5 ms·

A lot of it boils down to a promise that existing systems (and existing ways to handle error and deter wrongdoing) have somehow been replaced by "With An App" t

by Terr_ 2y ago

A lot of it boils down to a promise that existing systems (and existing ways to handle error and deter wrongdoing) have somehow been replaced by "With An App" that efficiently reimplements what came before... but in reality most of the expensive features have been secretly removed, and you won't find that out until you're the one getting screwed. Come to think of it, a similar phenomenon applies to cryptocurrencies: Even when they aren't an outright fraud, somebody has just thrown away the hard parts learned over centuries, quietly dropping them or trying to convince you that it's better to be entirely without.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
The general pattern is this: You create a system, it has problems, people establish some apparatus to address the problems, the apparatus is a central chokepoint which is then captured by incumbents and abused for oppression, people demand a new system, you create a new system, it has problems, ... You either need to prevent the apparatus from being captured by incumbents or you need to prevent it from being a central chokepoint that can be abused for oppression.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  >The general pattern is this Definitely sounds like one vector, along with enshittification and other factors. >*You either need to prevent the apparatus...or..." That solution set kind of assumes that we must get to this point where those are the viable options. For me that begs the question, "what's underlying all of this that makes it so arriving here is the pattern?" For example, questioning what we can do about such centralization and entrenched incumbencies in the first place; exploring whether some industries should be not-for-profit or public benefit, etc. In general, the current system/economy presents a ton of inertia, frequently backed by network effects. I think we'll need to start looking at more creative/disruptive solutions for many of these issues.
  - nradov 2y ago
    There's nothing wrong with offering consumer services through not-for-profit or public benefit corporations. The problem is getting enough initial capital to keep it running until it's cash flow neutral. Regular investors want to maximize returns so then you're stuck trying to find wealthy people to donate. Good luck with that.
    - unclebucknasty 2y ago
      >Regular investors want to maximize returns It's a good point, and what you're really underscoring here gets to the heart of my comment—that is, the "creative/disruptive" solutions I referenced will require a re-think of everything, including the current "get investors who expect infinite returns" model. Likewise, expanding our thinking beyond wealthy donors being the only other alternative. So, for instance, crowd-fundable or lower capex businesses may need to be prioritized. There are many other creative avenues waiting to be discovered. Because, I agree that it's hard to see how you can keep all of these elements of the current model (and baseline assumptions) in place and expect a different outcome. So, once you pull the thread of disruption, it'll unwind a lot more that needs to be addressed/solved. But, I believe it would be worth the pull.
      - nradov 2y ago
        That's just hand waving. The vast majority of people with capital will only ever be willing to invest based on expected returns. If they don't have a chance to make a significant profit on a risk-adjusted basis then they won't invest at all. They'll just keep their cash in the bank or spend it on consumption or real estate instead.
        unclebucknasty 2y ago
        >That's just hand waving. The vast majority of people with capital will only ever be willing... Yes, if the only option you can imagine for building a business is to go the traditional investor/VC route, then this is probably true. Kind of odd, though. You actually introduced the idea of "regular investors" being some sort of requirement, when the whole point is to re-imagine how we build businesses. But, I suppose all new ideas—especially disruptive ones—appear as hand waving, given that most people are unable to imagine beyond the status quo.
- myroon5 2y ago
  “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/98215-every-great-cause-begins-as-a-movement-becomes-a-business https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/98215-every-great-cause-beg...
netsharc 2y ago
The whole "with crypto, you don't need to put your faith in anyone [foremost: the banking system], the ledger is the single source of truth" is depressing. Remember the word "credit" is Latin for "I believe/trust".
- Rhapso 2y ago
  It turns put you can generally trust banks... to follow laws!

by Terr_ 2y ago

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

The general pattern is this: You create a system, it has problems, people establish some apparatus to address the problems, the apparatus is a central chokepoint which is then captured by incumbents and abused for oppression, people demand a new system, you create a new system, it has problems, ... You either need to prevent the apparatus from being captured by incumbents or you need to prevent it from being a central chokepoint that can be abused for oppression.

unclebucknasty 2y ago
>The general pattern is this Definitely sounds like one vector, along with enshittification and other factors. >*You either need to prevent the apparatus...or..." That solution set kind of assumes that we must get to this point where those are the viable options. For me that begs the question, "what's underlying all of this that makes it so arriving here is the pattern?" For example, questioning what we can do about such centralization and entrenched incumbencies in the first place; exploring whether some industries should be not-for-profit or public benefit, etc. In general, the current system/economy presents a ton of inertia, frequently backed by network effects. I think we'll need to start looking at more creative/disruptive solutions for many of these issues.
- nradov 2y ago
  There's nothing wrong with offering consumer services through not-for-profit or public benefit corporations. The problem is getting enough initial capital to keep it running until it's cash flow neutral. Regular investors want to maximize returns so then you're stuck trying to find wealthy people to donate. Good luck with that.
  - unclebucknasty 2y ago
    >Regular investors want to maximize returns It's a good point, and what you're really underscoring here gets to the heart of my comment—that is, the "creative/disruptive" solutions I referenced will require a re-think of everything, including the current "get investors who expect infinite returns" model. Likewise, expanding our thinking beyond wealthy donors being the only other alternative. So, for instance, crowd-fundable or lower capex businesses may need to be prioritized. There are many other creative avenues waiting to be discovered. Because, I agree that it's hard to see how you can keep all of these elements of the current model (and baseline assumptions) in place and expect a different outcome. So, once you pull the thread of disruption, it'll unwind a lot more that needs to be addressed/solved. But, I believe it would be worth the pull.
    - nradov 2y ago
      That's just hand waving. The vast majority of people with capital will only ever be willing to invest based on expected returns. If they don't have a chance to make a significant profit on a risk-adjusted basis then they won't invest at all. They'll just keep their cash in the bank or spend it on consumption or real estate instead.
      - unclebucknasty 2y ago
        >That's just hand waving. The vast majority of people with capital will only ever be willing... Yes, if the only option you can imagine for building a business is to go the traditional investor/VC route, then this is probably true. Kind of odd, though. You actually introduced the idea of "regular investors" being some sort of requirement, when the whole point is to re-imagine how we build businesses. But, I suppose all new ideas—especially disruptive ones—appear as hand waving, given that most people are unable to imagine beyond the status quo.
myroon5 2y ago
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/98215-every-great-cause-begins-as-a-movement-becomes-a-business https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/98215-every-great-cause-beg...

netsharc 2y ago

The whole "with crypto, you don't need to put your faith in anyone [foremost: the banking system], the ledger is the single source of truth" is depressing. Remember the word "credit" is Latin for "I believe/trust".

Rhapso 2y ago
It turns put you can generally trust banks... to follow laws!