Decentralized Microphones

In yesterdays Hot Pod newsletter, the always eloquent Nick Quah linked to an interesting article from late last year published in the Ringer entitled 'The Pariah Podcast'.

Simply put, it covered the string of famous persons who have ostensibly been banished from traditional mass media. What makes this noteworthy is the fact that many are now hosts of popular podcasts.

This is interesting to me because it highlights the power and fundamental agnostic essence of decentralized tools.

When viewed as tools, podcasts become decentralized microphones. Blogs are like decentralized fountain pens that flow forever. Their existence renders impotent the power of traditional media to determine which voices are heard and which aren't.

The channels or networks that make up traditional mass media naturally control the individual shows or articles - and voices behind them - that are broadcast or printed on them.

Whilst shows are consumable and are a matter of taste, channels/networks are primarily consumer facing and so rely upon their reputation.

Thus when a show threatens their reputation, they tend to eliminate that threat as quickly as possible. Other channels and networks are typically not open to taking on outsized risks and so that voice is silenced.

But individuals also have reputations. Those whose reputations have flowed far and decently wide are considered famous. Note that both negatively perceived 'infamy' and the positively conotated 'fame' both are rooted in dispersed reputation.

Fame or 有名 in Chinese and Korean, when literally translated, means that you have a name or that people know your name. They know it because they have heard or read something about it. They have consumed some aspect of that person.

Podcasts are effectively networks or channels in and of themselves that can also be consumed in the same way shows are.

Effectively decentralized media like podcasts provide unlimited, undifferentiated containers to be filled with digital reputation that can be consumed on-demand in a predictable, standardized way. Thus they allow anyone to bottle their own distributed fame to be consumed anytime by their consumers.

For persons of sufficient fame these new tools have rendered their reputation portable. In order to monetize the consumption of their reputation, as of today, this means relying mainly on advertising revenue. Direct subscriptions are also a growing source of potential income.

But both advertising and traditional means of financial payments (i.e. credit cards), owing to the relatively centralized nature of both industries, could potentially silence certain voices by cutting off their income streams. And their reliance on scale and outsized profit taking effectively makes it all but impossible for a person of little to no fame from monetizing their voice.

If I have any readers, some of you may be upset with me, but it's at this point that I can't help but again bring up the potential that a platform and network like Cent holds for those of us who have voices, but slight to nil fame.

Cent effectively monetizes the micro-reputation of individuals by ensuring whatever they contribute in their own voice, as long as it is of a certain standard, is compensated.

When tokens are introduced, the accumulation of tokens will be a trustless way to express individual reputation, which potentially could be as portable as the reputations of famous people today.

One last thought though, since all networks allow for some element of "down voting" of other voices, these down votes too could become portable. Could accumulated down vote tokens received on one or many networks be used as currency or validation of ones "outside accepted cultural norms" reputation on other "outside" networks?

So much food for thought. But now it's time to enjoy this tasty drip coffee and brownie in front of me. Drink and eat the day up everybody.

Moving On & Moving Up

For the past two years I've been the Global HR Manager in a multi-billion dollar product division of an international Korean contractor.

Today though, it was finally confirmed that I will be moving up to join the corporate HR function within this week. I will be assuming GHR, training, and senior recruitment responsibilities for our entire $10+ Billion business.

Things move slowly until they happen fast.

One of my best mates will fly down to Singapore tomorrow to take over a senior management position on one of our metro projects with a contract value of $800 Million. As his HR manager, this move has been many months or - depending on how you look at it - perhaps over a year in the making. And tomorrow it's finally happening.

Behind both of these big changes were hundreds if not thousands of incremental steps leading up to their respective new beginnings. Sometimes these steps follow a clearly lit, well worn path.

Such was the case with my mate. I needed to liaise with several stakeholders, negotiate, gain consensus, tick boxes that set various processes in motion, and check on the progress of every step to make sure everything came into alignment in the end. The road was far, but I could essentially see the end from the moment I embarked upon it.

Sometimes though, as in my case, the path is decidedly less worn and considerably darker. That's where orienting oneself towards loosely defined goals comes in handy. At least within larger, more hierarchical firms, timing and luck have as much to do with career progression as individual work performance and experiences.

Instead of simply ticking a pre-determined number of boxes, a combination of meeting and getting to know the right people, fortuitous corporate re-organizations, strategically scheduled meetings with certain high level figures to get out of comparatively lower-level meetings, and selectively showing off unique skills when the situation allowed all contributed to putting me in contention for this jump up to corporate. Of course I selectively communicated this desire to key figures along the way and kept it in mind as short-term goal.

Whether scheduled or not, when change happens it hits quick. The difference is whether or not you are ready for that change. My mate sure as hell is. I have been ushering him towards that change for awhile. And I am too, thanks to being able to piece together the right string of experiences over that difficult to handle rope of timing and luck.

Sick Day

Perhaps once a year, always around January or February, I tend to get sick. It has to do with some combination of the cold weather and the wrong food and usually lasts for just a day or two.

Yesterday was one of those days.

Luckily my wife was here to take care of me. I am so thankful to have her.

With my unexpected time off I caught up on sleep first and foremost. After I got some strength back I caught up on some podcasts: The Ezra Klein Show, Unchained, a16z, and the Joe Rogan Experience.

After the podcasts I read a little bit and lounged around some more with my wife.

Sometimes we all need a sick day to catch up on things important.

1. How do You Tie Your Shoes?

2. When did you learn to tie shoes that way?
2a. (If from when they were young) Why have you stuck with that method?
2b. (If from when they were older) why did you change the way you tied your shoes?
3. What are some criteria that could be used to evaluate the efficacy of tieing shoes to determine which method is best?
4. If you find a better way to tie your shoes, will you change? Explain.

I am not sure if there is a more mundane or seemingly trivial question to ask someone above the age of 6 than, "How do you tie your shoes?"

