There is a hunger within me, and perhaps many others, for discussion. To talk. To dialogue.
Podcasts have helped to temporarily satiate the pang that arises when I have no one I can *really* talk to about what I want to talk about. But there is something unfulfilling about only listening to others talk.
I could always try to reach out over whatever social network to my favorite podcaster - and I have - to let them know my thoughts on what I just heard them say, but, you know, unless you are a somebody, you aint getting a *real* reply let alone a chance to *really* talk about something. And I'm a nobody, so there you go.
There are exceptions, of course - there are always fucking exceptions - and while they may seem pretty "magical" and "special," they don't ever really ever help to quench that yearning for real, consistent conversation.
And thus I remain discussion poor.
Discussion poverty is super real. It's a problem that so many people besides me suffer from. The black sheep. The best mate-less chap. There are so many of us.
But things are changing, for me personally, but also for everyone who has felt like I do.
Luckily for me, I was able to get a seat front and center on the inside of a change that has begun to provide me with more chances to have more conversations with the dead ass dopest interlocutors I could ever have imagined.
That change is of course Cent specifically, but crypto more broadly. With Cent, my dream of being able to call up, on demand, my own personal cast of thoughtful commenters to my daily blog entries is finally nearly a reality. I've actually pretty much already been doing that, but with modified posts.
Through those regular posts I have already identified a few readers who really dig my writing, leave me comments on Twitter or Cent and share their thoughts with me on the regular (shout out to @BrianXV and @mohamedhayibor). There are other users on Cent that I'm able to get into regular chats with too, particularly below my BOTI bounty post each week.
And the result of it all is I feel richer. Richer in discussion. Richer in spirit. And I can't wait to share the wealth yall.
2018년 10월 22일 월요일
2018년 10월 18일 목요일
Most People Don't Care About Money
If more people cared - like really, truly, actually cared - about money, more people would be rich. The fact that more people aren't rich partially confirms the reality that most people don't care about money.
Now that's an uncommon belief. And potentially offensive, not to mention uncomfortable.
But I think there's something to it.
That said, I think more people are (finally) beginning to care about money.
People are literally creating their own currencies.
Not only that, but I think we are witnessing the genesis of a world where more people care about more things - like really, truly, actually care - than ever before.
The problem, though, is that the number of people who *really care* is still relatively small, so most people, perhaps especially people who *really care* haven't yet picked up on this epoch shift, and thus still have yet to realize how they can unite and aggregate the population of individuals who *really care* about something or other.
I say 'realize' because I'm pretty sure the means towards accomplishing just that has already appeared. And of course, it involves money.
While a penny for your thought probably isn't enough to get you or anyone really to care about something, you'd be surprised how far a quarter or dollar goes. You'd also be surprised how many people pass up $10 or $20 in exchange for caring about something without giving it a second thought.
These are observations gleaned from Cent, the quietest revolution the world hasn't heard of, yet.
What I've found on Cent is that attaching money, even a trivial amount, to a content post as a crowd bounty that is automatically distributed to multiple users really works wonders in attracting thoughtful responses on-demand from people who *really care*.
This post was inspired by this tweet from Jordan Gonen.
Now that's an uncommon belief. And potentially offensive, not to mention uncomfortable.
But I think there's something to it.
That said, I think more people are (finally) beginning to care about money.
People are literally creating their own currencies.
Not only that, but I think we are witnessing the genesis of a world where more people care about more things - like really, truly, actually care - than ever before.
The problem, though, is that the number of people who *really care* is still relatively small, so most people, perhaps especially people who *really care* haven't yet picked up on this epoch shift, and thus still have yet to realize how they can unite and aggregate the population of individuals who *really care* about something or other.
I say 'realize' because I'm pretty sure the means towards accomplishing just that has already appeared. And of course, it involves money.
While a penny for your thought probably isn't enough to get you or anyone really to care about something, you'd be surprised how far a quarter or dollar goes. You'd also be surprised how many people pass up $10 or $20 in exchange for caring about something without giving it a second thought.
These are observations gleaned from Cent, the quietest revolution the world hasn't heard of, yet.
What I've found on Cent is that attaching money, even a trivial amount, to a content post as a crowd bounty that is automatically distributed to multiple users really works wonders in attracting thoughtful responses on-demand from people who *really care*.
This post was inspired by this tweet from Jordan Gonen.
2018년 10월 12일 금요일
Generalized Mining
On the Venture Stories podcast Jake Brukhman, heavily influenced by Chris Burniske, defines generalized mining as: Supply-side services to decentralized networks.
As an example, that could include content creators/curators for a decentralized social network.
And now I'm kinda obsessed with the concept.
As an example, that could include content creators/curators for a decentralized social network.
And now I'm kinda obsessed with the concept.
2018년 10월 10일 수요일
Thoughts on Enzypt.io
I just finished reading the first two installments of @BrianXV's animated Cold Storage series, and they were pretty freaking good.
Although he published the stories on Enzypt.io a week or so ago I wasn't able to read them until now because Enzypt doesn't provide support to mobile Web3 dApp browsers like Coinbase Wallet or Trust. Enzypt does that because those mobile browsers apparently don't support in-browser downloads. And that's a shame because mobile is all I use and it's the most convenient.
