On biases and drama in the early web 3.0, and scalability limitations of ideology

That Susanne made out with Vitalik Buterin in early 2014, it is possible that it was to "secure" a position as well, she seems to use manipulation where most people I know would not. Susanne's husband James mentioned sort of that she uses sexuality in that way. She was talking about Florian, an employee who left since "PAT" isn't anything, that he was "her Gavin" (Gavin Wood and Vitalik Buterin created Ethereum), she talked about Vitalik Buterin like "we can just hire him if we want", early when I connected with her in 2014 via Dana Edwards.

The reason Charles Hoskinson was ostrasized from the Ethereum project was most probably, I would guess, that Susanne, at the same time as she hooked up with Vitalik Buterin, also (according to herself) hooked up with Charles, spring 2014, and that was possibly the reason Charles and Vitalik did not get along. Then a few years after that, Susanne started talking about ETC as “trolls”, based on guilt by association from her own relation to Charles Hoskinson.

Overall, an absence of personal responsibility, and personal bias and tribalism projected onto an entire blockchain while pretending to have a neutral stance that seems to mostly serve as some sort of trauma support rather than actually wanting to build a new paradigm, a counter-narrative more than actual social evolution. That was all then followed by a nonsensical token, "XPAT", and what was a multi million dollar scam more or less.

I liked the original vision of "bitnation" as a schelling point, there is now nothing left there, but possibly has it already succeeded through me innovating Pseudonym Pairs and proof-of-power, inspired by Susanne Tarkowski Tempelhof, an actual "virtual nation" and not just a metaphor. Time will tell.

Read more: The rejection of the human condition as a bias

H2
H3
H4
3 columns
2 columns
1 column
Join the conversation now