But if you think about it and ask some follow up questions like the ones I listed above, I have found that they can help paint a pretty comprehensive picture of the personality of the person responding.

You can learn a lot about: how detailed they are, how creative they are, how open minded they are, their critical reasoning skills, and many other things.

It isn't appropriate to break out in every interview, but when interviewing for senior management or executive positions it is a fun question to use to get to know the candidate much better.

What I Write About

From my accidental habit of blogging daily, I have written 34 posts already so far this year. Well, 35 if you include this post.

Predictably, I have written the most about Crypto and my current obsession, Cent. A total of 14 posts have been written on those two topics alone.

I have written a total of 10 posts - 5 posts each - about my daily life and other random inspirations. Posts about my life have focused on my habits and routines as well as specific daily moments. Daily inspirations have come from well written articles, podcasts that I want to listen to again, and other random bits and pieces of life that I encountered at some point during my day.

AVC.com and Wolfstreet are both part of my daily routine, but I have broken both of them out into a separate category due to their outsized impact on me. I have written 4 posts inspired by both of them so far.

Reading has been a life long passion. I have read thousands of books in the couple of decades I've been alive. Whilst I am uncertain how many books I will read and re-read this year, I plan to write about most of the books I read and will post a list of every book I read this year at the end of December. So far there have been 3 posts on 2 of the 3 books I have read this year.

My work in the HR department of a major Korean conglomerate has made it into 3 posts. I expect many more blog posts reflecting my unique experiences and lessons learned heading forward.

Who knows what other categories or topics will make it into my writings as the year progresses, but I think it is safe to say the the topics I have written about up until this point will continue to figure prominently in future writings.

If anyone is reading what I write, feel free to let me know what you think of my writing. Let's talk in the comments. Hopefully I can get you paid. And you can help me build up a reader base that helps support this whole thing.  

Debt & Capital Mindsets

Nick Grossman penned a nice article yesterday that included a novel analysis of procrastination and self-improvement.

Both involve short amounts of time: the former involves the avoidance of something in lieu of some other short-term choice, whilst the latter involves engaging in short, productive acts.

In either case the results are compounding.

Each time you put off doing something it increases the time not spent on the issue. This can go very quickly from minutes to weeks to months and longer not doing something.

As more time goes by the burden of actually engaging with something likewise compounds. By avoiding something you give yourself less time to do it thus compounding the difficulty of doing it as well as the risk of penalty. If the activity involves health or work you are literally endangering your welfare and livelihood.

On the other hand, plugging away at something in short, sustained bursts will ensure that something gets completed or you become better and better at something.

A couple of steps a day can turn into a great separation over time placing you in a much better place. Moreover, if others haven't taken those same steps then you will be in an even better relative position.

So we can say:
Avoidance is a debt frame of mind, whilst habit setting and steady, self-improvement both exemplify a capital frame of mind.

Foot in the Crypto Door

Over the past couple of weeks I've reached out to a few teams and individuals who are building what are - to me at least - some of the most interesting projects in crypto today.
As it stands, I'm supporting two projects, in the middle of an email exchange with a founder/developer, and waiting for a response from another project.

One project, CryptoCountries, actually reached out to me asking for support with audience engagement and translation work for the Korean market after finding my profile on Ethlance.com. That's pretty cool.

I am also on the small Korean translation team for OpenBazaar supporting the translation of their site for Korean users.

After reading about StakeTree in the Token Economy newsletter a few weeks ago, I reached out directly to Niel de la Rouviere, the 'Chief Catalyst' there. I congratulated him on the great initial interest and traction he has started to receive before offering my translation services and help with any other needs he may have. He is a one man show for now, but I'll keep checking in with him every couple of weeks.

Lastly, I am still waiting for a response from the Cent team. I am most excited about this project, so I really hope there is some aspect of the project that I can get involved with and support. As a gesture of good will I sent them Korean translations of their three Medium posts. We'll see what happens.

I am very bullish on the future of this space, and super excited to be a part of it any way I can.

Being Right

So I found another podcast that's worth listening to more than once.

Niall Ferguson was on the 'Waking Up with Sam Harris' podcast and he was dropping knowledge whilst talking about his new book called "The Square and the Tower: Networks and Power, from the Freemasons to Facebook."

It's full of interesting bits about networks, hierarchies, and balanced, centrist perspectives, but there was one quote that stood out in particular:

"Sometimes being right condemns you to being in a minority."

Print that on a t-shirt and sell it.

No really, that's what Sam said right after Niall said that;)

Joking aside, I'd buy that shirt, and his book (which I plan on doing asap).

Happy listening.

My AVC.com

After just two more daily posts I have passed the 30/30 mark. That is 30 blog posts in 30 days.

I didn't set out to post daily, it just kind of happened. But I like it.

As Fred Wilson put it so succinctly in a recent tweet: "Writing is remembering."

These posts allow me to reflect on the day and return to what was top of mind, or interesting, or thought provoking. Put simply, writing helps me focus on what is worth remembering.

Since I think I will keep this little habit up, now is as good a time as any to pen one of my very quaint dreams: I hope that I can earn a few readers who want to join into a daily discussion below my posts.

I have said it many times, but the comment sections on AVC.com and Wolfstreet are amazing resources. The discussions that go on there by a steady cast of characters is food for my soul on a daily basis.

As an unknown, I know that discussion will never happen here. Why would it? It'll probably never happen on Steemit either. I will write about 'why' later.

My belief is that it will happen on Cent. Very soon (I hope) the site will add a section for content creators. Hopefully it will allow for two-way funding (i.e. a way for me to support those daily, commenting readers and for readers to support my writing). And hopefully I will be able to anoint my own Centurions - my steady cast of commenters.
Hopefully.

Anyways, until that becomes a reality, I will keep plugging away, writing things worth remembering.

The Autonomy & Dao of the Korean People

No other book in my life has come close to having as large an impact on both my personal growth and my intellectual development as this book has.

Its title is "The Autonomy & Dao of the Korean People."

I came across it serendipitously as I was browsing a random Korean bookstore just as I was beginning my university studies in Korea.

This book has given me so much. Not only did it help me gain a firm understanding of Daoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism (better than any English-language material I've ever come across) that worked a type of therapy on the way I view life, but it introduced me - via footnotes - to the two other major intellectual influences in my life: Lewis Mumford and Martin Heidegger.

I have read and re-read this book so many times that the original binding fell apart. Luckily I took it to a local copy store that re-bound it for me. It is full of my marginalia, notes and underlines.

It is my treasure.

Unfortunately, this book has been out of print for years now, and most Koreans aren't even able to read it anyways because of all of the Chinese characters in it. Of course there is no translation available, but I have translated a few passages throughout the years on this blog that may be of interest to some.

Check out those writings via this link, and I recommend you start with 'Dao and Study'.

Cent - Chapter 2 Centurions & CENT

*This is the second part in a fictional forward-looking series based on the site beta.cent.co - click here for Part 1*

The 'beer money' payout marked the first, and perhaps most important, viral hit for Cent.

And at the heart of that decisive change was the decision to anoint an exclusive class of users: the Centurions.

The debate amongst a few Centians and the two founders prior to the decision to introduce this separate user class was heated. The biggest worry was that existing users and potential new users would be turned off by what could be construed as a centralization. They were also afraid it was an unnecessary complication.

Those worries were quickly replaced by a major problem that erupted on the site. Due to the lack of any real mechanism to prevent users from signing up under multiple emails, a number of spam responses posted by single users with multiple accounts began siphoning off major portions of bounties.

Max and Cam tried to minimize the problem by sending these responses to the bottom of the response list by erasing the amount of the bounty they received, but that didn't address the root of the problem. And it didn't prevent those users from receiving those funds, since fund distribution was carried out automatically via a smart contract.

Therefore the founders finally acquiesced to the repeated pleadings of a few, passionate Centians who perceived the problem early on and created the exclusive Centurion class consisting of seven users: Max, Cam, Steven McKie, yours truly and three others

It seems obvious now, but the Centurions did more than simply establish a novel way to mitigate spam accounts and help reinforce the 'beer money' standard.

Through their consistent up/down voting of responses they helped curate the responses that bounty setters were seeking in the first place.

Centurions also made it possible to introduce the tagging system the site sorely needed to facilitate searches for past bounty topics. This allowed old bounties to be re-opened if updates were needed as one example. For each new tag a Centurion added, they were awarded 1% of the 7% of the bounty reserved for Centurions.

A major moment for Cent was when the big names started showing up. The Burniskes. The Navals. The Wilsons. The Centurions were behind this as well.

The Centurions brought a human touch for these new users. They brought them onboard, verified their sns accounts and broadcast their membership. In a time when automation was the singular focus, Cent combined the best of the human experience complimented by the convenience of automation.

Cent became a site for users, run by users. And Centurions were the first employees.

One of the most important contributions the Centurions made was an indirect one. Their introduction essentially laid the framework to launch Cent's native token, CENT.

Cent's token distribution came together almost overnight after the Centurions were introduced. Since the value of the network had been created in advance, there was no need to carry out an ICO. Instead the three classes of users (bounty setters, centurions, bounty responders) received CENT based on how much they contributed to Cent up until that point.

The amount of CENT bounty setters received was 1000x the amount of ETH they previously set as bounties on Cent. Centurions received 700x the amount of ETH they received for their support in CENT. Regular Centians received 300x what they earned in ETH by providing responses and up voting in CENT.

What set CENT apart from ICOs or token distributions that came before it was the distinct utility it gave users right away:

• It allowed bounty setters to feature their bounties on the main Cent feed (the number of CENT they attached to their bounty was clearly displayed on active bounties)
• Centians could attach CENT to their responses to ensure it featured at the top of all responses whilst the bounty was active. (Note: that CENT was distributed across all responses (including theirs) that received net positive up votes for that bounty proportional to the total number of up votes received)
• Centians could attach CENT to other responses that, when combined with up votes would ensure that response was featured higher in the responses and go directly to the responder after the bounty ended; if the response was down voted the response was displayed towards the bottom of the responses and distributed to responses that receives net positive up votes when the bounty expired
• Whilst the number of Centurions was initially fixed at seven, after CENT was introduced, each Centurion was required to stake a minimum amount of CENT. After that, anyone could become a Centurion if they staked an amount of CENT equal to 100% more than the most recent amount of CENT staked by the newest Centurion. (E.g. if the last Centurion staked 1000 CENT, the next centurion would have to stake 2000, the next 4000, the next 8000 etc...). 

As a side note, Centurions were able to remain Centurions as long as they maintained a stake >50% of their original stake (e.g. for those who staked 1000 CENT, they had to maintain a stake of 501 CENT or higher). This allowed Centurions to take profits off the table without having to give up their position.

Centurions and CENT were pivotal in the development and growth of Cent. They have proven invaluable to the growth and development of Cent not to mention the additional features and uses of the CENT token were built out later.

Cryptoassets

Definitions are important. They help shape our conceptions, expectations and interactions.

I don't know why but the following definition popped into my head about 'cryptoassets' and it seems kind of perfect.

Cryptoassets are shapeless representative units of value in digital wrappers that provide malleable functionality.

Cryptoassets include: cryptocommodities, cryptocurrencies, cryptotokens, and cryptocollectibles.

This definition was definitely influenced by Chris Burniske and Jack Tatar's excellent, epynonymously titled book 'Cryptoassets'. Check that out if you haven't yet.