Anyways, I finally booted up my wife's notebook, paid for @BrianXV's stories, downloaded them and read them.
There is something special about what Enzypt is doing. Something futuristic. Something so right. I love how 100% of payments go to the content creators. I love how the content lives on IPFS and is essentially uncensorable.
But Enzypt also definitely feels like a single feature; not a fully fledged product. There is something missing. If Enzypt gets combined with something else (what that 'something else' is I have no idea...) it could be a game changer.
For some reason my mind goes to podcasts when I think of Enzypt. Hmm I dunno. I'm tired and my thoughts aren't getting any clearer, so I'll stop here, for now.
Although he published the stories on Enzypt.io a week or so ago I wasn't able to read them until now because Enzypt doesn't provide support to mobile Web3 dApp browsers like Coinbase Wallet or Trust. Enzypt does that because those mobile browsers apparently don't support in-browser downloads. And that's a shame because mobile is all I use and it's the most convenient.
Anyways, I finally booted up my wife's notebook, paid for @BrianXV's stories, downloaded them and read them.
There is something special about what Enzypt is doing. Something futuristic. Something so right. I love how 100% of payments go to the content creators. I love how the content lives on IPFS and is essentially uncensorable.
But Enzypt also definitely feels like a single feature; not a fully fledged product. There is something missing. If Enzypt gets combined with something else (what that 'something else' is I have no idea...) it could be a game changer.
For some reason my mind goes to podcasts when I think of Enzypt. Hmm I dunno. I'm tired and my thoughts aren't getting any clearer, so I'll stop here, for now.
2018년 9월 14일 금요일
Bang for Your Buck
I love brevity. And I love clarity.
As Kendrick Lamar said: The simplest shit be more pivotal.
Cent's current one line summary of 'A decentralized & incentivized social network' is short and concise, but it's not super understandable. It sorta says what it is, but it doesn't.
My current refactoring of this is: An Ethereum-based income generating social network.
The 'Ethereum-based' element replaces the all ambiguous 'decentralized' aspect while we announce the true value proposition of Cent as being a social network that aims to generate income for it's users.
What's missing from this one-line explanation is 'the how' of it all, but to me the fact that it's based on Ethereum is hint enough. That combined with the curiosity I think most people will be struck by when they read that would be just the right combination of clarity and intrigue needed to get new potential users to click through to the site and see what exactly Cent is.
Perhaps.
As Kendrick Lamar said: The simplest shit be more pivotal.
Cent's current one line summary of 'A decentralized & incentivized social network' is short and concise, but it's not super understandable. It sorta says what it is, but it doesn't.
My current refactoring of this is: An Ethereum-based income generating social network.
The 'Ethereum-based' element replaces the all ambiguous 'decentralized' aspect while we announce the true value proposition of Cent as being a social network that aims to generate income for it's users.
What's missing from this one-line explanation is 'the how' of it all, but to me the fact that it's based on Ethereum is hint enough. That combined with the curiosity I think most people will be struck by when they read that would be just the right combination of clarity and intrigue needed to get new potential users to click through to the site and see what exactly Cent is.
Perhaps.
2018년 8월 29일 수요일
Why Aren't More People Using dApps?
The reality is that there are only around 9k actual dApp users. Therefore we need to assume that the actual demand just doesn't exist (yet) for dApps or that the barriers that existing demand must surmount [to begin using a dApp] in order to satisfy that demand are too great, or some combination of the both.
Personally, I think it's some combination of those two factors. Telling a pre-coiner today they should be using dApps is no different then trying to sell someone from Mozambique ice in the 19th century - both individuals were hypocognitive of the "new" objects and had zero understanding what value they could provide and thus were ignorant to the fact that they should be demanding anything.
To stimulate demand for ice you don't need to explain the science behind freezing water to someone or even make them wait in front of a freezer for water to freeze. Instead you make them an ice cold, thirst quenching beverage. That's a super simple and super quick way of conveying the value and demonstrating the effect of ice all in one gulp.
Same with dApps today. What's the equivalent of making a margarita for dApps? I think it's Cent. Anyone with an email can sign up and provide a response just like the one I've written and vote other responses up or down just like you do on Reddit - and they will receive cold, hard ETH basically right away.
That does a lot of things at once: it quickly makes something that's been impossible possible, it demonstrates the power of this new tech, and it turns pre-coiners into instant *value* hodlers. That is the only tenable value proposition for dApps today imho. As time goes by that will obviously change.
Cent isn't perfect yet by any stretch of the imagination, but some yuge[sic] changes combined with the introduction of state channels will increase the value proposal for users to a ridiculous degree, thus making a cool beverage even tastier and more refreshing.
Every user of Cent can earn real ETH that they can then use on other more advanced dApps so it's beneficial for the whole space. Other dApps don't do that, and if they continue to focus only on their dApp, they'll continue to struggle with broader adoption.
Personally, I think it's some combination of those two factors. Telling a pre-coiner today they should be using dApps is no different then trying to sell someone from Mozambique ice in the 19th century - both individuals were hypocognitive of the "new" objects and had zero understanding what value they could provide and thus were ignorant to the fact that they should be demanding anything.
To stimulate demand for ice you don't need to explain the science behind freezing water to someone or even make them wait in front of a freezer for water to freeze. Instead you make them an ice cold, thirst quenching beverage. That's a super simple and super quick way of conveying the value and demonstrating the effect of ice all in one gulp.
Same with dApps today. What's the equivalent of making a margarita for dApps? I think it's Cent. Anyone with an email can sign up and provide a response just like the one I've written and vote other responses up or down just like you do on Reddit - and they will receive cold, hard ETH basically right away.
That does a lot of things at once: it quickly makes something that's been impossible possible, it demonstrates the power of this new tech, and it turns pre-coiners into instant *value* hodlers. That is the only tenable value proposition for dApps today imho. As time goes by that will obviously change.
Cent isn't perfect yet by any stretch of the imagination, but some yuge[sic] changes combined with the introduction of state channels will increase the value proposal for users to a ridiculous degree, thus making a cool beverage even tastier and more refreshing.
Every user of Cent can earn real ETH that they can then use on other more advanced dApps so it's beneficial for the whole space. Other dApps don't do that, and if they continue to focus only on their dApp, they'll continue to struggle with broader adoption.
2018년 8월 28일 화요일
Decentralized Identity Trilema
I've been thinking a lot about decentralized digital identity for a while, and I read an awesome article the other day that gave me a great framework to use and structure my thoughts.
Essentially any decentralized digital identity solution needs to satisfy the following three conditions:
1. Privacy Preserving (i.e. an ID can be acquired without revealing 'real name')
2. Self-sovereign (i.e. anybody can create and control as many IDs as they wish)
3. Sybil-resistant (i.e. identity is subject to scarcity)
The long and short of the current state of decentralized digital identity solutions is that none of the current proposed solutions satisfy all three of those conditions. The sybil-resistance condition or the current lack of any source of scarcity for human capital is the main road block.
This is where Cent can come into play, I think. Although it hasn't satisfied each condition 100%, it has taken at least a half step towards satisfying them, including sybil-resistance - and all this is the indirect result of actions/designs made for other purposes. So that's pretty cool.
Essentially any decentralized digital identity solution needs to satisfy the following three conditions:
1. Privacy Preserving (i.e. an ID can be acquired without revealing 'real name')
2. Self-sovereign (i.e. anybody can create and control as many IDs as they wish)
3. Sybil-resistant (i.e. identity is subject to scarcity)
The long and short of the current state of decentralized digital identity solutions is that none of the current proposed solutions satisfy all three of those conditions. The sybil-resistance condition or the current lack of any source of scarcity for human capital is the main road block.
This is where Cent can come into play, I think. Although it hasn't satisfied each condition 100%, it has taken at least a half step towards satisfying them, including sybil-resistance - and all this is the indirect result of actions/designs made for other purposes. So that's pretty cool.
2018년 8월 24일 금요일
Limits of Decentralization
If your name is associated with something, that knowledge is a potential central point of failure for that "thing."
As long as the identities of people involved in "decentralized" projects are public knowledge, that is an unavoidable reality.
That isn't necesaairly a criticism as much as it's a reality and tradeoff. I mean, if you were on the Peepeth team, for example, and some user posted kiddy pron[sic], you wouldn't be able to simply use 'blockchain' as an excuse not to do anything. Just as they do now (since the team is identifiable) they allow for admins to delete such content. And no one can be mad at them for doing that; but that means they can only describe their product as 'censorship resistant' and not 'uncensorable'.
That leads me to believe that the most powerful applications will be developed and released into the wild by anonymous devs. In that situation, any "value" will then accrue exclusively to end users (that may or may not include the original devs, and if it does, no one will be able to distinguish them from other users) so as to limit the liability issues that any dApp dev team faces.
As long as the identities of people involved in "decentralized" projects are public knowledge, that is an unavoidable reality.
That isn't necesaairly a criticism as much as it's a reality and tradeoff. I mean, if you were on the Peepeth team, for example, and some user posted kiddy pron[sic], you wouldn't be able to simply use 'blockchain' as an excuse not to do anything. Just as they do now (since the team is identifiable) they allow for admins to delete such content. And no one can be mad at them for doing that; but that means they can only describe their product as 'censorship resistant' and not 'uncensorable'.
That leads me to believe that the most powerful applications will be developed and released into the wild by anonymous devs. In that situation, any "value" will then accrue exclusively to end users (that may or may not include the original devs, and if it does, no one will be able to distinguish them from other users) so as to limit the liability issues that any dApp dev team faces.
2018년 8월 19일 일요일
Thoughtfulness Aggregator
In my post yesterday, I tried to show that the commenting community at avc.com and Hacker News as well as the increasing adoption of podcasts are proving that thoughtfulness is a small but growing global value.
That said, this "fact" isn't a driving force for those sites or for most people making podcasts (Sam Harris is certainly trying as hard as he can to act as an example of thoughtful living). Thoughtfulness is simply a happy by-product.
In the case of HN, they have gone a little bit further and made thoughtfulness an explict ideal that should guide commenting behavior, but Paul Graham has written many times in his blog how he has tried to set the site up to be as hands off as possible. In other words, beyond a decentralized karma point system, nothing is being done to aggregate, stimulate or otherwise incentivize thoughtful users.
Jimmy Song Tweeted something I found incredibly profound the other day. Speaking about BTC specifically (as he always does), but imo applicable to other crypto as well, he said:
Hacker News defines thoughtfulness or - to be more precise - thoughtful comments as comments that are at once both civil and substantial. To be substantial, according to Graham, means that something should be taught. Teaching is both giving and gifting, or at least that's how Heidegger saw things, and to me at least, Graham and Heidegger are both essentially talking about providing value.
So we have Jimmy talking about how 'hard money' is great at making people give something [of value - in his Tweet that means creative value] to get said hard money on the one hand, and we have Graham on the other hand exhorting users to make thoughtful comments - literally adding creative value
It's precisely at this this intersection of Graham and Jimmy where Cent, that amazing little project I have obsessively written about, has set down roots. Cent takes the power of hard money and is aggregating thoughtful users from around the world. Cent is fundamentally thoughtful in a way that is so profoundly different from anything else the world has ever seen.
And Cent is just getting started.
That said, this "fact" isn't a driving force for those sites or for most people making podcasts (Sam Harris is certainly trying as hard as he can to act as an example of thoughtful living). Thoughtfulness is simply a happy by-product.
In the case of HN, they have gone a little bit further and made thoughtfulness an explict ideal that should guide commenting behavior, but Paul Graham has written many times in his blog how he has tried to set the site up to be as hands off as possible. In other words, beyond a decentralized karma point system, nothing is being done to aggregate, stimulate or otherwise incentivize thoughtful users.
Jimmy Song Tweeted something I found incredibly profound the other day. Speaking about BTC specifically (as he always does), but imo applicable to other crypto as well, he said:
Hacker News defines thoughtfulness or - to be more precise - thoughtful comments as comments that are at once both civil and substantial. To be substantial, according to Graham, means that something should be taught. Teaching is both giving and gifting, or at least that's how Heidegger saw things, and to me at least, Graham and Heidegger are both essentially talking about providing value.
So we have Jimmy talking about how 'hard money' is great at making people give something [of value - in his Tweet that means creative value] to get said hard money on the one hand, and we have Graham on the other hand exhorting users to make thoughtful comments - literally adding creative value
It's precisely at this this intersection of Graham and Jimmy where Cent, that amazing little project I have obsessively written about, has set down roots. Cent takes the power of hard money and is aggregating thoughtful users from around the world. Cent is fundamentally thoughtful in a way that is so profoundly different from anything else the world has ever seen.
And Cent is just getting started.
2018년 8월 15일 수요일
Identity on the Blockchain
There is an interesting thread on r/ethereum sub-reddit asking what the hell happened to identity on the blockchain. I'll share my reply here:
"As with most things, it seems like projects seeking to be *the* blockchain identity solution are doing too much. And as a result the solutions they're building are too complicated.
Much of the complexity seems to stem from trying to anchor real-name identity onto the blockchain. Imho that is such a complete mis-step.
For anyone that actually uses any dApps today, the wallet they're using to sign Txs with is effectively creating an identity for them already.
With dApps like Cent at https://beta.cent.co users are receiving ETH to reply to bounties. In other words, they're getting paid to work. And their work, if it's good enough to get them paid, is linked to the actual payment they received. As long as they control their private keys, they are the only ones who can prove that particular identity and past work.
Each user's payslip effectively becomes and identity and resume when viewed in that light. That's pretty incredible.
With that realization, there are of course some pretty clear if non-trivial UI tweaks that are needed to make this resume/identity easier to use (e.g. ERC-721 Avatar that carries this info, a way to organize the work attached to the financial meta-data, etc...).
If blockchain identity is approached from this angle, users will be able to get a way more approachable and workable solution way quicker than they will if they wait for solutions from the projects you mentioned. That's my opinion at least."
"As with most things, it seems like projects seeking to be *the* blockchain identity solution are doing too much. And as a result the solutions they're building are too complicated.
Much of the complexity seems to stem from trying to anchor real-name identity onto the blockchain. Imho that is such a complete mis-step.
For anyone that actually uses any dApps today, the wallet they're using to sign Txs with is effectively creating an identity for them already.
With dApps like Cent at https://beta.cent.co users are receiving ETH to reply to bounties. In other words, they're getting paid to work. And their work, if it's good enough to get them paid, is linked to the actual payment they received. As long as they control their private keys, they are the only ones who can prove that particular identity and past work.
Each user's payslip effectively becomes and identity and resume when viewed in that light. That's pretty incredible.
With that realization, there are of course some pretty clear if non-trivial UI tweaks that are needed to make this resume/identity easier to use (e.g. ERC-721 Avatar that carries this info, a way to organize the work attached to the financial meta-data, etc...).
If blockchain identity is approached from this angle, users will be able to get a way more approachable and workable solution way quicker than they will if they wait for solutions from the projects you mentioned. That's my opinion at least."
2018년 8월 14일 화요일
Anniversaries
Cent turned one today.
One year ago to the day it launched on mainnet.
It's grown into something super special. The promise is overwhelming.
The seed has sprouted. And it's about to branch out in a very, very cool way.
Get ready. We are.
One year ago to the day it launched on mainnet.
It's grown into something super special. The promise is overwhelming.
