I really detest the use of the overly used saying 'skin in the game'.
Why?
Because, like so many one liners, it covers such a wide spectrum of perspectives - so as to become totally meaningless.
I.e It is totally meaningless.
Wiki - 'skin in the game'
...To have "skin in the game" is to have incurred risk (monetary or otherwise) by being involved in achieving a goal.
... is particularly common in business, finance, and gambling, and is also used in politics.
'Skin in the game' doesn't automatically give you any more credence - or legitimacy, than anyone else...
'Skin in the game', isn't quantifiable or measurable.
It's one big 'feel good', glib, nothing.
Is money invested, 'more skin' than, say, time invested? (for example).
If user 'A' has 1 million dollars, and invests 100 dollars in hive, do they have 'more skin in the game' than user 'B', who has invested zero dollars, but has invested 12 hours a day, for three years, into a project.
Because it's relative, it's subjective.
Because it's subjective, it actually means fuck all as a way to really gauge anything.
Which user has 'more skin in the game'?
It's impossible to define.
If money is your god, then the $100 investor has more 'skin'.
If you're not completely brain dead, and money is not your god, then the person investing all that time has 'more skin'....
I hope that goes some way to explain why this phrase irritates me so much!.
And while I'm destroying this one liner - bear this in mind.
'Skin in the game' - being invested in some way - may well blind you to the big picture.
It's hard to be fully objective about something when your pay packet depends on one particular outcome.
Could you be objectively critical of HIVE, risking the token price going to 1 cent, when your future depends on the price going to $1?
Know thyself.
FACTOID:
It's no coincidence that throughout history 'wise men' were often people on the outskirts of the day to day society. living detached, and often materially poor.
They were wise because they could see the whole picture more objectively.
They were wise due to the very fact of having no skin in the game - this actually gave them the much needed clarity that people _who did have skin in the game sought them out , for advice...
The other problem with using 'skin in the game', is that it doesn't evaluate the quality of the skin.
For example:
Both people pictured above, are selling their product/service.
Both people have 'skin in the game'.
In this example above, it's fairly self evident who is the most likely to deliver what they're selling.
Unfortunately, it's not always so easy to separate the wheat from the chaff.
But it it possible.
Authenticity matters.
Authenticity of an individual is best observed from a wide angle lens - ie, a broad overview.
'The T-shirt needs to say the same things as how the mouth behaves', to use an oft quoted one liner of my own...
Everything is connected, so one expression in a certain way, can tell you volumes about a persons authenticity in another - totally different - aspect.
**This is not me pontificating in any way shape or form - I've fucked up just as much as everyone else.
I only speak as the person I am, and how I see things.
For example:
My own weight (I'm now in my 50's), is around the same as when I was I was 21 years old (to within a couple of pounds).
Why?
I've chosen to live a life that's not 'food self indulgent', as I see that as a sign of decadence,and downright laziness.
This fact tells you much more about me, than just my weight.
It tells you I'm self aware.
It tells you I take reality seriously.
It tells you I don't make excuses for myself.
It tells you I know the difference between need and greed.
Want and need are very different things.(some people will fool themselves for their entire lives, swapping out 'want' and 'need' seamlessly, so as to justify their actions - to themselves mostly).
Would you listen to some self loathing, overweight guru, about 'the road to spiritual enlightenment', while at the same time, can't even respect himself enough to stop himself becoming a blob of lard?
Would you listen to some 'guru' concerning financial matters, when he can't even run his own 'body economy' correctly?
Would you listen to the financial guru, when that guru is up to his eyeballs in debt, and has to work his butt off 70 hours a week, just to make ends meet?
After all - That 'guru' also has 'skin in the game', doesn't he?
(far too much skin, has it happens).
I'm not being critical of overweight guru's selling their diet plans, or finical guru's selling a financial philosophy of success, while drowning in debt.
I'm being critical of the people that choose to listen to such guru's.
FREE SPEECH.
Free speech covers the unauthentic trying their best to appear as authentic - which is a good thing.
Free speech is the cornerstone for the authentic individual.
It all starts with the freedom of expression.
Only those who are unauthentic ever wish to stifle the freedom of expression. (they also have skin in the game - do they not?)
Choosing who you listen to, is entirely on you.
Choosing who to focus your energy on, is also entirely on you.
Hive seems to have many 'gurus'.
Hive has many posers trying to authenticate themselves with 'skin in the game' one liners, as thought that alone qualifies them as being more authentic.
It doesn't.
I means that they have an agenda - known or unknown - for a wished outcome.(as I've tried to illustrate).
One man who stopped eating donuts, went to the gym, and started to respect himself enough to become a truly authentic individual, could start a revolution...
