Ah, yes. My bad. Of course. Silly me. The Steam analogy proves it. Why didn't I see this myself sooner?
If you build on Steam it's obviously investment in the game. Who cares if it brings value to the ecosystem. And God forbid if someone build something on Hive because that's absolutely got nothing to do with Hive.
Excellent logic.
Posted via HiveSuite
Steam incidentally benefits from your game when you release it on Steam's ecosystem. But you still haven't invested in Steam. It is not the gotcha you think, it is.
Hive could incidentally benefit from such investment but they are not investments in Hive. Case in point, Splinterlands.
Having something to do with Hive, and being an investment in Hive are different things.
This whole exchange is becoming a pretty good case study in midwit psychology.
First, the idiot will start with a narrow definition, and then find an analogy that fits his narrow views of reality and definitions. Then he will dig himself further into his own grave by mistaking the analogy as proof that his definition is the only correct one.
Then, when someone points out that the real-world situation is more complicated than their little box allows, instead of questioning the box, they reinforce it, and thus double down on what I like to call idiotological reasoning.
Pay close attention dear readers. Once a midwit has invested enough ego into a distinction, changing the definition feels like losing the argument. So the original assumption quietly becomes an axiom.
“I define investment in Hive as X.”
“Why?”
“Because investment in Steam isn't Y.”
Excellent. We've gone from discussing what constitutes an investment to defending a taxonomy nobody asked for. Yet, NOOBbody said developing an app on Hive means you literally bought HIVE with every dollar spent.
The question is whether spending substantial capital and years of labor building within an ecosystem can reasonably be described as investing in that ecosystem, but once the tunnel vision kicks in, anything outside the chosen definition becomes “not an investment” by decree.
The funniest part is that the midwit will defend the definition harder than examining the actual argument. Classic trap.
The smarter move would be to step back and ask, “Wait, am I actually proving my point, or am I just getting better at defending the premise I started with?”
That's usually where the midwit discovers the tunnel he's been digging. but that rarely happens.
Posted via HiveSuite