The seed has sprouted. And it's about to branch out in a very, very cool way.
Get ready. We are.
2018년 8월 8일 수요일
Token Extensibility
Extensibility. That's a word I've been hearing more and more lately, and I'm sure we'll soon be hearing seemingly all the time in the not too distant future.
Unfortunately it isn't the easiest term in the world to intuit.
Thankfully though crypto has Bryan Flynn, an awesomely clear thinker on all things NFTs, who has in a recent article provided what I think is the best example that clarifies what token extensibility actually is: Access.
"If users obtain a token in their wallet, they can unlock new features or tokens in other dApps. Tokens which were once worth nothing, now are worth the equivalent of whatever feature/token it unlocks."
For example, say you have a CryptoKitty. And say I have a dApp that is looking to attract a bunch of crypto-familiars. Since every CryptoKitty owner is a crypto-familiar, and since ownership is provable, I can provide something of value just for CryptoKitty owners who sign up to my dApp using the ETH address that their CryptoKitty is tied to. That token can then be used as an avatar. And it can be tied to all the work/actions they carry out on the dApp. But they can use it on other dApps too.
We live in amazing times. And things keep getting better and better.
Unfortunately it isn't the easiest term in the world to intuit.
Thankfully though crypto has Bryan Flynn, an awesomely clear thinker on all things NFTs, who has in a recent article provided what I think is the best example that clarifies what token extensibility actually is: Access.
"If users obtain a token in their wallet, they can unlock new features or tokens in other dApps. Tokens which were once worth nothing, now are worth the equivalent of whatever feature/token it unlocks."
For example, say you have a CryptoKitty. And say I have a dApp that is looking to attract a bunch of crypto-familiars. Since every CryptoKitty owner is a crypto-familiar, and since ownership is provable, I can provide something of value just for CryptoKitty owners who sign up to my dApp using the ETH address that their CryptoKitty is tied to. That token can then be used as an avatar. And it can be tied to all the work/actions they carry out on the dApp. But they can use it on other dApps too.
We live in amazing times. And things keep getting better and better.
2018년 8월 5일 일요일
Reddit vs. Cent
This month I'm focused on getting my Reddit comment karma up.
I'm doing this so my posts to r/ethereum stop getting auto-moderated...
Anyways, as I'm engaging more with Reddit I am noticing how dramatically different it actually is from Cent.
Mainly, from what I can tell, the type of comments that get up-voted the most on Reddit seem to be pithy little one liners, whereas on Cent thoughtful (i.e. civil and substantial) responses that are of a non-trivial length tend to get voted up and thus receive a share of the bounty.
Of course there are many, many thoughtful responses on Reddit too, but they don't seem to get up-voted as much as one would expect. Users can tell, and it seems to be discouraging.
The fact that thoughtful responses get up-voted basically 100% of the time on Cent is therefore quite remarkable, and should be viewed as one of it's greatest strengths.
I'm doing this so my posts to r/ethereum stop getting auto-moderated...
Anyways, as I'm engaging more with Reddit I am noticing how dramatically different it actually is from Cent.
Mainly, from what I can tell, the type of comments that get up-voted the most on Reddit seem to be pithy little one liners, whereas on Cent thoughtful (i.e. civil and substantial) responses that are of a non-trivial length tend to get voted up and thus receive a share of the bounty.
Of course there are many, many thoughtful responses on Reddit too, but they don't seem to get up-voted as much as one would expect. Users can tell, and it seems to be discouraging.
The fact that thoughtful responses get up-voted basically 100% of the time on Cent is therefore quite remarkable, and should be viewed as one of it's greatest strengths.
2018년 7월 25일 수요일
New Terra
With the continued development of crypto-currency and crypto related projects that are expanding the use and use cases of trustless digital value, I believe new terra is being formed in a new world.
Since this is a digital world, the naked eye is incapable of seeing these new land masses, but they're there.
A religion has already arisen within this world for Christ's sake.
Right now people - for the most part - are rushing to erect the same forms and structures that exist in the offline world in this new digital world. The fundamental value system of these existing forms and structures is rooted in capitalism, so by extension the singular value that currently exists in this new digital world is pure, unadulterated capitalism - capital value for capital's sake.
In the new digital world, just like the offline world, capitalism in and of itself has a surprisingly weak hold on individuals. This being the case, one of the key challenges and opportunities for the success of this new world will be how to set up a functioning value system that can keep existing users from leaving as well as continually attract new users.
Since this new digital world is essentially value-less, we can establish any value system we want. So what values should assume primacy?
Since this is a digital world, the naked eye is incapable of seeing these new land masses, but they're there.
A religion has already arisen within this world for Christ's sake.
Right now people - for the most part - are rushing to erect the same forms and structures that exist in the offline world in this new digital world. The fundamental value system of these existing forms and structures is rooted in capitalism, so by extension the singular value that currently exists in this new digital world is pure, unadulterated capitalism - capital value for capital's sake.
In the new digital world, just like the offline world, capitalism in and of itself has a surprisingly weak hold on individuals. This being the case, one of the key challenges and opportunities for the success of this new world will be how to set up a functioning value system that can keep existing users from leaving as well as continually attract new users.
Since this new digital world is essentially value-less, we can establish any value system we want. So what values should assume primacy?
2018년 7월 6일 금요일
My Running Mantra
I guess you can call it my running mantra, but the saying that I repeat over and over as I run is this: Practice - practice is carrying and conducting oneself in solidarity; solidarity of course being the basis and foundation of social reason.
It's a very ancient phrase (or fragment to be precise) attributed to Heraclitus that I came across while reading Gadamer.
Thinking of practice in this way makes clear, for me at least, how logic is something that's common to all. It also highlights the tragic ignorance of many who seem to act as if it is something unique to them.
All of us Centians, by bounty posting and responding, are practicing at living, having fun and (in a small way now) making a living in the digital world where logic holds sway in the most definite way. So keep practicing, and Cent on👊
It's a very ancient phrase (or fragment to be precise) attributed to Heraclitus that I came across while reading Gadamer.
Thinking of practice in this way makes clear, for me at least, how logic is something that's common to all. It also highlights the tragic ignorance of many who seem to act as if it is something unique to them.
All of us Centians, by bounty posting and responding, are practicing at living, having fun and (in a small way now) making a living in the digital world where logic holds sway in the most definite way. So keep practicing, and Cent on👊
2018년 7월 4일 수요일
Stats on Work-based Bounties on Cent
You may remember my stab at classifying the types of bounties that we've been seeing on Cent over the past 10~11 months where I broke down bounties into three specific types (work-based, semi-formal, and playful) in this blog post [here].
These days work-based bounties, or bounties where the bounty poster is expecting specific and relatively undifferentiated responses from a non-trivial minimum number of responders (e.g. product feedback, polls, surveys, referral/affiliate link usage, twitter follow boosts), are the type of bounties that have me most excited.
They have me so excited because it feels like the first instance where a broader community (i.e. those not already on Cent) can easily join the Cent community and instantaneously see the value that the Centian community can provide. That and they are putting a decent chunk of change into Cent.
So I went back and looked through all the bounty posts made over the last 100 days or so and found some interesting stats. Over the past 100 days a total of 36 work bounties worth $953 were posted on Cent. Of those, 23 work bounties worth $507 were posted in the last 30 days alone, so they are definitely catching on (thanks in no small part to the amazing work @pavan has been doing).
We got great feedback (e.g. shout outs on Twitter) from 6 projects that posted work bounties, but we also received some constructive feedback asking for more control or better responses. The numbers and responses are definitely a good sign, but far from optimized. It'll be very interesting to see what kinds of decisions get made about these types of bounties heading forward.
2018년 7월 3일 화요일
Wanna be a Crypto CEO - Read This
Charles Hoskinson of IOHK published an interesting piece looking at the crypto space (like all of it) from the perspective of CEO.
There are a ton of irresolvable conflicts and tensions that any crypto CEO needs to be aware of and make tradeoffs that they may not feel 100% comfortable making, just because they may be put in a lose-lose situations from time to time.
You should all check it out [here] but I will share some of my favorite quotes from it below.
"The point of our movement has been to develop better tools to identify when and how we can remove middlemen we don't want; not to blindly kill all middlemen for the sake of killing them. Centralization or federation can dramatically reduce costs, improve efficiency and sometimes is necessary to improve privacy.
For example, Lastpass [a centralized product] provides a great solution for me to manage my many, many password, but doesn't actually have access to my passwords. I'm sure such a solution could be decentralized, but I don't see a point. Replicating an encrypted dataset, which I could already store locally anyway doesn't improve my security. It just seems to drive up costs and reduce user experience.
And frankly there are hundreds more examples. Abstracting my point, it's not about decentralization; it's about control. People want more control over their data, identity, reputation, assets and commercial relationships. Decentralization is a tool that can be used- with other tools- to achieve these ends, but isn't an end in itself."
"Modern communication tools are incredibly good at keeping us all connected and informed, but they are useless for promoting empathy, building real relationships or proactively communicating implicit concerns."
"In a way, I think this gives some justification to the enormous market capitalization we [crypto] are seeing alongside the cult like enthusiasm. From a practical sense nothing has been produced by Bitcoin or any other project to justify a cumulative valuation greater than some of the world's largest companies and even countries. From a social view, how much is the freedom to re-imagine the entire fabric of the world's marketplaces worth?
Money and governments are artifacts of promises and future commitments. They don't actually exist, but the belief in their power is what actually gives them power. It seems the belief that Bitcoin is worth a 100 billion dollars or that one social contract is superior to another is all that is really needed to actually realize it.
Thus to all future leaders of our space, I'd like to say separate your objective from subjective, clarify relationships as well as understand conflicts of interest and stick to your principles even in the face of conflict. And try to have fun while riding the roller coaster, it's sure to be an exciting journey."
There are a ton of irresolvable conflicts and tensions that any crypto CEO needs to be aware of and make tradeoffs that they may not feel 100% comfortable making, just because they may be put in a lose-lose situations from time to time.
You should all check it out [here] but I will share some of my favorite quotes from it below.
"The point of our movement has been to develop better tools to identify when and how we can remove middlemen we don't want; not to blindly kill all middlemen for the sake of killing them. Centralization or federation can dramatically reduce costs, improve efficiency and sometimes is necessary to improve privacy.
