I am a bit annoyed - I have been waiting for over three weeks for the second GODS UNCHAINED airdrop and nothing. I contacted the support for ImmutableX and they said they were "busy" and it will take a few days, but even after a few more emails enquiring if there is movement on their side - nothing. Bit of a shame and quite frustrating in my opinion, but hopefully there is something that happens with it, as it was quite a significant amount due.
It is hard to keep up with everything across all of these projects though, and I do feel like I am constantly missing out even though I hold assets in them, as I just can't absorb all of the information and meet all the requirements constantly. It seriously is a full time job and it is impossible for me to focus, which is probably a good sign that I should consolidate.
I understand why some people are Bitcoin maximalists for example, as they are able to focus on a single asset that doesn't require much consideration at all, as it is "simple" which is saying something, considering how complicated the average no-coiner struggles to understand it. Bitcoin is simple as the average trader doesn't have to really consider anyone else in the network and there is the expectation that utilization will happen, simply because it is the first and most well-known crypto. It is a buy-and-forget or buy-trade-sell token, with very little thought at the individual level put into the future of it, other than the "it will replace the USD, will be a reserve currency, will be gold 2.0" kind of thinking.
Nothing wrong with this, but I think all investments have to be considered in how they are going to be utilized and most importantly, how they are going to affect the communities that use them. But, community consideration throws up lots of additional complexities that are far harder to predict and cover with sweeping statements, as there are practical considerations as to why, how and of course when. Real change requires, practical steps towards an end, and that is not always easy, especially in a decentralized environment where there are many motivations, and they aren't necessarily aligned to work with each other.
This is actually why so many "have a problem2 with Hive, as they think that their way is the right way and expect everyone else to think and do the same, regardless of how poorly thought out "their way" might be. Because of this, a lot of people feel less comfortable investing into a community that doesn't feel like they do - see the issue? A place like Hive will never have full consensus from the community as to how things should be, which means a lot of people won't invest into it.
However, if looking at it from the perspective of enabling and empowering many different kinds of communities on the second-layer, it is possible to invest into the base layer with the understanding that not everyone is going to agree above. It is much like the base infrastructure of a city that supports all kinds of people at the core, regardless of the differences in opinion on a whole lot of social issues.
I think that one of the core features of Hive is going to come through the Hive Development Fund (HDF) that takes development proposals. As the token value increases, this becomes larger and larger and is able to support all kinds of developments driven by the community. This could make Hive the go-to launchpad platform for new developments and could see an explosion in Hive-based application innovation as we move forward.
However, not everyone is going to agree on every single application supported, which is fine. But, this is a DPoS platform, so it means that stake matters, as it should, even though many disagree, as they think that it is the "rich" deciding what gets developed. While it is not, even if this was the case on Hive, this is what should be driving development anyway, since it is they who have the most to lose, while the unstaked really only have upside gains to lose - there is no direct downside for the non-investor.
For me, I think "stake" should matter in all kinds of areas though, not just as it is on Hive. For example, I don't think most people would be happy crowdsourcing the opinion for their own medical procedures, allowing the most outspoken to have the largest influence. However, some people think this is how Hive should be, where opinion matters, no matter if there is skin in the game or not. that can't work, as it means there is no accountability or risk for having that loud voice and what you will notice on Hive is, the loudest of the community against the way Hive works, are also the least staked. Don't believe that they would stake "if things changed" either, because those same voices are fickle.
But, this is what I mean by the complexities of a community, as there are many different opinions that have to be considered in the road forward. Most people want the benefits of a strong community where there are a lot of compounding value streams to increase overall growth, but don't actually want to risk anything of their own to support it. This happens in the real world too of course, not just on Hive, which is part of the reason the world is messy, as people want better results, but aren't willing to directly participate to get them. It is a "part of the solution, or part of the problem" scenario, with most wanting protection from the problems, but not putting themselves on the line for it, making them renters.
Crypto is about ownership and I think that at its core, Bitcoin was created to help realize a better economic future for the global population, where there are more participants, less middlemen, and owners who are responsible and accountable for their own activity. This is a long road though, as the cultural and social paradigm that most people subscribe too is heading in the opposite direction, wanting to be owners, but choosing to be renters. But, this is partly because there has a been a weakening of community where people feel "engaged" even if they aren't doing or producing anything, other than consuming what is fed them.
We have a world of social movement voyeurs, with very few activists. But, activism is no longer taking to the streets as some think it is, it is changing what we consume to shift the demand to healthier alternatives, including economic models that at least have the chance of empowering the many, rather than supporting the further enrichment of the few. But, this means putting skin in the game and risking its loss on uncertainty, but many are just looking for the moon to buy a better position on the traditional ladder of society for themselves - behavior that supports the status quo of a widening wealth gap and an increasing bottom end.
It is easy to publicly say what should be fixed, much harder to actually take steps to do it. In my opinion, those attempting to actually create, should be the ones driving what is created and those looking to only consume without owning, are going to be subjected to the life of a renter. No one is forced into participation in the community, staking or being part of building anything different in this world - but we are all going to be affected by the path and the outcomes, regardless of whether we were active or passive.
Your voice is worthless, unless someone who can actually make a difference is listening and willing to use their capabilities to do so. Otherwise, it is just like most of the voices on the internet that drive clicks for the increased wealth of the few - ineffectual for social change.
Many might not want to be part of a messy community, but that is why the communities of the world are largely impotent, as they have given up their ability to affect change, as their voices are gone, they just watch on, wishing someone would come and save them. When they have the opportunity to participate, their skin is too thin to go in.
Where's that airdrop.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]