3 ms·

Getting the critical mass of public spirit necessary to sustain any self-correcting decentralized trust system is going to run smack into the individual tendenc

by tCfD 9y ago

Getting the critical mass of public spirit necessary to sustain any self-correcting decentralized trust system is going to run smack into the individual tendency to optimize one's commitment of personal resources toward their own personal objectives. Asking people, or even tricking them through hype, to voluntarily deleverage themselves (through agreeing to a set of voluntarily sharing constraints encoded as rules in a 'trustless' network protocol, ie blockchain) will never work at global scale, until a global scale referendum of some sort addresses and settles very basic questions about what we prioritize and value as a civilization. Such as "are centralized systems of governance so hopelessly broken that the only remedy is to devolve trust back to individuals, which has the side effect of settling them with ascertain decision cost premium that they have hitherto instinctively tried to optimize away by outsourcing it to specialized custodial agents?" "Are people really willing to pay a decentralization premium that isn't subsidized by a hype and speculation casino game?" Until this discussion occurs (and I'm not holding my breath), every nominally 'flat' system of governance that is sold as a solution to centralized control will merely serve the opposite goal, by obfuscating its underlying informally centralized hierarchy of leverage and influence.

tCfD 9y ago
Edit to my above comment, since my client doesn't seem to allow previewing or editing unfortunately.... 'side effect of settling them with ascertain' should be 'side effect of saddling them with a certain' Also I think the original articles proposal of a non-profit solution is Noble but the bigger facility for moral hazard is lack of transparency, and lack of transparency is as much a problem of compressing complexity so that the information made transparent is digestible to most of the users in a reasonable amount of time, without introducing biases through that compression which skew the interpretation of the information. There's a lot of information about how the power in society is conducted through structures of influence, but making this information accessible to people so that they can avoid or associate with portions of it as freely as possible is a basket of paradoxical UX and ethical snakes to untangle.

by tCfD 9y ago

tCfD 9y ago

Edit to my above comment, since my client doesn't seem to allow previewing or editing unfortunately.... 'side effect of settling them with ascertain' should be 'side effect of saddling them with a certain' Also I think the original articles proposal of a non-profit solution is Noble but the bigger facility for moral hazard is lack of transparency, and lack of transparency is as much a problem of compressing complexity so that the information made transparent is digestible to most of the users in a reasonable amount of time, without introducing biases through that compression which skew the interpretation of the information. There's a lot of information about how the power in society is conducted through structures of influence, but making this information accessible to people so that they can avoid or associate with portions of it as freely as possible is a basket of paradoxical UX and ethical snakes to untangle.