For example, Lastpass [a centralized product] provides a great solution for me to manage my many, many password, but doesn't actually have access to my passwords. I'm sure such a solution could be decentralized, but I don't see a point. Replicating an encrypted dataset, which I could already store locally anyway doesn't improve my security. It just seems to drive up costs and reduce user experience.
And frankly there are hundreds more examples. Abstracting my point, it's not about decentralization; it's about control. People want more control over their data, identity, reputation, assets and commercial relationships. Decentralization is a tool that can be used- with other tools- to achieve these ends, but isn't an end in itself."
"Modern communication tools are incredibly good at keeping us all connected and informed, but they are useless for promoting empathy, building real relationships or proactively communicating implicit concerns."
"In a way, I think this gives some justification to the enormous market capitalization we [crypto] are seeing alongside the cult like enthusiasm. From a practical sense nothing has been produced by Bitcoin or any other project to justify a cumulative valuation greater than some of the world's largest companies and even countries. From a social view, how much is the freedom to re-imagine the entire fabric of the world's marketplaces worth?
Money and governments are artifacts of promises and future commitments. They don't actually exist, but the belief in their power is what actually gives them power. It seems the belief that Bitcoin is worth a 100 billion dollars or that one social contract is superior to another is all that is really needed to actually realize it.
Thus to all future leaders of our space, I'd like to say separate your objective from subjective, clarify relationships as well as understand conflicts of interest and stick to your principles even in the face of conflict. And try to have fun while riding the roller coaster, it's sure to be an exciting journey."
2018년 7월 2일 월요일
Notes on Zcon0 Keynote Panel: Cryptocurrency Governance
I've tidied up the notes that I scribbled down while watching the great Zcon0 keynote panel, and I think they're worth a share.
For me personally, Vitalik stole the stage, but the other panelists Zooko, Jameson Lopp and Jill Carlson, not to mention Peter Van Valkenburgh (the moderator) all shared some great thoughts.
You can check out the talk [here].
And here are my notes:
For me personally, Vitalik stole the stage, but the other panelists Zooko, Jameson Lopp and Jill Carlson, not to mention Peter Van Valkenburgh (the moderator) all shared some great thoughts.
You can check out the talk [here].
And here are my notes:
- Decision (Change) Function Theory of governance - top down, bureaucratic, corporate (it's better if there is a precise process that as much as is possible is a function that has to have some outcome).
- Coordination view of governance - for any potential set of arbitrary choices 'a' and 'b' (e.g. protocol changes) depending on what 'a' or 'b' might be 'a' may be "better" than 'b' or 'b' may be "better" than 'a', but the group will be better off if they all choose either 'a' or 'b' instead of being split between both and/or not doing anything.
- Many equilibria within the 'coordination games' that get played benefit from coordination (e.g. see 'a' vs 'b' protocol change above).
- Within coordination games you get these equilibria where if there are an arbitrary set of norms and expectations - that can be precise or imprecise - for how people arrive at decisions (e.g. tend towards picking 'a' or 'b' protocol change) it makes sense for any one person to follow, or a sort of pressure to conform is in play, which in turn leads to those norms becoming stickier over time.
- The real subject of blockchain governance ends up being what all those 'coordination flags' end up being "stuck" over time.
- There is strong demand for governance rules that can avoid the need for large bureaucracies.
- Within coordination games, you have many individuals making individual decisions, but because of the underlying architecture/design of what we're making decisions about, there's a strong incentive to align around a common decision.
- We need to design protocols in a way to prevent opportunities for super-linear resource allocation (e.g. someone with 2x more of money/token they are able to return 2.1x return).
2018년 7월 1일 일요일
Degree for the Internet
On Cent's Telegram, Summers Haley left a comment suggesting that setting up a TCR (Token Curated Registry) could be a useful way of helping to improve the quality of sorting on Cent. TCRs are definitely going to be super interesting, but I'm not sure if their time has come yet, particularly when it comes to a project like Cent.
As it stands, industry incumbents and those with established reputations/credentials stand to gain the most by getting their name on a TCR, but the incentive(s) to join any TCR is unclear as of now. Also the politics and management assumed by TCRs seem to contain a ton of slippery slopes (e.g. determining who should be kicked off, deposits withheld, etc...).
For a much larger number of individuals around the world lacking such reputations/credentials, even if they have something unique to offer, it seems a bit cruel to demand they deposit something (that they probably don't have).
That said, the social signal that those lists can and will broadcast is super interesting. And what kind of signal would they broadcast? For individuals, getting their name on a list would probably be akin to what diplomas have done for decades: signal that one has what it takes to follow a set of arbitrary rules for a non-trivial period of time, perhaps with some specialized knowledge to boot.
Cent sort of does this already with the leaderboard. Users are ranked based on their 30-day earnings. Behind the rankings though is an ETH address that's basically a record (or proof) of work they put in and got paid for. Instead of a diploma that is a signal of some future potential, the Cent leaderboard generally, and the work that individuals do specifically, provides proof that users have been able to consistently draft responses that are sincere enough and of a significant level of quality to get paid based on the validation and approval of their fellow Centians.
Proof of being able to consistently do something with sincerity and at a sufficient level of quality in the digital realm: that's basically the equivalent of a degree for the internet. If there isn't value in that for any individual who puts work in on the internet, or for the site or organization they belong to, then I'm not sure I know what's up and what's down anymore.
As it stands, industry incumbents and those with established reputations/credentials stand to gain the most by getting their name on a TCR, but the incentive(s) to join any TCR is unclear as of now. Also the politics and management assumed by TCRs seem to contain a ton of slippery slopes (e.g. determining who should be kicked off, deposits withheld, etc...).
For a much larger number of individuals around the world lacking such reputations/credentials, even if they have something unique to offer, it seems a bit cruel to demand they deposit something (that they probably don't have).
That said, the social signal that those lists can and will broadcast is super interesting. And what kind of signal would they broadcast? For individuals, getting their name on a list would probably be akin to what diplomas have done for decades: signal that one has what it takes to follow a set of arbitrary rules for a non-trivial period of time, perhaps with some specialized knowledge to boot.
Cent sort of does this already with the leaderboard. Users are ranked based on their 30-day earnings. Behind the rankings though is an ETH address that's basically a record (or proof) of work they put in and got paid for. Instead of a diploma that is a signal of some future potential, the Cent leaderboard generally, and the work that individuals do specifically, provides proof that users have been able to consistently draft responses that are sincere enough and of a significant level of quality to get paid based on the validation and approval of their fellow Centians.
Proof of being able to consistently do something with sincerity and at a sufficient level of quality in the digital realm: that's basically the equivalent of a degree for the internet. If there isn't value in that for any individual who puts work in on the internet, or for the site or organization they belong to, then I'm not sure I know what's up and what's down anymore.
2018년 6월 30일 토요일
Informal Localized Trust
"One of the biggest value propositions of crypto is scalable governance without informal localized trust."
That was one of the many lines in Mike Maples Jr.'s piece entitled 'Crypto Commons' that kinda stopped me in my tracks and gave me some intellectual jerky.
I want to focus on what Mike called informal localized trust in this post today though. While I agree with Mike that informal localized trust will be surpassed in lieu of a more binding, comprehensive and inclusive form of trust, I also believe that whatever shape or form or rules that the new form of trust takes, it will share atleast a few similarities with the informal localized trust that came before it.
To recognize those similarities in the future, I think it's important to unpack what informal localized trust actually is today.
After my run yesterday, I settled on the following formula or definition that encompasses everything that informal localized trust is today: Trust in a reasonable probability of (something [happening]) based on what you think you know of (something [happening]).
What is interesting is despite the word 'localized' being employed, informal localized trust can actually extend across the world. To provide a few prominent examples we can look at Visa credit card transactions and the US dollar. In both cases they rely in trust in a reasonable probability that merchants will accept them. In the case of a transaction with your Visa, this is based on your knowledge that it is accepted most places around the world because merchants eventually get paid. When it comes to the US dollar, people accept it because they think it's backed by the power and promise of the US government.
They will probably be accepted. This probabilty is derived from reason, an amazing phenomenon common to all humans that first became apparent from out of language. And trust or belief (i.e. the basic buy-in from individuals) is what binds these elements and allows for all subsequent action and events to occur.
The cases and instances where that reason, trust and belief runs out and fails to hold true, help to highlight the illogical limits of informal localized trust.
I'll end things here, knowing that much more could be said. In the days and weeks ahead I will come back to this idea of informal localized trust and trying to point out the elements that will most likely remain in the universal, verifiable systems of trust that may arise in the future based on blockchain technology.
That was one of the many lines in Mike Maples Jr.'s piece entitled 'Crypto Commons' that kinda stopped me in my tracks and gave me some intellectual jerky.
I want to focus on what Mike called informal localized trust in this post today though. While I agree with Mike that informal localized trust will be surpassed in lieu of a more binding, comprehensive and inclusive form of trust, I also believe that whatever shape or form or rules that the new form of trust takes, it will share atleast a few similarities with the informal localized trust that came before it.
To recognize those similarities in the future, I think it's important to unpack what informal localized trust actually is today.
After my run yesterday, I settled on the following formula or definition that encompasses everything that informal localized trust is today: Trust in a reasonable probability of (something [happening]) based on what you think you know of (something [happening]).
What is interesting is despite the word 'localized' being employed, informal localized trust can actually extend across the world. To provide a few prominent examples we can look at Visa credit card transactions and the US dollar. In both cases they rely in trust in a reasonable probability that merchants will accept them. In the case of a transaction with your Visa, this is based on your knowledge that it is accepted most places around the world because merchants eventually get paid. When it comes to the US dollar, people accept it because they think it's backed by the power and promise of the US government.
They will probably be accepted. This probabilty is derived from reason, an amazing phenomenon common to all humans that first became apparent from out of language. And trust or belief (i.e. the basic buy-in from individuals) is what binds these elements and allows for all subsequent action and events to occur.
The cases and instances where that reason, trust and belief runs out and fails to hold true, help to highlight the illogical limits of informal localized trust.
I'll end things here, knowing that much more could be said. In the days and weeks ahead I will come back to this idea of informal localized trust and trying to point out the elements that will most likely remain in the universal, verifiable systems of trust that may arise in the future based on blockchain technology.
피드 구독하기:
글 (Atom)