One weird thing I've become increasingly skeptical of is promoting/advocating for classes of things rather than specific examples. For example, "blockchains", "sharing economy", and even increasingly on the fence about "public goods".

And when things get lumped into a bucket, at best you direct marginal attention/resources towards that bucket, and in the worst case it becomes a big enough tent for grifters to join. 90% convinced it's ~only worth advocating for specific instances vs. classes, unless your audience has ~0 context.

Even on that last part, I'm skeptical! One example: going to congress, telling them "blockchains are good, they can help increase USD dominance", first thing they see is Terra/UST, it collapses. Much harder spot to walk out of than "Ethereum has a handful of interesting stablecoin projects: X, Y, Z".

These labels are useful to describe the properties of something (e.g. "a blockchain _can_ do X") and because a high level description only illustrates the possibilities, it doesn't make a value judgement on the class, or at least not explicitly. "Blockchains are good" is a risky statement to stand behind!

Technowatermelon. Elder Millenial. Building Farcaster. 

nf.td/varun

right, I think that's a great way to categorize the "genuine" engagement (the "malicious" version is a good "umbrella" for grifters)

its usually a sign of romantic attachment to a philosophy which leads to cases of "solutions in search for problems"

I think so! About 90% of the way to convincing myself. Biggest open question is whether my sample size is big enough or there's an entire class of examples I'm missing 😛

politicians and big brands talk in classes, not specifics 

they do it because it works

ultimately it’s about which audience you’re targeting

"public goods" has become the greatest cover story in the world