some of the trouble in reasoning about "strategy for ethereum" is in the tension between:

(1) "strategy is choosing what not to do", and 

(2) ethereum is a large decentralized ecosystem with surface area that reaches both broad across the world and deep into it

I work for Ethereum at the Ethereum Foundation.

Photographer • Builder • Collector • /art-share •

https://linktr.ee/mikkolagerstedt

I wonder how external factors influence Ethereum's strategic choices?

Pragmatism (Security) at OP Labs.
Prev: ConsenSys & Coinbase.

Attribs: Friendly, curious, introverted, mid-witted.
Chans: /eth-security /maurelian /stoicism




it's confounding how many people say they want a decentralized ecosystem, but then want that ecosystem to only do one thing at a time

The flip side of a large participation surface is a large argument surface.

Here's how I see it:

In the normal case, the subject and actor of strategy are the same ("What can my company do (actor) to help my company (subject) survive this market downturn?"). 

Here, they are separated. The actor of strategy is still an org or person, but the subject of strategy is Ethereum.

i feel like talking about "strategy for ethereum" is a misnomer, in the same way that talking about a strategy for "the [global] banking system" doesn't really make sense. Participants (such as the EF) should have strategies, but some ~groups are too diffuse to be viewed as single entities

Photographer👁️⃤

https://linktr.ee/alistarphoto

How about ensuring a playing field where different strategies can be played out? Very raw thoughts here but unlike corporate strategy which seems highly linear and mostly about resource utilisation, the application of subtraction as a strategy actually opens up our playing field for many ways to do things