The green nature and evolution of investment process

They have no methodology for judging the viability of a project, except success (which means its too late to get in early). @mattclarke

I like Matt, he is far less wordy than myself and far more profound. Of course, the challenge with brevity is in order to appreciate it for what it is, one has to have depth of background information to provide the context to the layer above, otherwise it becomes a platitude. That is not what Matt is doing here - he knows who he is talking to, as he is commenting on my post, not as a general statement out into the world with an unknown audience receiving. It makes a difference.

As an example of this, I like to use one of the simplest equations we all know:

E = mc2

Now apply it.

Any takers?

Me either.

Here is a link to get you started https://www.emc2-explained.info/

An excerpt from the opening paragraph:

Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 and in doing so demonstrated that mass and energy are actually the same thing, with one a tightly compressed manifestation of the other. This mass-energy equivalence has had a major impact on all our lives, although how and why isn't always obvious.

I still don't know much.

Here are the first set of links that lead to the explanation and potential applications of the equation:

See the problem with platitudes?

In order for them to be useful, more needs to be known.

Back to Matt

They have no methodology for judging the viability of a project, except success (which means its too late to get in early). @mattclarke

Here Matt is talking about process and how the majority of people do not consider process, they consider outcome. For example, people look at a Hive user's large wallet, but do not think about what it took to get that wallet. In my case, it was a lot of consistent work and some buying in. In another's case it was mining early and witnessing. Another again might have predominantly bought. Someone else, might have run a successful bidbot. Another might have been part of a large circlejerk of voting behavior Each may have a relatively large wallet, but the path to that wallet size differs.

Process matters.

But, it is the "except success" part that is what people should be considering at depth and Matt has added the clue as to why in brackets, which means its too late to get in early.

Because most people focus on the outcomes of things, they do not consider the path to that outcome. Do you listen to wealth advice from a rich investor or a rich winning lottery ticket buyer? When it comes to something like crypto, we meet the many arguments from no-coiners and skeptics of, "but it doesn't do this like..." without them realizing that once upon a time, the thing they are referencing wasn't possible either.

Low background knowledge

One example with crypto is the argument that it can't be used to buy things as it isn't accepted in any shops, yet this argument falls down when they discover (to their surprise) that there are several cards that are backed by Visa or Mastercard that use proximity pay, just like what they do with their bankcards. But, then the argument is, "but a bank can already do that" - yes it can, but this is a step on the pathway to decentralization, not the outcome of it. This is all part of the process. Once the infrastructure advances and connects more directly to the blockchains, the middlemen will lose more and more ground.

But, if looking at the outcomes of "finished" tech as indicators of what to invest into, there is very little room for significant gains, unless already significantly wealthy. Are you significantly wealthy enough to make gains by investing into an established bank that turns over tens of billions a year?

If you are reading this, probably not.

Are you experienced?

Last night while talking to friends, I was asked a pertinent question:

How do you choose what to invest into?

I started talking about project team, project plan, distribution and emission rates, community and literally after 30 seconds and before I could do anything more than mention, I was told it was far too complex for them to understand and they would rather me tell them what to buy.

The thing is, without understanding why Bitcoin is valuable, it is impossible to determine whether any crypto project has the chance of being valuable. Not because a project has to be like Bitcoin, but because it needs to consider the same things - scarcity, supply and demand, usecase, narrative etc.

Too much work.

So instead, the people who do not want to learn, will not likely be significant earners, because they will not invest to become owners, they will choose to eternally be users.

Building process

I got a comment yesterday on one of my posts that mentioned "HIVE at one dollar" and the user said that he would consider quitting his terrible job, where he works his ass off and only earns 85 dollars a month. Yes, I understand, terrible jobs suck ass, but in my opinion, it is still an income stream and therefore, part of the process to build potential wealth.