Have a happy weekend everybody.

Locked Doors & Open Windows

Often times during negotiations you hit what at first may seem like an insurmountable impasse. I like to refer to these as locked doors.

The door may be locked for a number of reasons. Often times it is locked because of the 'form' a request or demand takes.

During contract extensions many people try to add new or extra benefits. Granting one employee a benefit that others do not have can be a slippery slope.

The Asian rumor mill is a very real thing and unfortunately exceptions that are granted to a few always seem to find their way out into the open. Once that happens you have the potential for thousands of employees demanding that very same benefit.

Hence we prefer not to grant new benefits. This fact upsets many staff with experience working for more international employers that have - to put it bluntly - much more professional HR departments.

As the global HR manager in charge of recruitment and contract extensions for these international professionals, I usually find myself in the middle of two houses with locked front doors during negotiations because of the demand for extra benefits.

But what are benefits, really? At the end of the day, whilst a specific benefit such as additional leave or a company car may mean or signify a great deal for an individual person, they are simply items with a specific dollar value.

It is very easy - much easier than most think - to justify a salary bump for a respected employee. Where I work is no different.

So when I report on the status of negotiations to my direct boss and corporate HR, I state the benefit that has been requested, and very quickly provide the dollar value and percentage increase in salary that it represents.

I get unofficial approval for that salary increase - or at least an increase that is very close - every time.

Despite the door being locked to a new benefit request, there was a window open to it in a different form.

When I go back to the candidate or colleague I am very upfront with them. After explaining that their request for new benefits is not possible, I pause and let them know there may be another way.

Letting them know the dollar value of their requested benefit (and when appropriate the formula used to make the calculation) is usually enough to give them the feeling that I am taking their case seriously and may even be on their side.

It is never a problem to get someone to take extra money. Letting them know that a certain percentage of their salary or salary increase represents 'x' benefit is just as effective - if not more so - as the actual provisioning of said benefit.

When you run up against a locked door during your next negotiation, look for an open window.

Cent - Chapter 1 Beer Money

*This is the first part in a fictional forward-looking series based on the site beta.cent.co*

It started out as a Quora-like imitator with a novel bounty smart contract attached to it.

Then it added a section for musicians to set bounties to attract fans who could fund them. Then a space for bloggers. Next a Reddit-esque platform. On and on it went.

The next thing we knew the big names showed up. The Navals. The Burniskies. The Wilsons. 

That's when Cent blew up. And after that, nothing was ever the same.

--------------------

Cent was already different before it took everything over. It solved the decentralized organization problem before anyone else. 

But I want to take you back through the series of events that led up to that defining moment in history.

The first step towards solving the decentralized organization was Cent's introduction of a hybrid 'centralized-decentralized' model led by a small coterie of users called Centurions. 

The Centurions numbered only seven in total and included the two co-founders, Max and Cam. They helped curate the site by  distributing weighted votes. 

Before Centurions were introduced, every registered user or Centian was able to up/down vote the responses of any other users. 

This led to pitiful payouts for all Centians. They were lucky if they made a few cents. It wasn't very attractive to new users let alone for those Centians who made well thought out and sincere responses. 

For every bounty posted on the original Cent feed, at first hundreds, then pretty soon thousands of responses were submitted by Centians vying for a piece of the bounty. 

And the Centurions faithfully read every response.

Each Centurion had the power to distribute 10% of each bounty across corresponding responses. Regular users were - and to this day still are - able to up/down vote any post distributing 20% of each bounty. 

For their efforts voting and curating responses, 7% and 3% of each bounty were distributed equally to Centurions and regular Centians respectively.

So for an easy example, imagine that someone placed a bounty of $1000 soliciting feedback on a new song they composed. 

Exactly 100 Centians responded, of which seven were clearly outstanding. Every Centurion voted, and the seven outstanding responses received all of their votes. Half of all Centian votes also went to those seven responses. The other half of their votes were evenly distributed amongst 75 responses. 

Thus when the bounty paid out, the seven top responses received 80% or $800 distributed proportionally to the percentage of the total number of votes they received. The 75 Centians who were up-voted received 10% or $100 which translated to about $1.33 per response, and each Centurion received $10 with 3% or $30 distributed to any other Centians who voted. 

Back when the Centurions first appeared the bounties were considerably lower - they averaged around $10~$30 apiece. On special occasions you may have seen a $100 bounty, usually set by the esteemed Sir Mckie himself.  

After the Centurions came onto the scene, every Centian who posted was still pretty much guaranteed to take home a few pennies per response which was unprecedented for any social network at the time, but for those who gave the best responses, they were bringing in legit 'beer money' payouts. 

That 'beer money' was a major game changer.

Reading Books & People

The more books you read, the better reader you become.

Because books are written by people about either people or things people do, reading books also helps you read people.

You pay more attention to subtleties like past events, context, tone and word choice when you read books or people. There really is no difference.

Some people, like books, are harder to read than others, but if you have time and patience nothing and no one are absolutely unreadable.

It's a common refrain these days though that people really don't read anything. They skim or look something (usually very short) over from time to time, but beyond that they really don't read anymore.

If you don't read a lot of books, there must be some impact. Since reading sharpens your ability to detect and understand subtleties, by not reading your perception and understanding may remain dull and common.

Perhaps this explains the numerous misunderstandings that arise between people.

Whilst the work place demands absolutely clear and direct prose in communication, if you spoke to friends and loved ones in such a manner life would become as dull and staid as a generic floor in some corporate office.

These days, however, I have heard that several loved ones "need me to be clearer and more direct" about future plans and events that are in no way clear or directly knowable ahead of time.

Last night I heard it again. After I was told that, I took a long sip of my wonderfully bitter, slightly hoppy and perfectly fragrant Omija Ale, and thought, "How sad that no one seems to be able to read me."

I guess I expect more of others. If anyone bothered to read between my lines, or remember who I have always been and the loving words shared over long talks they would hear all that they apparently want stated directly, and more.

Reading isn't special. What reading allows for, though, is a richness and fullness of our human experience.

I would expect others to want to live as rich and full a life as possible, but since this requires people to read, maybe my lowly expectations of others are simply too high.

That is just so damn sad.

But at least I have you though, right?

Happy Valentines Day everybody;)

Time & Place

Yesterday I read a pretty interesting article about digital nomads in the NY Times.

It went in depth about a specific brand of live-work spaces. At first glance the whole idea seems pretty appealing. The spaces themselves are clean, cheap and located in amazing cities.

But the digital nomad lifestyle doesn't seem to be sustainable over the long term.

The money quote for me in the article was this:

"Living anywhere is a lot like living nowhere.

Haid [the operator of the global live-work spaces] sees nomadism as a solution to our technologized, globalized lives, but it seems less like a fix than like an extension or intensification of the same condition."

Place is important. Context is important. A business trip in Hawaii is never a vacation, so why would "living" as a digital nomad skipping from Bali or Berlin to Bombay where you were always potentially working be any different?

Cent & Mumfordian Design Principles

It seems like the more people think about cryptoeconomics, the more they bring up Friedrich von Hayek. And that's cool. I read 'The Road to Serfdom' and 'The Use of Knowledge in Society' when I was an undergraduate too.

Maybe I need to re-read Hayek (I plan to), but given the very early, immature stage crypto finds itself, I think that it may be of more use for individuals and teams who are building some of the first consumer facing dapps to look for other figures whose ideas may be able to offer more immediate and practical insights.

For me at least, I think that the time has come to look back at Lewis Mumford, and in particular his work and insights on cities and their development in history.

As prolific a writer and polymath as Mumford was in early twentieth century America, outside of a small group of urban planners today, he and his numerous works have all but been forgotten, but not by me.

In his later works, particularly in the National Book Award winning 'The City in History' and in the second book of his The Myth of the Machine series entitled 'The Pentagon of Power,' the dual concepts of 'Materialization' and 'Etherialization' figured prominently in his thoughts on cities and cultures.

Although Mumford originally came across these terms in Arnold Joseph Toynbee's 'A Study of History', Mumford made them his own.

Materialization is the process wherein a subjective, pre-linguistic idea becomes embodied materially in objective reality. It always starts with an idea so faint that it's barely a dream. As a helpful example, think about the original dream that brought together the first cypherpunks. These original cypherpunks, over a period of decades, kept the seed of the idea alive by relentlessly, but very slowly, studying, researching and discussing - which is to say incubating - their nascent idea until that fateful day Satoshi Nakamoto appeared.

Mumford refers to the stage of materialization when an idea becomes inextricably intertwined with a person as 'incarnation'. This person normally strikes a chord with a large group in society who have been yearning for something different than their rigid depersonalized surroundings. Sort of like how, amidst the occupy movements and the frustration with the system in the wake of the global financial crisis in 2008 that many felt, Satoshi and the idea of Bitcoin appeared who in turn saw a group of devoted disciples from around the world spring up who helped give voice and intellectual formulation to the idea of crypto.

It is at this point, when the subjective thoughts about the idea begin to manifest as objective reality. The formulation, ideation, and elaboration of 'the idea' by many people in their daily experience of living bridges that original dream with the realities of social life. Think about all of the unique insights that people have just started deriving over the past few years from Satoshi's white paper that have been incorporated in new projects and collectives. This wider socialization of the idea Mumford calls 'incorporation'.

And this is where we find ourselves today. It is here that the design of these projects and collectives needs to be fully thought through in order to ensure the best possible long-term outcome.

Let's take Cent as an example. Just like Mumford's conception of incorporation, a conscious rational effort amongst the community of Centians is just beginning to create distinct habits, customs, routines, practices, rituals and procedures that will shape its future. But it is still raw. Its initial design needs to account for the inevitability that, over time, the original organizing idea of the Centian culture will become played out and rigid in some ways. In Mumfordian terms, the expectation that the original organizing idea will become fully embodied needs to be reflected within the design set during incorporation in order to allow for new ideas to take hold in the future.

To paint a few very broad strokes this could roughly mean that whilst a few Centurions may be introduced early to Cent to help curate a culture that I have described elsewhere (here and here), the decentralization of this centrally set institution needs to also be baked into the original design. The same holds for future airdrops or any other future plan. That near future, and more importantly the far future beyond that, needs to be set *loosely* and allowed for today.

If the original design doesn't allow for new ideas and uses to manifest out of the original culture and associated infrastructure, there will be a breakdown, or in Mumfordian terms 'de-materialization' will occur. This breakdown is an example of the negative side of 'etherialization'. For a project like Cent users would begin defecting to other networks that better incorporate the urges and impulses behind their new idea that is seeking expression.

If, on the other hand good design is employed, the positive forces of etherialization will play off of the existing creative culture by transmuting its energies into more refined forms (e.g. symbols). Technical infrastructure (e.g. market mechanisms, incentive architectures) will become simplified in design and operation. The longer etherialization is allowed to continue, the larger the environment will be, both in space and time, for further user development.

According to Mumford, good city design ensures continuity by providing both stability and creativity. Existing institutions and structures take on symbolic meaning. At the same time they provide collective support to help translate new ideas into habits, customs and new design choices that will be applied to the city in the future that will, in turn, impact the next generation in new and surprising ways.

In simple terms, the goal of good design should be to build containers in both a technical infrastructural sense as well as creative cultural sense that, with minor changes here or there, can last over time to hold new generations of dreams.

In 'The City in History' Mumford wrote, "The rhythm of life in cities seems to be an alternation between materialization and etherialization." Whilst designing dapps and their incentive architectures, the relation of and interplay between it and the waxing and waning forces of materialization and etherialization that the community will exert needs to inform the design. If Cent can accomplish that it will be able to set up something that will continually enrich and nourish generations of Centians.

New Habits & Daily Routines

In terms of setting a new habit, in my experience, the 3-week threshold is the determining benchmark to focus on.

The easiest analogy to make would be getting into an exercise routine after not working out for a while - after you get your first longish run or workout in it fucking hurts.

You literally feel sore for a good two weeks, but if you make it to the third week without giving up, chances are you will not only be able to keep it up, but it won't hurt anymore and you will reap the healthful benefits.

This holds for non-physical activities as well, just instead of overcoming physical pain you need to get over either feeling like you just don't have the time to do something or general procrastination.

Now for my morning and evening routines (I will omit simple universals like 'brushing teeth').

Morning

• Wake up at 4:43 am, 100 pushups
• Short 2.5 km run with the wife
• 2 sets of 30 pull-ups (1x over grip, 1x under grip)
• Drink a tasty smoothie (e.g. celery, lemon, ginger, apple, spinach, carrot, banana)
• Hand grind coffee beans, aeropress into a takeout cup to be sipped on the 40 minute morning bus commute to the office
• Read a chapter of a paper book on the bus
• Post the blog entry I wrote the night prior
• Arrive at the office around 7 am, read Fred Wilson's daily blog post at avc.com, check bloomberg.com, read email newsletter (either Ben Thompson's "Stratechery", Nick Quah's "Hotpod", Azeem Azhar's "Exponential View" or "스타트업 위클리" or "Token Economy")

Evening

• Listen to a podcast on the 50 minute bus ride home (e.g. a16z, Exponent, Recode/Decode, Waking up with Sam Harris, The Daily, Software Engineering Daily, The Wolf Den)
• 100 push ups
• Watch an hour or so of TV shows or documentaries with the wife whilst eating
• Write tomorrow's blog post 
• Bed around 10ish and bed talk with the wife

'Adult in the Room' Arguments

Student loan debt has skyrocketed to $1.5 Trillion. That is $500 Billion more than auto loans or credit card debts which are both around $1 Trillion each.

In less than 10 years, between Q1 2008 and Q4 2017, student loan balances have rocketed into the stratosphere shooting up 141%, from $619.3 billion to $1.49 trillion, or multiplying 2.4 times over that period.

The problem has become impossible to ignore, and now - of course - the "adults" are weighing in with their two cents.

Wolfstreet is one of my favorite websites for no non-sense financial analysis. Similar to avc.com, Wolfstreet also maintains a vibrant commentariat that acts as an amazing supplement to articles.

Commenters run the full spectrum of political beliefs and there are numerous non-American posters, but just as avc.com predominately leans liberal-left, commenters on Wolfstreet lean conservative-right.

Popular refrains by so-called adults to the Wolfstreet article that broke down the consumer debt issue (including student loans) can be summarized in two, nearly identical, examples: "No one put a gun to the kids head forcing them to take out hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans" and "I scrimped and saved to make my payments over 20 years - I played by the rules - so why should these people get a free ride?"

Now excuse me whilst I take umbrage in my umbros.

Essentially, as people who say and think such things would have us believe, adults play by the rules and thus need to be accountable for their actions.

That perspective, however, is distorted, incorrect and unhelpful in the discussion of the growing social problem of student loan debt for two reasons:

1. It is the result of a flawed assumption wherein they (the adults) are in-charge, when in reality, regular adults are simply rule followers, not rule makers, and;
2. It doesn't account for the possibility that they, "the adults" themselves, are also at the root of the problem.

That is why I get sick to my stomach when I read and hear average rule followers say student loan debtors shouldn't ever be forgiven and should instead be forced to live with the consequences.

Let me draw an extreme comparison to demonstrate the dangerous implications of their ignorance.

In Nazi Germany there were three distinct groups: leaders, followers, and persecuted. The leaders (i.e. higher ranking Nazi Party members and officials) made the rules. The followers (i.e. all "regular" German adults and kids) simply followed the rules and examples of the leaders. The persecuted (i.e. Jews and anyone else who for whatever reason or action found themselves afoul of the rules) were persecuted according to the rules.

After that terrible state of affairs ended, who was punished? We all know it was the leaders - the rule makers and example setters - that were punished; not the average, rule-following adults.

What is problematic about the beliefs and assertions of the "adults" who believe student loan debt should never ever be forgiven, is that, if anything, they have completely internalized the now obviously flawed rules set by those is positions of power. They have internalized them so completely that they accept and even advocate persecution, not just for others, but for themselves potentially as well.

Instead of actually holding the leaders (i.e. "the real adults in the room") accountable for fostering a society where most believe tertiary education (and thus the accompanying debt burden) is an essential step to securing a stable future, or at least arguing for changes that will reduced the severity of the situation, these commenters are advocating maintaining the oppressive regime of the status quo.

No wonder the "adults" of post-Nazi Germany were so reluctant to discuss their lives in Nazi Germany - they had to have eventually realized that they were just as bad as the Nazi leaders themselves not to mention the more direct, decisive role they played in ensuring the persecution of those who ran afoul of the rules.

Anyways, stay out of debt kiddies. There are a ton of options, particularly abroad, where you can go and study to avoid the being forced into oppressive US debtor camps that US universities have become for anyone who isn't super rich.

Marketing is Simple

Simple is not easy.

Thin Air

I hate when people say things like:

"You knew Bitcoin et al. were created out of thin air (or less)..."
 ~ Javert Chip

If this person used "out of thin air" in a sense evoking the process behind how most commercially produced nitrogen is made - which is to say "out of thin air" - then I have no qualms with their use of that expression.

But no one uses that phrase like that.

What is super ironic though, is how right they actually are in their wrongness.

