‘Building in crypto sucks’ dialog misses the key point: teams got persuaded to pivot every time the money started gushing. Let’s stop acting like outside of some regulatory assaults we don’t know what we were all doing as an industry for a solid half decade. Speaking in binaries for effect: You either did well $$ in crypto’s supercycle or funded someone doing well $$ in crypto’s supercycle. You either built an imaginative product and pivoted to something making money or got squashed by burn rate and lack of money coming in. You either tried something highly experimental then tried to integrate speculation unsuccessfully or tried something speculative then tried to integrate highly experimental ideas unsuccessfully. You either had something with potential but wouldn’t listen to your users or had something with potential and wouldn’t listen to your own gut.
- 3 replies
- 3 recasts
- 17 reactions
More the internet becomes a viable staple for content/media production, the more cultural diversity becomes economically viable for distribution, products, services, and events. Multiply by the scale of global populations coming online more and more through software and hardware accelerations in frontier technology. Though chaotic, the pattern reveals itself across interests and cultures regardless of overlap (comedy, golf, homesteading, entertainment, real estate). The ‘platform economy’ (taken from Tim Wu, author of The Age of Extraction) did a phenomenal job at solidifying the potential of ‘internets’ — geo-agnostic populations with identifiable cultural differences and social traditions/economies.
- 1 reply
- 1 recast
- 10 reactions
Re: network school what I would add to the discourse is that a network state, as balaji has attempted, seems fundamentally at odds with its own success, meaning: 1. You either function like a parasite on a currently manifest nation state, whereby the more you grow in influence and autonomy from nation state models, the more you are directly a threat to the nation state that hosts you. 2. If you create a new nation state by either taking or negotiating a parcel of land not readily fought for by current nation states, you simply delay the same threat in eventual interference, but now with less internal qualms from attacking nation states because they are not your hosts and can more easily justify the threat.
- 3 replies
- 1 recast
- 19 reactions