Vitalik Buterin pfp
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
One meta belief I have, is that I think "on the face pursuing idealistic objective A, but actually being tilted toward selfish objective B" is better than "openly pursuing objective B". Many seem to believe the opposite, typically saying something like "at least the latter is honest". I feel like what this misses, is that maintaining the face of pursuing idealistic objective A, and using A to coordinate a large coalition, is a pretty big speed bump against attempts to pursue B too brazenly. When "the mask comes off", things actually become much worse, and strategies that pursue B at high costs to other values (including A, and also often general human decency) become unlocked. Are there any good arguments against this intuition I have? (Whether generalized, or about specific situations)
49 replies
142 recasts
746 reactions
Enosis pfp
Enosis
@zkgrace
Your meta-belief reminds me of the philosophy behind B Corp companies. These businesses commit to “idealistic objective A”—putting humans and the environment first—while trusting that revenues will follow when they do right by their communities. By aligning a coalition around shared values, they create resistance to selfish or short-sighted actions (B) that could undermine trust. When organizations openly pursue selfish objectives, it often triggers a race to the bottom, prioritizing short-term gains over long-term value. In contrast, committing to A fosters accountability and ensures success is shared among all stakeholders—employees, customers, and the environment. This principle scales well beyond organizations. Coalition-building around A acts as a form of governance, providing checks against harmful excesses of B. While some facades of A have caused harm, I’d argue the issue lies more in weak accountability than the principle itself.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction