The More They Regulate, The Less We Care

4 Min Read
754 words

We are seeing an incredible movement taking place. The push towards decentralization and distribution is very powerful. When people are given the tools to produce what they want, amazing things happen.

Regulators are up in arms about what is going on. They feel that everything should fall under their watchful eye. After all, they believe the system would completely collapse without them.

Of course, we know there have been collapses to the system at times and government (and it associated entities) is often more the cause than the solution.

Does this sound a bit outlandish? A simply look through history shows how the gross mismanagement along with corruption of political leaders and bureaucrats leads to catastrophe. It does not take long to find many examples.

image.png
Source

Bigger Is Not Better

We know from the ICO craze of 2017 how it is easy to get on the SEC's radar. Here we had a situation where entities such as Block.One, Telegram, and other entities raised/were trying to raise money through this new medium. Of course, after the fact, the SEC came in and charged many companies.

The key is to not get on their radar. While many projects became household names, the idea is to avoid it. Instead, smaller is better.

Let us take the idea of something such as LBI. This is a project that is not going to get on the SEC's radar. Why? It is far too small. There were not hundreds of millions of dollars floating around. Instead, we are dealing with a project that started with under $100,000. In the world of global finance, that is a rounding error.

Being in a position NOT to catch the attention of regulators is ideal. This should be the focus of every project. Put together something that has the potential for enormous returns while being something that is not worth the time to mess with.

The key is to rinse and repeat.

Here is where the power of numbers enter the picture.

Many Many Many

Our buzzwork should be "many". For some reason, we have ingrained in our heads that big is what we are after. Billion dollar corporations want to be worth trillions. Funds that manage hundreds of millions want billions. This penetrates all facets of our thinking.

However, what if we went small but repeated it many times over. Instead of trying to be a big fish, we take to cryptocurrency with the idea of being a school of minnows; many many many minnows.

To put it in financial terms, what if one had $100,000 to invest. Obviously, this could all be put into one project. That would help grow it and could provide a terrific return. However, another approach would be to take $10K and put that into 10 projects. Here we see a much different path.

We will presume for argument sake, the return is the same. Let us now look at it from the perspective of the projects. What if each one had 10 people doing the same thing? We are dealing with $1 million. Thus, we could have 1 project with that or 10 with $100K. Which do you think is more likely to garner the attention of the "prying eyes?

The point being that a lot of smaller projects is exactly what we need. On Hive, we are dealing with a number, none of which would make any Wall Street list of most valued funds. Nevertheless, they can provide a stellar return, one that will grow our capital base. Isn't that what is most important?

At the same time, it is so far off the radar of anyone with any power that we see no threat from this perspective. While everyone seems to want things bigger, perhaps the best approach if multitude. Have the size component compensated by increasing the numbers.

Hive provides more opportunities than most of us have resources. None of these are enormous in size. Nevertheless, they are generating a fine return without the hassle of any government entity. This is key going forward.

All of this leads us to the point of not caring what they do. The bottom line is government hacks need to justify their time. Hence, any action taken has to have a major impact. This is not achieved by going after a bunch of small fish.

Perhaps it is best to go small and blend in. That way the target is not placed upon us.

What are your thoughts?

Article by @taskmaster4450le

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta