Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Benjamin ⌐◨-◨
@latsko.eth
As long as I have a vote, I'll vote against props with the main objective in "onboarding" and "onboarding masses". The flywheel of this experiment only works with self sustaining momentum when we collectively stop externalizing and start leaning into what we have, and further cultivate that. for us > onboarding more I acknowledge that there is a sense of prestige and the idea of legacy to ship a prop that "will (finally) onboard masses". However I highly doubt that this is what we collectively really want. In the words of Seth Godin, we ultimately want more people who like things we like and do the things we do. And to achieve that it means to cultivate, celebrate and cherish what we have and who we have amongst us - do more of the all the things we like and the things we do. Funnier, better, nicer, weirder, ... more for us. "For us" also means "for people like us". Eventually people like us will discover us, because: People like us enjoy the same places and cherish the same things. This is Nouns.
5 replies
1 recast
15 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
I agree to some extent - I think almost all of the “onboarding” so far has been low effort or even more honestly just a thin veil to make the prop seem more attractive “We’re gonna drive a car across Australia bc it’s exposing new people to crypto!” really was never hitting for me Otoh I think props like the current ring proposal are misguided bc it’s silly to be spending 70k when the sponsor themselves is admitting that there’s probably only a market of 12 or so people.
0 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
