competition and sports-like rivalry could be a big part of the appeal at least in these early days of crypto. also, scams and bad projects don't do the ecosystem any good. the article brought up some interesting points, but I think there's more to it than that
Having organized fud campaigns just to hurt other blockchains will not help the market succeed, it hurts it. That’s the point of the article. Competition is amazing, but creating fake news to create giant sell offs is not competition. Its called being a scumbag.
sure, you shouldn't lie about other people's coins, but most coins don't need lying about, the truth works just fine
edit: for instance, some people may call this FUD, but I think these are facts worth discussing. Stellar is run by someone who has a poor track record of leaving projects in a mess, or trying to bring them down vindictively on his way out. Is that a fair thing to bring up?
I agree with you. You seem like an intelligent person with smarts so i know youre not ignorant to the fact that organized fud campaigns exist on a daily basis. The perfect example was 2 night ago: on /cc they were talking about verge (i only invested in it for the pump and sold at 1400 so i could care less about this coin) and the exact words were (its been deleted) “if the partnership is real do we apologize or should we just move onto the next fud campaign. About 30 people answered, 25-27 were “obv fud”, “fud 3.0”, fudding all the way, “fud bc fuk verge” the list goes on and one. We are all here for the same goals- to make money and to take down the 1%. We need to do it together and we will ALL succeed. That is the point of the article and it is spot on. I use to play minor league ball and Yes, competition is the best thing for any market, but it needs to end at competition NOT TRIBALISM.
yea, there are no doubt fud campaigns, coordinated and some possibly paid for just as there are shilling campaigns of the same nature. very bad for everyone. misinformation gets spread this way that has an amazing ability to persist for a long time, and has a big impact on people new to the scene. that said, I have no problem calling out legitimate issues with any project. even bitcoin. there is a lot to like about bitcoin, but we shouldn't ignore some of the real issues it has. every coin/project has issues and they should all be discussed.
Couldnt have said it better. Bringing up valid concerns is not fud and that word gets thrown around like crazy. In the end if we all came together it would work out for everybody and less new people would be afraid to invest. Imagine wanting to invest and seeing all the garbage that is thrown around on the /cc sub on a daily basis? Thank god i didnt get into reddit for a good year and a half after i invested. I would never have made it to being a crypto millionaire haha. 0% liquid tho which sucks hahahah
Notice how there isnt a single upvote? Bc people on this sub dont care and all they care about are the coins they hold. Little do they know these organized fud campaigns are slowing down the growth of the market.
I fundamentally disagree with the idea that this atmosphere is irrational. There is a lot of utility at the individual level in being obnoxiously disagreeable, assuming you don't take to it too far to the point of being impossible to deal with. Convincing people to be more congenial like this article is doing is actually part of the strategy of being a dick, because it's in your interest to gradually weed out people with less of a propensity for conflict to acquiesce. This is a game of chicken where you benefit from hanging in there as long as possible without making concessions.
Author here. Thanks for reading the article.
I'm confused - what do we have to gain by being obnoxious? How is encouraging people to be cool to one another tantamount to being a dick?
To be clear, I believe there's absolutely nothing wrong with conflict. Let's embrace that. One can be conflictual while still having the type of respectful, academic discussions that ultimately leads to better technology. As I said:
"Note that nobody is suggesting papering over differences. Just as narrow-minded tribalism is a pox on actual progress, mindlessly singing Kumbaya and joining hands is a path to failure. This is not an appeal to ignore differences, but rather to celebrate them and discuss them as human beings who respect one another. "
Also, the other general point here is that people are missing the big picture. Narrow tribalism is ignoring the fact that blockchain technology is a giant, thriving ecosystem that solve a lot of problems posed by centralization. No one project is going to solve everything. We need to think bigger.
>There is a lot of utility at the individual level in being obnoxiously disagreeable
You state this as a fact without any supporting justification. I would argue that it's fine to have different opinions, even better to debate them, but when it becomes obnoxious then the debate becomes destructive rather than constructive.
There's no suggestion that alternative or conflicting views shouldn't be part of this community, its an encouragement to be a bit more reasoned in our debates, and less child-like. And to see the bigger picture, as outlined well in this article.
You misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not misinterpreting the article at all. I'm not talking about the value of different opinions. I'm not talking about the value of disagreement or conflicting views. I'm specifically talking about how literally being a toxic dick has utility, so we're not going to solve anything by just wagging our fingers at this behavior, without trying to understand maybe why this behavior exists in the first place, and addressing those incentives.
Disagreeable people make more money.
Not sure how it relates though.
Sure. With a conversation, the parties come with pieces of a puzzle and throughout it we assemble it together and hopefully both grow as a result.
A good negotiation leaves both parties satisfied, like a conversation.
Roger Ver, Rick Falkvinge I would consider highly disagreeable. It doesn't mean you can't agree with them, but they stick by their convictions. Yes I want more of them.
Disagreeable people are either trolls or immune to trolling.
I would suggest you can sub-divide disagreeable people into two categories:
- those that stand up for what they believe and argue constructively, like Roger and Rick (and are imune to trolls)
- those that troll, not looking to progress a debate, looking to 'win' or disrupt
I just want rid of the second lot. They are more in number and noisier than the first group.