an old movie "You can bet your ass that the last buggy whip maker in the US made the best damn buggy whip ever built. But when buggies and horses went away so did their business."
People are always looking for the shortcut to wealth, most end up taking the long way round, never reaching where they set out for.
@theycallmedan is an ex-poker player and I think it helps him have an edge in predicting the future. As most people realize, he doesn't take the shortcuts.
Yes, and I think it is going to be easier (in time) to organize value into where it is earned. At the moment, there is a lot of mismatch, especially in the management levels. where value might be disproportionately rewarded.
It is going to be an interesting and strange future, looking through the lens we have today.
There was a time when we had to study hard to get white color job . Everyone in the society used to appriciate on the base of educational grading specially in India.The rush of parents to get admitted of their kids in the top school were one of the next level of story here. There is no wonder why Indians are highly demanding in the field of Engineering and Medical worldwide.
The time is changing now... A average class person who really not eligible for white color job ,can easily get something to earn on the base of Skills ,Time and Invest.
The Blockchain is empowering the people around the world to adopt the internet jobs where not necessary to study hard but your skills will lift you up with more potential earning opportunity.
Gaming like Splinterland , Artist in singing dancing painting 3D modelling all opening the door for a passive earner as NFT is shaping the blockchain as huge earning zone. Freelance service provider and content creator are highly demanding day by day .These are great example of earning on the Skills and Time given to Blockchain technology.
Adding Investment is always not favourable with all because it is talk about money and risk but still recommendable .
There will be for a time, the demand for formal education still - but what I think is going to happen is "formal evidence" of skill, which will come down to experience and blockchain etc.
The times mare changing rapidly though and I know quite a few people who are in positions that they never educated in, based on their skill. One of my colleagues who started two years ago as a graphic artist, animator and voice over expert - was a construction worker previously.
The extreme version of natural selection here would argue that these people should be left behind, left to rot. The problem with that is it makes the collective worse off. Society suffers.
It's also difficult to implement because people have different perspectives of value and what is fair. Why did i not get the same upvotes as X.
We are entering a new world with web3 and decentralised blockchain and maybe this decentralised interconnected world provides new answers. It's not socialism, or capitalism, there must be a new word to describe it but in it we can't leave people behind.
As it won't be an on/off switch, many of the issues will be sorted out along the way - much like it always is. 50 years ago, the internet was in play, but what we can do with it today is vastly different than what was imagined - yet, it is still in line with the direction they were aiming for in many ways. I think this will be the same - it will cause disruption, but those left behind will actually be quite few, as culture and habits will change to come into alignment for participation. In 1989 - no one I know wanted a mobile phone. In 2003, the internet on a phone was seen as predominantly useless.
Looking at the evolution of Blockchain technology,
Originally
Next Evolution probably extending this to automated contracts designed for the Internet
Now we are talking about online Communities and Web 3 where you are in control of contributing your own value to society
I think DeFi AMMs, DAOs and NFTs are going to work together to build business capabilities too.
Skills are a valuable asset, even in a society where everything is provided for. The beauty about skills is that they are of variety, so those of us without technical gifts can improve on other attributes that make us relevant.
It's going to be an interesting future, and I think multiple skills are going to be the way to go as things become more and more competitive
In a world where everything was provided (and I was content), I would still find ways to create, wouldn't I?
Life would be pretty boring if you don't😉
Yes, and idle hands do the devil's work ;)
Just to comment on the aspect that talked on having a value to offer rather than going for what we want to receive. Sadly, in a corrupt environment like the place where I live. Your value or skill doesn't matter in most cases. What matters is who you know in the system that can get you there.
Here people who read Courses not related to finance are working in Financial Institutions simply because they have the connection to take them there, whereas those with the skill and knowledge are left unemployed.
In the financial aspect. It is sad that despite the presence of centralized Finance people are still glued to third-party institutions for carrying out transactions. There are free tools on the internet that can serve as a guide yet people still prefer it. On the other hand, it seems that the Government and these third party financial agencies are the ones preventing the full adoption of defi services because of what they are likely to lose from the existing centralized system .
This can change - but unlikely to change in a centralized system as that is what it is designed to encourage.
In a world where people are able to "prove" their skill in an environment that doesn't care who or where they are from in the same way as now -there will be work available.
This threatens everything the current economy protects.
Again, but this time more emphatically. For you, @azircon and any one else in your TEAM who believes & swear that those with solely money, time & skills are the only ones with merits to add "value" and who exclusively should have the opportunity to add "value" and that everyone else outside your TEAM are just a burden on all and a net cost to society. For all of you, the video at the end of this comment.
So yeah, it's indeed a "Meritocratic" combat that is largely missing and usually go WOOSH over the heads of your TEAM members when they/you overlook that the added "value" by those without only money, time & skill that you tend to look them down, it's just perceived as a God's given gift from divinity exclusively for you while the true responsibles of such "value" that you take for granted, they are at most a burden on all and a net cost to society.
and you do you... no worries
I choose what I do. You choose what you do
When I do charity, I do charity, that is not work. I can't have work done with people who can't do the work.....it is as simple as that. I have no idea what is the issue here.
But I appreciate if you stop tagging me. Otherwise I will have to mute you.
:)
Thanks for your reply. :)
But now I need to ask you a few questions: ¿Did you watch the video? ¿What do you have to say about it? ¿Is there something reasonable in the video and in the way you choose to do what you do that you'd want to publicly debate with me? Keep in mind that here we are not talking about charity but about adding "value". True Value!
So, others can tag you without you feel compelled to having to mute them, but I can't right?
Is this just because of your subjective impression that I am not in your TEAM? };)
I am going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you are NOT trolling me. And answer your comment to the best of my abilities. This is simply because hive is full of trolls and I get trolled a lot. Just my defense mechanism.
I have watched the TED video which is little more than 8 min long. It talks about equity and meritocracy which is a concept I understand and apply on a daily basis. I understand clearly that the reason I am a geologist is because I was born in the location I did. If I have born to a different city I wouldn’t be a geologist. I understand the the fact that where people are born is a massive factor in how successful they can be. I understand a college degree doesn’t make a good person. I understand 2/3rd of Americans are not college educated.
What I don’t understand how and what this is conflicting to my comment. I said we prefer stake(money), time or skill in DPOS. I never said college education. I understand and appreciate that cleaning staff has skills just like MLK said and they are essential to the society. I support multiple people on hive who doesn’t have college degree but has other skills.
So again I stand by my point. And I am a bit physically tired responding to your comments and I will stop now.