0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
8 replies
4 recasts
48 reactions
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Thank @zinger for sharing this feeling and @jabo5779 for brining it to my attention and highlighting what we too often ignore: the cost of our "criteria."
Yes, we need better allowlists. But the solution isn't just shinier locks and fancier keys.
Here's an uncomfortable question:
Do we value a wallet's balance matter more than a person's work?
The answer to that question must be yes if a bot-controlled wallet with $120 can instantly "belong," to the @farcaster pro tier while an actual human who's contributed memes, mods, code, context, and vibes gets priced out?
We've hard-wired the traditional monetary hierarchy into the heart of the blockchain.
This could be part of the solution: an in-kind participation tier—not just as a path to allowlists, but as a path to free and clear ownership of the offered asset.
Imagine if 50% of Forecaster Pro NFTs went to actual active human contributors, as opposed to fast bots with deep pockets. People who earned their membership through real contributions to the ecosystem.
If you've contributed valuable time and effort, you've earned the right to share in the upside—even if your wallet balance isn't flex-worthy.
Let's tax non-human speculation and reward human participation. (e.g., walk and talk videos where people show off their peripatetic prowess)
Let's stop building exclusionary systems that tell real people: "The time in your human life is worth less than the money in their robot wallets."
Let's build criteria that value effort, love, presence, and proof-of-care—not just wallets and speed.
I was inspired by @ted’s recent post loneliness and despair and isolation (https://farcaster.xyz/ted/0x1713e52e) and Aristotle’s wisdom on touch to ask: why not let Aristotle establish our inclusionary criteria?
His three tiers of friendship (from the Nicomachean Ethics) could help us determine who’s a true friend of any project—who has to pay full price, who can buy in at a discount, and who has earned a free pass:
1. Utility Tier — Transactional Tier
“You gain from me, I gain from you.”
This ends when the benefit does. Pure mercenary relationships.
2. Pleasure Tier — Hedonic Tier
“You entertain me, I entertain you.”
This ends when the fun fades. Fair-weather participants.
3. The Good Tier — The Virtue Tier
“We care about each other’s character.”
This friendship is rare, lasting, and real. These are your builders, your believers, your community. 0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
I'm trying to understand...
We should do experiments with locking out opportunities to the masses by allow listing early investors based on criteria defined from where? Isn't this how centralized investing already works? Everyday people don't have a shot to become early investors due to not meeting a criteria? I'm not against what you are saying in theory, but this 'criteria' is the kicker... the 'zinger' if you will... shall I prove my worth to you by playing a game for 90 hours a week and giving up my family so I can be labeled a "dedicated" user? How about $10 likes, does that get you on the list? I'd love to be able to beat a bunch of bots and superhumans into a project before they suck millions of dollars in liquidity out of it... for now, though, I guess I'll just pick up the broken pieces of shit left behind by those bots and superhumans that beat everyone else to the punch last spring and try to figure out a way to salvage something out of that cesspool, because entire communities are out there drowning in this market of opportunity we created.
I love and hate this concept. It is founded in principle by this idea that new people can win in this industry and we can grow through those new investors winning, but it employs the same tactic that tends to lock those new investors completely out of traditional investment opportunities. It all comes down to the 'criteria' in the end, and I hope it's humane - there are already users here speaking of the mental distress a leaderboard is causing them... And the real craziness has yet to even come here. Every hoop you make a human jump through, if they truly do not wish to do it, can degrade them. We are worried about stopping humans from spamming, but turning them into Circus Animals... that seems to be par for the course and acceptable. @marmo.eth may have some thoughts on these 'hoops' that could act as criteria. Much thought will be needed on this topic of inclusion, if we are placing investment opportunity behind locks and keys. 0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
