timbeiko.eth
@tim
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".
5 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
timbeiko.eth
@tim
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!
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
timbeiko.eth
@tim
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.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
timbeiko.eth
@tim
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".
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
moreReese
@morereese
Audience and their context are operatives here imho. Also what your motivations are - eg declarative, explanatory, argumentative. Like the “for what” “why” and “to whom” are important in this context I think
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
