Posts

Building Block Societies and the Demand for Value

avatar of @tarazkp
25
@tarazkp
·
·
0 views
·
7 min read

What are you willing to pay for? More importantly perhaps, who are you willing to pay?

I believe that in order to earn value in this world, we should have to add value to the world, which means that I agree with this statement form @azircon in regards to the future of employment in the digital and physical spaces of the future.

The key thing, from my point of view, it’s not free. Either you pay money (invest) or pay in time and/or skills. If you have none, sorry…. Next! As there are a lot of people in the world with either money or time or skills.

I feel that too many believe that value should be provided, even if nothing that is valued is being offered. For example, I work in a small team of trainers and content developers who reside in a larger organization, which is part of a company. Each person has responsibilities that add value to the company at various levels, and in order to meet our responsibilities, we use the skills we have obtained and developed. All of us in the team have skills we can utilize, because we were hired based on what we could offer, not because of what we wanted to receive.

I think that this seems to be lost on many people these days, as so many think that they should have access to opportunity, regardless of whether they have the skill or will to be able to take that opportunity. In essence though, I guess we all have access to opportunity, but the question is more about our likelihood to be able to actually take it and make it viable. some of the hurdles in our way are external and we have little influence over, some are self-imposed and a hurdle by choice - but there is no on or off, everything is on a spectrum.

However, because of all of the dynamics in play, with each factor living on a spectrum and being affected by weightings that are largely opaque, it is very difficult for an individual to hold all of the ecosystem they operate in, in mind. This means that we end up simplifying our visualization, often leaving out key factors or, including narrow edge cases and missing the averages.

For an example that is easy to visualize, if two obese parents have a child, the likelihood that the child is going to be obese is very high and since being overweight is correlated to many other issues across the physical, mental and emotional planes, predictions can be made. But, predictions are going to look at averages, meaning that it isn't guaranteed that a child born to overweight parents will be overweight too - just likely. But people will use the exceptions to the average as evidence that the average is incorrect.

Another case which I think has the potential to change and is changing already, is in regards to education. Previously, if a person wanted to earn consistently well in a specialized field, some kind of formal education was required in order to prove worth. But, this is a little less true, as there is more opportunity to build consistent results without that education, firstly as an entrepreneur and secondly, as someone who can prove they have the necessary skills. Of course, some fields like medicine require that piece of paper by law, but others like coding might not. for example, there are a few (not many) coders I work with who have no formal education, but they are among the most brilliant we have.

However, going back to @azircon's comment of money, time and skills, what he is actually saying there is that in order for someone to earn, they have to have something to trade and in order to be employed (in some way) they have to be able to "prove" that they have something to trade. Money is a simple one to evaluate, as it is a tangible. Being ale to buy assets, pay salaries and the like, takes money. But, what that money is actually doing is buying the time and skills of others to forma a team that is able to solve some kind of problem together. If that money is being used to pay the salaries of people who have no time or skills that they are willing to put toward solving the problem, it is money wasted.

On Hive for example, we have the concept of Proof-of-Brain. where someone has to prove they have a brain, but what that "brain" is, is disputable. Some people think it speaks of intelligence, but I disagree. What I think it speaks of is the ability to use our resources, (money, time, skills) in some value-adding way that is valued by the community. There are many ways that value can be interpreted and many ways value can be added, but it is up to the laws of supply and demand to decide what reward value is allocated where.

For example, I write (among other things) to try and add content value to the blockchain, which utilizes my time and skill resources. I stake a decent amount of HIVE and vote, which utilizes my "money" resources. I get rewarded for all of these, with the time and skill reward coming from the community, and the reward on the money coming from the blockchain curation mechanisms and the like. This is "Proof of Brain" as I see it, as I am trading my resources, for other people's resources.

Skills however come in many forms and on Hive this is growing. for example, I will leave the numbers up to @azircon to add if he wishes as it involves others, but while he owns a lot of Splinterlands resources, he employs someone to use their time and skill to play the game with one of his decks. That person is very good at what they do and in a season needn't play that much to "solve the problem" that Azircon has, which is, he can't play it himself, since he isn't as skilled, nor hasn't the time. So, he uses his assets to earn, while also providing someone with talent and dedication value for themselves. This person can then earn and build their own asset profile to do the same. I know that @mattclarke does the same with his cards, empowering people who might not otherwise have the possibility, to participate and grow.

But, in order for this to work effectively, the trade has to be mutually beneficial, otherwise it becomes charity, which ends up unsustainable at scale, which is why charities struggle. It is the "Give a mana fish, or teach him to fish" complexity. People expect that because some group doesn't have opportunity now, every change has to immediately empower them - yet, it is a process.

Looking at the future of a Metaverse where a lot of opportunity will arise that cuts out a lot of the hurdles to participation that currently exist, doesn't mean that some utopia is formed immediately, or ever. However, what it does allow is a decentralization of all of those things that are valued and lowers the level needed to access across the various dynamic spectrums. This means that there effectively, more people are able to participate and generate and earn value in a far wider cross-section of the global population, which also drives change through the supply and demand models and in time, shifts the balance of economic power to be well, more balanced.

But, it can't work on a charity system, it has to be tempered by trade, not handouts. The problems we face as a global population all the way down to the smallest issues at a local level, aren't going to be solved through charity, they are going to be solved by people adding and receiving value for resources that work together to solve them. The expectation that the "rich" will just handout their wealth is not going to fly, because the rich* in this system have been created by doing the opposite, by centralizing and monopolizing to capitalize on what they have. The system incentivizes monopolistic behavior, so that is what people do, even if it brings harm to others.

It is only when we are able to change the incentive profile are we able to make any inroads into building a more equitable society, but that means being able to add broad value to the spectrums of factors that are in dynamic play, rather than focusing on individual factors that are easily available to cherrypick. This is exactly why centralized systems inevitably fail, because they are too unwieldy and ineffective to deal with the nuance of the entire population and all of their needs, so they focus inevitably on what makes the decision makers the most value. For example, socialism which is meant to be "for the people" is the most capitalistic system on earth, as it creates laws to centralize resources for a single entity to control, making it a monopoly with ultimate power, which again, leads to the inevitable, handing out value to some, regardless of what value they actually bring to the table, or what the needs of others are, who may be bringing more.

In order for the world to change, people are going to have to bring something to the table and the individual is going to have to understand that if they want a meal, they are going to have to trade something for a seat at that table. The table is incredibly large and growing and there are many ways to buy a seat, but expecting food without value-adding activity of some kind, is likely going to mean being left at the mercy of handouts and ultimately, fighting for the scraps with others who don't add value either.

This might not be the case today, as the system is very much broken and exclusionary, but more and more, if people aren't opting into adding value, they are excluding themselves by choice. When people are unwilling to try and help themselves, no amount of charity will help them, all it will do is take resources away from those who are trying their best to participate. This makes them a burden on all and a net cost to society, as they lessen the potential for others to improve, by diluting the resources available. It is very possible that when you try to help everyone, no one benefits. But it is also possible, that by helping a few with the skill and will to add their value and earn their keep, in time, all do.

As the world changes to one that has increasing opportunity, the excuses are running out. I am too old, too new, too poor, too tired, too black, too white, too left, too right, too oppressed, too privileged, too smart, too dumb, too slow, too sick, too fat, too fit... If you can't find a way to do something somewhere and in some way that is considered reasonably valuable based on who you are, at some point - people stop trying to help.

You do you. But no one is required to value what you do.

Nothing is free in this world. Nothing. It is a natural law, not one made by society.

Taraz [ Gen1: Hive ]

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta