3 ms·

Did we read the same article? "New arenas are by nature unproven. In order to get the potential benefit, you have to invest time early on without a guarantee o

Did we read the same article? "New arenas are by nature unproven. In order to get the potential benefit, you have to invest time early on without a guarantee of any kind of satisfying return. And new arenas often fail. Even if they don’t, the rules of the game are controlled by someone else. This is a common critique of social media platforms that court creators to invest time in their platform without offering any guarantees in return. So the truth is you have to have some tolerance for risk to play in new arenas." At the end: "Find out what games will be played there and the arbitrage opportunities that may pop up. Then decide which ones are worth investing time in. Prioritize. Be picky." Being picky is the opposite of "participate in (and pollute) as many early "arenas" as possible." to me. It's just a commentary on not overlooking new things and a counterweight to all the people who say "All new things are gone, there's nothing like XYZ anymore"

listenallyall 3y ago
> Find out what games will be played there and the arbitrage opportunities that may pop up It is advising you to get involved in new communities based on the economic rewards that may be available in the future rather than any actual interest in the focus of that community. You have a finite amount of time, so yes, ultimately you have to be picky on which communities you will fully commit to. However the author is still advising you to dip your toe into a wide range of "arenas", regardless of personal interest, in order to choose those with the highest economic prospects.
- motoxpro 3y ago
  I take "Then decide which ones are worth investing time in" to mean do I have interest in it. If I don't, it's not worth my time. I think we are just reading this article in different ways, I don't find it so cynical. I believe I can do something I like, AND it be of economic interest. e.g. I enjoyed being in the early Counter Strike competitive scene, it also ended up giving me some of the most valuable connections I have. The two are not mutually exclusive. Economic benefit != malicious exploitation. Most environments are positive sum not zero sum. It's interesting to recognize when you are in an "early arena" because the people there are unique and have self-selected for an interesting reason.
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    Did you choose to get involved with Counter Strike after "looking for signals about which arenas are likely to reward you, to endure, and to scale"? Or did you get involved because you loved Counter Strike, and the fellow people who played it? I'm guessing you dove in because of the latter, and happily did so without any long-term economic expectations whatsoever.
    - motoxpro 3y ago
      Ironically, I was a professional at the time so there were "long term economic benefits" (if you can call them that hah). Sounds like we just live different lives; I don't really go through my life completely unaware of the value/privilege of situations I am in. Not because I want to "exploit" them, but just because it's hard not to see "signals about which arenas are likely to reward you, to endure, and to scale"

listenallyall 3y ago

> Find out what games will be played there and the arbitrage opportunities that may pop up It is advising you to get involved in new communities based on the economic rewards that may be available in the future rather than any actual interest in the focus of that community. You have a finite amount of time, so yes, ultimately you have to be picky on which communities you will fully commit to. However the author is still advising you to dip your toe into a wide range of "arenas", regardless of personal interest, in order to choose those with the highest economic prospects.

motoxpro 3y ago
I take "Then decide which ones are worth investing time in" to mean do I have interest in it. If I don't, it's not worth my time. I think we are just reading this article in different ways, I don't find it so cynical. I believe I can do something I like, AND it be of economic interest. e.g. I enjoyed being in the early Counter Strike competitive scene, it also ended up giving me some of the most valuable connections I have. The two are not mutually exclusive. Economic benefit != malicious exploitation. Most environments are positive sum not zero sum. It's interesting to recognize when you are in an "early arena" because the people there are unique and have self-selected for an interesting reason.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  Did you choose to get involved with Counter Strike after "looking for signals about which arenas are likely to reward you, to endure, and to scale"? Or did you get involved because you loved Counter Strike, and the fellow people who played it? I'm guessing you dove in because of the latter, and happily did so without any long-term economic expectations whatsoever.
  - motoxpro 3y ago
    Ironically, I was a professional at the time so there were "long term economic benefits" (if you can call them that hah). Sounds like we just live different lives; I don't really go through my life completely unaware of the value/privilege of situations I am in. Not because I want to "exploit" them, but just because it's hard not to see "signals about which arenas are likely to reward you, to endure, and to scale"