For example, I don't want to live off Hive when it is able to replace my work income, I want to keep my work income until I have several significant streams coming in that distribute the risk of income streams heavily. If I live off Hive when it is able to replace only my current income, that means that I will never be able to have much more than the conditions I have already got and the only thing that changes is I no longer have to work a terrible job.

The reason is that if I need my job to pay my bills now, I will also need the HIVE I earn to pay my bills. Nothing has changed, it is just a different job and, it is even more precarious. Keeping my terrible job (or finding another a little less terrible) to cover my living costs, means Everything I earn on Hive becomes investment potential and since I am participating, paying attention and learning about opportunities where I can be an early-adopting owner, I am far more likely to increase my wealth.

In my opinion, this is better process, which is why after about a year and a half of being in crypto, I took a second job in order to provide more income streams to diversify my risk as a sole proprietor and add additional income to invest with, which has allowed my family to upgrade from apartment to house and not use crypto to do so. I might not like working the hours I do all of the time (none of what I do is terrible in my opinion), but I like being an investor and real owner for the first time in my 40+ years.

Too early to come get some

For many, because they focus on the outcomes as their indicator for success and investment, it is "too early" and "unproven" to invest into the crypto space, meaning they haven't the understanding of the processes involved in order to mature a product, industry or economy so that it proves itself in the marketplace. However the people who do understand, the "early believers" have invested, become owners and have driven the industry to the point that the next line of investors are ready to come in, the governments, banks and financial institutions. However, because of the very nature of what this all is, that next line of investors are also very worried as to what this means for their bread and butter income where they are established and people see them as "unassailable" success stories, because the outcome informs the masses.

But...

Nothing is forever.

All systems fail.

Why?

It is part of the process

The very nature of nature is to evolve, which means to adapt to the changing conditions and replace what doesn't work, with what does. If it didn't go through this continual change process, it would fail. The mechanisms it uses in order to continually succeed, is diversity and distribution, which means that there is always a spectrum of success to failure ongoing to spread the risks, much like a decentralized network facilitates change and manages risk, based on the supply and demand of the userbase and the environment it operates within and ultimately affects through its own dynamics.

But in nature, just before something gets replaced, it is a successful outcome and often doesn't see its own demise. Because if it did, it would evolve if it could. Of course, organisms can't evolve quickly enough for large climatic change, but humans have the ability to see evaluate the process of change and potentially find ways to cope in the changing conditions. But generally, it is a small subset of the larger population that identify, understand and actually create the changes that end up being applied to, or utilized by, the majority.

Phone it in

You have a phone. You didn't invent telecommunications. You are a user, as am I. However, while I am not an inventor as such, with my capital, I am able to invest into the inventions of others, but there is no point investing into the the invention of the phone now, as the market is already established from the initial Bell invention over a hundred years ago.

However, there is potential investing into the many new opportunities that are going to utilize the various technologies to provide demanded goods and services for the masses. The problem is, those opportunities are not yet full established, which means they are incomplete and largely unproven.

Process risk

This is the risk of investment though, as essentially it is investing into where nature is going to evolve without actually knowing whether the changes we are backing are going to be suitable for the conditions of the future. All we have is our understanding and when we do not look at process, we are very, very poor at predicting the trends.

But as I see it, investing into the infrastructure of nature itself means that no matter what changes are made on the surface, as long as there is high diversity and distribution, there will be survival. Because crypto is a replacement economy that decentralizes the structure and meaning of wealth itself, it becomes far more robust as a system and will spread value far wider, encouraging and incentivizing an increasing number to take part at all levels of the economy, with the majority being owner, investor and user simultaneously.

People want to "get in early" on a project in order to make some large gains and get out to a better lifestyle. However, the most value as an early adopter is to get into the industry as a whole and stay in, as this industry is the economy of the future, so constantly getting out is going to eventually leave a potential investor, replaced by the processes of nature itself.

Better late than never?

This is just the beginning.

Taraz [ Gen1: Hive ]