What we project
Everything we put out there, all the articles, all the videos, absolutely everything adds to the conversation. I think this is precisely why I'm personally bothered with "to the moon" banshees, because they make the cryptospace sound like scam-central. However, I do understand why they do it, as it's completely irrational for me to expect maturity from absolutely everyone who has access to a youtube channel.
That being said, I personally hold different standards for different people. I would never demand, if that is even a word I should use, a neutral, stoic position from every single blog on the web, that would be silly of me. There are levels of knowledge, levels of involvement, all the whole spectrum of course is welcome to participate. But, there are those voices that are under a lens at all times, and those should know better.
The Crypto Leaders
The small group of people that get invited to podcasts, make TV appearances and what have you, they are were the eyes rest, when people talk about this crazy world of cryptocurrencies. This means of course, and undeniable so, that their words have more weight than mine or yours, and hence they should be adept at not only what they should be saying, but what they should be quiet about.
img src
Some controversy is not necessarily bad, and most of us have heard that there is no such thing as bad publicity, but at the same time, would it not be more effective if it was somewhat balanced? And I guess that is one of my biggest frustrations to date. The fact that it seems that drama dominates the space, and everyone is expected to pick teams.
This was painfully apparent in the blockchain cruise were "debates" were scheduled so that crypto leaders could present their best arguments. I hesitate to recommend anyone to watch those videos, as they have little to no substance, and became for the most part shouting matches. The old, "He who screams louder is right" seemed to be at play.
Tribalism and Worship
I have to say I don't particularly enjoy even using these words, but to me, this describes precisely the phenomena. Instead of being pragmatic and objective about what is and what is not, people default to picking an idol, and thus blinding themselves from everything else.
Does this surprise me? Yes and no. For one, this pretty much is consistent with our social behaviors, but it does surprise me a bit, because I believe, maybe wrongfully so, that the conversations on these subjects were ones were critical thinking was dominant. Now, please not the use of past tense here. I am now convinced that I was the one with unrealistic expectations and nothing more.
I cringe every time I see or read someone referring to a white-paper as some sort of holy constitution that must not be changed regardless of obvious flaws it contained. And, I use the word flaw because many of the things original white-papers were attempting to predict were social behaviors, and even though I'm a fan of Asimov I believe that psychohistory is still not a thing.
This is to say, that its necessary for concepts to evolve, to adapt to growing demands, and these changes to be driven by the wants of those who we intend to participate of this new paradigm. I find the conversations around this very subject frustrating, as if I'm watching someone arguing for the forceful solution to a puzzle, and that is quite paradoxical.
Will we ever learn?
Probably not, but maybe that is completely fine. As with many things time will tell, and some of this revered leaders will fall back into obscurity, some will become the new Bill Gates of the world, and other's I'm sure will be launching a lot more than cars into space blasting David Bowie.
But as far as I'm concerned, a good look in the mirror would do wonders for them, wonders. Now, how do we get past that ego? Of that... I have no clue.