I am not a golfer, but I have found the drama around the PGA and LIV over the last couple years fascinating in many ways. It goes to show how authority functions to protect itself and the various techniques it employs to degrade the challenge from competition.
LIV is essentially a rebel startup golf league that was backed by copious amounts of Saudi money, so it could attempt to attract some of the best players in the world. At first it was ridiculed and belittled, until it started offering massive amounts of money to jump ship, and some of the big names did just that. All kinds of attacks started, against individuals, backers, organizers and anyone who showed interest. Players were banned from competing, traditional invitations for past winners were rescinded, character assassinations applied. They were labelled,
No good, money-grubbing, amoral assholes, who didn't respect the laws of the game.
LIV was looking to dispose of some of the traditions and bring in a new demographic to game, with looser dress codes, party-like atmosphere and more prize many than ever seen before. The PGA on the other hand, which holds a near monopoly on professional golf, felt itself "too big to fail" and that they would not only crush the rebellion, but be celebrated for doing so, for upholding the traditions.
Yesterday, the PGA announced it was merging with LIV.
In many ways, it is a parable to what is happening in the economy between the traditional centralized forces, and the decentralized forces. They see themselves as too big to fail and that any alternative is laughable, should be ridiculed, and never taken seriously.
Yet, if this is actually the case, the attacks are far too severe, far too public, and completely out of line with the actual value of the entire crypto capitalization. Currently, it stands at 1.1 trillion dollars, which is a quarter of what the US government raised the debt cap by last week. And, that is the value globally. No government has access to all of that value, yet while they are ridiculing it as something that will never work, they are trying to regulate it for a piece of the action.
The SEC in the US and other governments around the world have been citing "the risk to investors" as the reason for their heavy-handed approach, yet look at the cost of the government actions themselves, the bailouts, the debt burdens, the cronyism, the tax breaks for the wealthy, the corruption.
At some point, people are going to wake up and realize that alternatives are possible and there will be incentive to make a switch to the decentralized league, because it gives some protection from having personal value used in ways one doesn't want it to be used.
I normally offer the example where if all people had control of their value and a government had to ask the people to fund directly from their wallets, instead of through future taxes, we'd never have wars at any kind of scale. No country would be able to raise a large enough army. And, if any single entity began to get too big, monopolize and become harmful, it would be regulated through the removal of value by participants, rather than it getting protected by the authorities.
As crypto becomes more mainstream, offers increasingly convenient solutions to handling and security, and has crypto-first businesses building, innovating and generating value on the blockchains, more will turn to it, because there will be incentive to make the change. If one technology isn't doing the job it needs to do and people are suffering, they will look for another - and the financial economy is a technology.
While economic laws apply on the behavioral side, the monetary economy is an invention created to solve a problem. However, due to the nature of the machine, while it solves some problems, it also creates more through not being robust enough to self-regulate. So, the regulators come in to make the rules, which are always imperfect and will fail somewhat constantly, create more issues, or be totally unsuitable and need to be reformulated.
But, again by the nature of the financial animal, the incentives are aligned to maximize the fuel the machine uses to run, not for solving problems that energy can be used to address. It is like needing to get from point A to B, and stockpiling oil, but never building a vehicle to drive. The economic machine isn't being used effectively or efficiently to help us develop our wellbeing, it is being used to make fuel to keep itself running.
But, it isn't running well, because in order to create the fuel it requires, it has to mine us of our value, which is done through many mechanisms that enhance wealth gaps, decreasing the wellbeing for many, while pushing value to those who can't actually add any more wellbeing to their lives, so they spend frivolously, because they can, knowing they will never run out of wealth - as the machine keeps printing it for them, at the expense of the masses.
Once the decentralized economy starts solving problems and making tangible impacts on people's lives, whilst simultaneously, the centralized economy is meeting less of the needs of society, the swell starts to shift. Much like how many sports over the space of decades have to go through new iterations to keep their game alive, the economy has to shift too. But, the economy isn't going to shift, because what it needs to do in order to meet the needs of the majority of users, is dilute the power of the decision makers and those who benefit the most from the machine working the way it does.
That is never going to be supported by those who would need to support it.
So, what has to happen is a rebel economy needs to start, attract users, prove itself capable, innovate and grow to the point that it is a shadow economy, one that offers a real alternative to the point that key industries and corporations start to weigh up the pros and cons of staying put, or making the shift. And the incentive is high to make the move, because it gives ,more freedom of action, making it a freer market for corporations too, where rather than being beholden to a government, they are beholden to the consumer, having to meet actual needs, and solve actual problems.
The most valuable people and companies in the world shouldn't be the ones that offer nothing tangible in return, it should be those that offer us a greater well being, a stronger society, better relationships, healthier bodies and a life experience filled with goodness. That is not the way it is now, nor is that what the governments are creating legislation for. All they are doing is helping generate more fuel for the machine for a few, so no one can threaten their position.
We all act on incentive and people tend to blame those who go after money, but it isn't money that is the problem, it is how we use it. Currently, the economy isn't looking to solve for wellbeing, but it should be.
Regarding LIV and the PGA, the question has to be asked, what are the golfers there for? They say that golf is a solo game and you play against yourself, but if you play and are never seen, no matter how well you play, you aren't part of the financial economy. The top golfers get paid well because of the fans, the audience, the consumer of the sport. The money is generated through sponsorship and advertising, not the level of golf. The money comes from audience attention and they pay attention, because they want to see the best, but as the culture changes, they also want to feel more part of the action, more connected, more excitement.
Look at the Indian Premier League for cricket.
The richest league in the world. They said it wouldn't work.
They keep saying crypto won't work. They say it can't solve the problems it promises. But, the question really needs to be asked, if things like massive wealth inequality, corruption in government and volatile economies are problems that need to be solved, why would any group be against another group trying to solve them? Why is it that we need to be protected from trying to help ourselves, when no one else is doing the job adequately?
Who are the governments protecting?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