'Bitcoin et al.' were created out of the nearly unlimited digital possibility constantly provisioned by networked computers atop which, methods from several distinct fields of cryptography, game theory, software engineering, programming and a few other fields were pulled together and combined in just the right order.

Being able to mine the first bitcoin on 3 January 2009 and not on 2 January 2009 is no different than how nitrogen was unable to be harvested from the atmosphere before chemistry had advanced enough to where knowledge and techniques could be applied to the atmosphere in just the right way.

If you think deep enough, ever since the atmosphere first formed, or from the time that the first networked computer system was set up, the possibilities of both nitrogen harvesting and bitcoin mining had always existed. It's just that those possibilities were concealed.

Because those possibilities were concealed, they were 'impossible'. Every possibility that has not yet been revealed is by definition impossible.

Pulling something out of thin air used to be impossible, and then one day, it was possible - it became true. In Greek 'aletheia' means truth. It's literal translation is 'unconcealed'. Truth is just the revealing of possibility.

So when someone mocks another's idea by saying it is 'impossible' because they are too thick to realize that concealed possibilities are continually being revealed, just tell them to go fuck themselves. That is, after all, how their life literally ceased being an impossibility and became possible to begin with.

Gradatim Ferociter

"Step by Step, Ferociously"

Steady progress toward seemingly impossible goals will win the day.
Setbacks are temporary.
Naysayers are best ignored.

~Blue Origin (Amazon) Motto

Risk as a Function of Perception

I am just about to wrap up Brad Stone's "The Everything Store," his book on Jeff Bezos and the inception, initial rise followed by hard times, and ultimate success of Amazon.

Usually biographies humanize their subjects, but in this case, Bezos has essentially become a god in my eyes. An angry god to be sure, and one that knows the devil is in the details.

Beyond Bezos though, what really struck and stuck with me, was how the book perfectly captured the anxiety and fear that permeated the markets during the bear cycle and ultimate dot.com bubble pop back in 2000.

At that time Amazon's stock fell to less than $10, losing hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders and employees. And they were getting *trashed* in the media.

Amazon's then treasurer summed up the fear and anxiety perfectly: "The most anxiety-inducing thing about [the Wall Street bears and negative media] was that the risk [of going to zero] was a function of perception and not the reality."

The real danger was that the negative media might turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that strain of bearish thinking actually took hold for awhile. Large numbers of people illogically thought the Internet revolution and all its invention would just disappear.

It feels like this history is rhyming again today as the crypto sector has just lost hundreds of billions off its network value virtually overnight.

The bears and perma-critics are smugly declaring defeat for cryptocurrencies. Many retail investors probably didn't know anything about the underlying tech so they probably think crypto dead too.

But just as Amazon and its cohort of other dot.com bubble survivors have shown, these sorts of revolutions have a way of upending short-term criticism over the long run. As the internet continues to prove, it has had an extremely powerful non-linear impact on every single other sector.

Amazon used the power of the internet to provide customers - end users - with a level of instant, personalized satisfaction that was impossible before it. That in turn has helped it become a real contender to become the everything store for the whole freaking world.

The seeds carried by the sudden deluge of blockchain and cryptocurrency speculation have just been laid. Already flowers are starting to appear giving a preview of what may be possible soon for end users. It's amazing how quickly they have taken root, and I am sure that there will be an Amazon (or ten or hundred) that'll bloom and grow atop this new technology soon.

Paul Martino's Advice for Cent

I was re-listening to one of my favorite podcasts of 2017, the Paul Martino episode on the Software Engineering Daily podcast that I included in my lists of all things good the other day.

In the episode Paul recounts a few of the mis-steps he and his team made working on an early, initially successfull, but ultimately failed social networking site called Tribe.

Paul gives listeners a full five-course meal of food for thought, but what really grabbed my attention was this: "[Tribe] didn't pay any attention to curating who their initial user base was."

The initial users themselves set the tone for the site, and usually earlier than many would expect. Once set, it is nearly impossible to alter.

In Tribe's case, they got all the 'burning man' users that were purged enmasse from Friendster. In the end, this super alternative crowd was no match for *that* social network that started with a highly curated group of users from the Ivy League.

Cent of course is my favorite site these days. It is a little less than half a year old (154 days to be precise) and based on the number of responses-per-bounty, it's user base is growing into a globally diverse group.

But like Tribe before it, Cent seems open to accepting everyone. Since any account can upvote anyone else, basically everyone who posts a response gets a piece of the bounty.

If we were a commons, everyone would be starving. Cent is, in effect, curating poverty.

As fellow Centian @paulkay put it: It's just too damn hard to earn beer money on Cent.

Cent isn't the only blockchain-based app or site to pay out crypto for user generated work either. Earn and Steemit are more popular and successful. Despite the shortcommings of those sites, several of their users bring in very large returns.

Add to that Earn's highly selective, curated lists and the fact that it has convinced a bunch of really big names to sign up and the differences become clear.

Cent's novelty is very exciting to be sure, but passionate users will leave soon if there are sites that provide better incentives.

As I have proposed elsewhere, I believe there is a novel way to solve this issue: institute a new user-class called Centurions, who alone have the ability to upvote or downvote responses.

They would become the keepers of the site, and since upvoters receive 10% of each bounty, they would have a financial incentive to continue improving the site and user experience.

Most responses would still receive a nominal payout for their contibutions, but Centurions would ensure that users receive larger portions of bounties by guaranteeing the majority of upvotes go to "higher quality" posts. This would provide a great benefit to bounty setters. The higher payouts would also help draw in new users. New users would raise the overall calibre of responses and incentivize people to post more bounties.

Allowing each user to see which posts each Centurion has upvoted (like Disqus upvotes) would further help improve the overall experience.

