Just after we got the loan for the house and an additional part to cover some of the renovation, I suggested to my wife that we take some of it and put it into Bitcoin, as we won't be needing it until the end of the year and I felt that the bottom was in. That would have been two BTC worth bought at around $4000 each. She said no.
I was talking with a colleague this morning about this and he brought up how women are more risk averse than men and that most direct investors are male. For example, in the US, less than 5% of VC investors are women. There are many reasons for this of course, including cultural history and the endurance of generational money, but that is still a very low percentage in 2020. Because of the way money attracts money, when it comes to the future empowerment of women, women are likely going to have to start taking more risks and investing more broadly.
With respect to the conversation I was having, I mentioned that I think that crypto (he has got into Bitcoin this year) is an opportunity for women to get into investment in a way that reframes the potential for loss. This is especially true through Hive as rather than direct investment, a person can earn their buy-in and while this might take time and effort, it doesn't detract from other sources of income, meaning it is extra. The exposure to risk is reduced as what would be lost is that time and effort.
Now, for many users, earning significant amounts from earning crypto on Hive or any of the numerous platforms out there is unlikely (thouhg I have seen quite a few do pretty well over the years), but that isn't what the main value of participation is. What is important is the development of mindset, opening oneself up to risk, facing it, surviving dips, discovering alternate possibilities and generally, learning that despite our real world conditions and preferences, there is the potential for all of us to start affecting our investment level in a way that is more comfortable to our own personality.
I would suspect that on Hive, there are a higher percentage of female holders and investors than there is in the real world economy, many of whom are in poorer countries and might not have access to any kind of investment vehicles at all, let alone the capital required to participate in the investment economy. While this doesn't mean that we will all be wealthy, but at least more of us are starting to participate in areas where traditionally, only the elite could play.
I don't think that it is a secret why many of the investors are male, due to the general level of culture for the last couple millennia, but I also think that the higher average risk aversion that many women have is going to affect all kinds of personal opportunities, as well as have cultural ramifications on society. Women tend to be risk averse in many areas, including their career paths and of course, there are social pressures of various kinds that affect all people in different ways.
However, when it comes to social media usage for example, there is generally a 50/50 split of users and depending on the platform, women tend to edge ahead. On Pltforms like Pinterest, 70% are female users. This means that if the digital economies start increasing the potential for users to earn from the platforms, women are in a good position to take advantage and at least in this arena, start from a level footing. We see this on Hive with many women among the most active on the platform, but will it is hard to know if it will extend into the investment potential, as for now there are people also buying into Hive - which based on the risk version profile, would likely be men.
There are obviously a lot of complexities as well as emotional intuitions in this area, but I think it is worth considering as a point of value for Hive, that there is a far greater equality of opportunity for investing from the creative perspective, as it doesn't mean risking what is already in the wallet. It is far harder to invest money that is already in the bank account, than it is to have it invested before it ever reaches that account. This is why automatic investment schedules are valuable for many people, as it removes the "it's mine" opinion, by taking it out of sight.
Out of sight, out of
mindmine.
I was saying to my colleague how I got into investing through creating content, as I didn't have anything available to invest from off platform. I never thought I had enough to invest, but once I started exploring the potential of crypto and investing itself through Hive, I was able to find ways to increase my investments, by cutting other less important parts out of my life. Essentially, I jigged my consumption profile by reevaluating components and applying a new hierarchy, one where investing was bumped up the list, and something like entertainment or useless consumption was downgraded. This meant that rather than going without, I actually went with, as what I chose to spend my money on was more valuable to me than the alternative.
The current design and state of the global and local economies are not suited to new investors being able to make adequate gains, as the large investors will always pull a greater return from the pool than the small. This means that economic history is a massive driver of the wealth generated from investing. This makes it quite unattractive for many people, as it is not only going to be a low return, it is an increasingly difficult struggle to gather financial availability to invest. By pushing the investment to an earning for participation, it allows for many people to get a foot in the door and at least some of those will extend it further. The more that do, the more that can and will.
I think that many people in this world would like conditions to change personally and collectively, where we are able to not only live more valuable lives, but actually benefit from that value, rather than have it sucked into the vacuum cleaner of the 0.1%. To do this, the system has to change, but due to the design of the control mechanisms, change isn't going to come voluntarily. This means that we have to invest ourselves into changing the system and I believe, that replacing the system with something far more effective at distribution through incentive, is a good direction to go. It might not be the end solution, but it is heading the right way at least.
We are all risk averse, but we might want to also consider what the greatest risks to us are. I think that ownership brings stability and security, but to own, we have to invest. It might not be comfortable, it might not be in our nature - it doesn't mean we shouldn't, couldn't or won't.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]