Cover art from @dolorsilentium on Instagram

It's always trusting less, not more, in this industry born from disdain for the existing centralized financial systems that failed us badly in 2008.

I don't want to argue about corrupt huge behemoths here - and anyway, for a flavor of fictional authoritarian bureaucracy gone wrong, there's Kafka. The system ain't great.

And yet, I wonder whether the trustless property we imbue the technology, the blockchain with, might actually contribute to how we view each other, a view of other humans we perpetuate.

It's true that no blockchain is actually trustless. It's at best distributed trust, and yet, for some reason, the term trustless has always been stickier.

They say technology is neutral - yet the history of progress is full of examples where the powerful wielded technologies in their best interest.

If you ask Neil Postman, technology is ideology, and if you want to argue against that be aware that... at least according to Zizek, even in denying it, you're doing so driven by ideology (there's no arguing with Zizek so we'll leave it at that)

On a personal level, I struggle with the Menschenbild (view of humanity) large swaths of crypto hold. It's definitely not one of assuming humans to be fundamentally good, broadly speaking. It's each for their own in the trenches. Others are either exit liquidity or useful stepping stones to get yet another partnership announcement in the pipeline.

You can't trust anyone.

After all, we're not to be trusted.

Maybe it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Studies suggest that Economics students act more selfishly than other students, largely because they assume others do not play fair (I will go out on a limb and assume because that's what they think of doing themselves).

By extension, then, surely exposing people 24/7 to the fragrance of greed and the scent of FOMO while indoctrinating them with the message that they are just one investment away from life-changing gains as flexed by their favorite influencers (who, for some reason, also still has to maintain his social media career despite the gains) would create similar results.

After all, one man's gain is another one's loss. Playing fair won't get you far in that.

There are few examples of win-win scenarios in crypto trading, less in memecoins where the only winners are the insiders - and the rest of us we're mere spectators.

Of course, we shouldn't trust idiots who upload random images to pump.fun to create memes.

As someone earning your money in crypto, it's also healthy to harbor a sense of paranoia. I know very few writers who have not had the experience of delivering work and getting ghosted after sending an invoice to the previously oh-so-pushy client.

Ironically, this problem could easily be fixed with multi-sigs and smart contracts, but probably not profitable. Crypto caring deeply about writers, where would we get if we started doing that?

That aside, though, the PVP atmosphere dominating the "trenches" suggests we're all bought into the myth of economic man, the mythical creature of economics studies that's only driven by greed and the desire to increase utility. Funny that economics say they are a serious science when they believe in a creature that no one has ever seen irl.

Speaking of trenches, while the majors and generals decorating their jackets with accolades might have been driven by ideology or their desire to advance their careers, many soldiers on the real front lines fought out of solidarity with their peers.

That's something we're missing in our trenches.

Isn't that weird?

We have a technology that's, in theory, based on networks of peers (no hierarchy implied) that have to form a consensus.

Yet, if you look at what's happening on the timeline, you wouldn't assume there to be peers.

Sure, the industry as a whole has probably become way more cynical than it used to be.

Power corrupts. Money probably does, too.

If you spend too much time with the token maxis, you quickly realize for them, everything is just a potential thing to tokenize. Everything and everyone. After all, markets know best. Why not put a price on everything?

Bad idea.

But it's not so surprising when it's always assumed that people act because of money.

I've witnessed this countless times. It's a huge anathema to bring up to founders looking for a quick way to build a community the fact that... humans have intrinsic motivation, and if you slap money on it, you might simply crowd that one out.

Of course, you cannot measure intrinsic motivation. Even if the people in the community are just active because there are points for it, at least then you can show your impressive growth in activity to others.

I've found that money is a bad motivator as long as you meet your basic standard of living.

It's the death for anything you did out of sheer conviction.

Every once in a while, people come up with the idea of rewarding volunteers.

First off, they are no longer volunteers then.

Secondly, it ruins part of the appeal. You do it because you love it and see an unmet need, not because of money—that would throw it under the bus of market forces, which isn't great for governing human relationships.

Once you add money in, you change the whole feel of it.

It's the same for people engaged in online communities of their choosing. Those can be crypto communities or others. Once you start throwing money in, you risk losing the initial crowd and drawing in the wrong one.

Anyway, there are people who have written more eloquently and in-depth on communities - it's just a side note as I've had this conversation a lot.

Last week, I left my ID card in the copy shop. I hadn't even realized it, and one of the copy shop employees was already ringing on my door to deliver my ID card. I was so perplexed that I just managed to express my gratitude haphazardly before he dashed off.

He didn't have to do that. They could have just handed it off to the police or other entities. He didn't get any money for it either, only a thanks from a surprised me.

I swore to myself that if I ever found someone's ID card, I'd do the same.

That's what acts of kindness do to people.

I don't think the world will be a better place if everything we do needs to be expressed and valued in tokens. I don't think that all these zero-sum games we play are beneficial.

Yet the biggest crime to me these days is the cynical view of humans propagated in crypto.

Cynicism is easy.

You're always wrong when shit goes really bad, and you can tell everyone I told you so.

It's also a bit lazy, though.

After all, no creational effort goes in.

I'll be labeled as a hopefully naive when I say that I think you attract what you are - and that in the long run, the good might just win over the bad.

That said, we should stop being so damn cynical and figure out how we can build more positive-sum games. The problem with the game of rugs is that, eventually, there's no one left to rug. And then what? Will you look for someone else to kick down on?

When instead, we could create a real antithesis to the exploitative forces of the existing systems?

If we don't just view the "billions" we onboard as an anonymous mass to increase our brand but as the humans they are with their different desires and dreams - maybe we're a step closer to actually reaching them.

As a human being, I sure believe that if we appeal more to good and less to greed, it will benefit all of us.

As a marketer, it'd make our job much easier if our industry isn't perceived as a cut-throat casino, but as a wholesome place of others who actually care. (I know that's a lot to ask from those who now make their main target customer AI agents)

The real question for some people might thus become: who am I if I subtract the desire for money and fame? It might be a scary one to ask.

Our lives aren't jobs. Crypto can easily consume all your time, but I'd argue you shouldn't let that happen unless it's certainly your innermost calling.

That said, I surely believe that if more people running big projects and small ones stay in touch more with "real people" outside of the crypto bubble - they too might realize humans can be pretty kind, even without making it all "to-earn."

I'm aware it's an uphill battle - the negative spreads easier (even if fake) than the positive - but, deep inside of us, there's this thing that makes us feel good when we do good, but even if we're being told an anecdote about someone else doing something selfless. It inspires us to be like that.

I try my best to act in that spirit. It might not scale when I send postcards to online frens (without any expectation nor promises of anything back - the funny thing about postcards is sending them is nearly as rewarding as receiving), let three pupils buying their lunch in the Aldi get ahead in me in the queue, hold the door open for others, help a neighbor carry down a bike... but maybe, it'll help make the world a little better.

"Whatever you do for others, eventually comes around to you in the end."

Demon Slayer Swordsmith Village Arc

Thanks for reading 💚

I didn't really know where this would go, but this blog is called mosaic of thoughts for a reason.

That said, I was heavily inspired by reading Humankind by Rutger Bregman and growing up on Studio Ghibli movies that emphasize compassion and kindness over violence.