Field Note #101. On "Metacrisis + Crypto" (part 2)

Source: "Superstructures with Daniel Schmactenberger" with Kevin Owocki as interviewer, Green Pill episode 32 (Aug. 2, 2022), available on YT.

Part One can be found at Field Note #97. 👀

The Relevance.

In sociology, a "boundary object" is an object that is used as a vehicle or bridge to cross boundaries between different constituents.  

"Risk" has been my boundary object.  

As it relates to investing--particularly in early-stage venture (and perhaps loudest in many parts of the crypto ecology)--there is a perverse incentive and cultural imperative to focus on upside risk capture while ignoring or footnoting downside risks (sometimes first order, but often second order).  

And, this is not merely a problem of "cognitive biases" in the investing process.

In Field Note #80: On "Lessons from Adaptive Market Theory," I posited:

"[G]iven crypto is intertwined with venture and meme-style entrepreneurship, the extreme bias toward action ("shoot first, ask later or never") often results in financial suicide" (sec. "Adaptive Market Hypothesis" in Field Note #80).

To adopt Daniel Schmachtenberger's words, the existing entrepreneurial ecosystem tends to "socialize the losses while privatizing (monster) gains." (paraphr.)

Perhaps I had been far too shortsighted: In an age of exponential technology, those losses do not only create conditions for a "financial suicide" but an existential one.

The Details.

Companion notes to the interview that is the subject of this Field Note are attached.

You've successfully subscribed to Sandeep C. Ramesh
Great! Next, complete checkout for full access to Sandeep C. Ramesh
Welcome back! You've successfully signed in.
Unable to sign you in. Please try again.
Success! Your account is fully activated, you now have access to all content.
Error! Stripe checkout failed.
Success! Your billing info is updated.
Error! Billing info update failed.