And anyone who makes a certain number of posts that receive a certain number of upvotes would become a Centurion, kind of like a decentralized knighting. Over time those minimum criteria would increase as a way to ensure that quality standards remain high.

Lastly, when it comes time to airdrop CENT tokens, by introducing the Centurion class it should be easier to find clear metrics by which to determine who contributed the most to the site. A token-curated-registry approach could then be implemented so that anyone willing to temporarily stake their credentials could apply.

Cent, together with Centurions, would be curating constantly improving users who contribute responses of increasing quality.

Cent needs to start curating quality. Here's hoping they do.

Organization Isn't Centralization

Organization helps to strengthen linkages between independent actors

Linkages in decentralized entities are longer and naturally weaker than in centralized organizations.

Organization, when carried out well, can help to make linkages in decentralized entities more robust, elastic, and egalitarian, whilst good organization in centralized entities can help enhance efficencies between linkages.

Poor organization will negatively affect both decentralized and centralized entities.

I am a Repeater

I'm a repeater.

I like to re-read, re-listen, and re-watch the good stuff.

There's nothing better than coming across something that makes you feel so good you want to read, listen, or watch it again. And in some cases again and again.

This basic urge towards repetition strikes me as perhaps one of the core building blocks of humanity.

For those of you on the lookout for good stuff, I've put together a few lists of good books, podcasts and movies. Overtime I'll update the lists accordingly. So check them out now and later. And be good.

Books

• Martin Heidegger - The Question Concerning Technology,                                                                       Early Greek Thinking, What is Called Thinking
• Peter Thiel - Zero to One
• Phil Knight - Shoe Dog
• 김범수 - 어제를 버려라
• 이동식 - 한국인의 주체성과 도
• 홍정욱 - 7막 7장
• Herbert Marcuse - Eros & Civilization
• J.R.R. Tolkien - The Hobbit
• J.D. Salinger - Catcher in the Rye
• Jean Craighead George - My Side of the Mountain
• Lewis Mumford - Technics and Civilization, The City in History

Podcasts

• Recode/Decode - Andrew Mason, John Zimmer 
• Software Engineering Daily - Paul Martino 
• Invest Like the Best - Chris Dixon, Ali Hamed, Chris Burniske 
• A16Z - Stewart Butterfield, Jim Gilliam (NationBuilder) 
• The Digiday Podcast - Bryan Goldberg (Episode 1, Episode 2) 
• Waking Up with Sam Harris - The Intellectual Dark Web, Niall Ferguson
• The Ezra Klein Show - Ben Thompson 
• The Future Thinkers Podcast - Vinay Gupta
• The Joe Rogan Experience - Peter Guuliano, Graham Hancock & Randall Carlson

Documentaries

• Adam Curtis - The Century of the Self, HyperNormalisation
• The Prize: Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power
• Ugly Delicious

Movies/Shows*

• There Will be Blood
• The Social Network
• The Founder
• The Paper Chase
• Paid In Full
• Requiem for a Dream
• Menace II Society
• The Ghost Writer
• 비열한 거리
• Mad Men*
• Billions*
• Parts Unknown - Rene Redzepi (S02E04)*

BTFD & BUIDL

For anyone that's been active in cryptoland for more than a minute has most definitely ridden the coaster of dips. Probaby more than a few times too.

Over the past few days that coaster has really been doing work. I'm sure a lot of coiners have lost their expensive lunches. And you probably still feel sick.

But for more experienced coiners, the dips barely register as a tickle in their tummy. As Chris Burniske said, living through these types of market panics become badges of honor in cryptoland.

On top of that, though, they are amazing buying opportunities. You can help offset losses by buying the dips before they tick up again. They tend to be the most valuable investments in the long run.

That said, you need to pick the coins that best represent solid tech and future development. Of course there is Bitcoin Core, but the Ethereum community is really putting in work buidling [sic] the future out with DEXs, StakeTree, Cipher mobile browser, Cent, Cryptokitties and several other projects that you can use today.

'Buy what you know' was the dominant investment adage back in the '80s and it is my contention that it should be the basis of most investments in crypto today.

So BTFD (buy the fucking dip) and develop an investment bias for teams that BUIDL.

Elements of a Bounty

I  have been thinking a lot about bounties these days.

What has been most surprising - although in hindsight it shouldn't have been - is how many people active in the crypto and blockchain space hear one thing when they hear or think of a bounty.

They think of a bug bounty - a specific task that has one winning response.

And then they code for that.

Why that is surprising in a regrettable sense is simple: they are coding the corresponding smart contract too tight. In other words, they should code for a wider array of potential use cases.

This is what Max Brody and Cameron have done with Cent. They have really re-imagined the bounty, and the use cases of their more widely thought bounty contract have grown into the double digits.

I can fully appreciate that now.

But that doesn't mean I can't learn anything from thinkers still stuck in an old paradigm.

On the contrary, I was able to learn the proper taxonomy of a bounty yesterday reading a series of articles. There are four (4) elements of a bounty:

• Issuance
• Fulfillment 
• Acceptance
• Payment

I personally find the following classification helpful as well:

• Invitation to Bid (ITB)
• Bids
• Ranking
• Rank-based payment

In construction, ITBs are essentially invitations made to contractors to design a new piece of infrastructure. Often, to compensate each bidder for the time and resources required to put together a proper bid, a trivial sum will be provided to those who issue bids that are not initially disqualified.

Each question on Cent is an ITB. Users that submit bids that provide value either to the original poster or any other user can be rewarded with a portion of the bounty by being up-voted. Less effort is wasted (i.e. uncompensated) and more value is created, for multiple parties.

Such an incentive structure, as basic and simple as it is, can be used for all types of cases outside of trying to identify bugs in some code.

Cent still has a long way to go, but it is important to highlight that it has made possible something that really wasn't possible prior to it's creation. And that is probably why I can't stop thinking about it.