Testing of narratives - Reversing the perspective

1 Why does crypto use so much energy?

Immutability, non-changability thus keeping stable relations is physically and energy-wise resisting the forces of time and thermodynamics (entropy) in the macro and micro universe. It’s basically the attempt to stop time. And if the status that shall be kept is not a natural status (and human relationships and interactions are never natural or persistent), it requires ever more energy to keep the 'non-entropy' status. Non-entropy is always a temporary state only (that's why every physical living being dies at some point as the physical status is 'non natural' [better non probably] from an entropy perspective).

Physically it would mean that this will eat its own children to just survive and finally implode as it would even need to consume the energy needed for the real world activities that are mirrored on the blockchain. So either we build on something that eradicates parts of the past (letting go of parts of immutability) after a while and allow entropy to take over again. Or we limit it to cases where it really provides an edge. Which are rarer than most think. Why should you burn all the fossil fuels of the world to maintain a mountain?

Totally natural by the way, as it was developed after the enormous entropy caused through the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). But it turned rogue, thinking the hammer we have will turn everything into a nail.

2 Will AI improve our lives if adopted broadly?

The business model of most of the big tech companies that are involved in social media and/or social interaction is selling ads and helping with marketing mostly useless stuff (or enabling others to do so such as device producers).

So we shouldn’t dismiss this in the GenAI discussion.

Despite we are told that it improves everything, it might not be about AI and real applications (as social media isn't about being social anymore, rather the contrary). But more about keeping you in front of a screen and being nudged to buy things or do things that are helpful for others who pay for it and not for you. Then the hype is more important than the actual utility it provides.

3 Are the original use cases of blockchain technology really fit for private business application?

If blockchains solve societal and governmental issues, then there is no suitable natural and long-term commercial business model for private providers (there might be for them but it will harm communities in the end). 

Blockchain base use cases are identity management, documentation of ownership, therefore (indirectly) store of value, transfer of ownership, documentation of decisions and corresponding changes of ownership, coordination of decentralised computing power (which includes all of the former). These vary to a degree based on context, so my wording is not the same over the years, but the content is.

These are basically functions that are governed and supervised (and determined) in a functioning society by a state. It's basically the legal system that regulates ownership and participation.

So if you think you can fully privatise this without an 'attachment' to a clearly defined group, it might contradict the original ambition. It’s like privatising the firefighters and giving them fire prevention regulation rights. They won’t go for the lowest number of fires and value preserving fire fighting because they will make more money with at least a limited but regular number of fires and moderate severity (as then the value and pricing for their services is easier to be agreed upon).

Actually, this is why the somewhat privately run prison and police industry on this globe often provide worse results than well run public services (though there are even worse examples of state rund ones, too, ofc).

So while you can run it privately and improve compared to a badly run state, it will always be way worse than in a well run state.

4 Is Tech faster than Policy?

Tech moves faster than policy … This is actually fascinating if you think about it with a bit more of depth. Policy historically was driven by business to ensure a minimal level playing field and reliable dispute resolution mechanisms so that businesses do not need to take care of repetitive situations and have more peace of mind and align with broader societal interests easily. In most industries in productive states, policies are written based on intense consultations down to the point that they are written by business associations and lobby groups rather than bureaucrats or politicians.

They try to scapegoat politicians, but you shouldn't fall prey to this. If regulation is bad, usually, the players screwed it themselves. 

So … that means the situation we’re in when we say that Tech moves faster than policy is rather driven by a lack of agility and competitive positioning of the biggest players (and especially foresight). And they are overtaken by new entrants. Be it from within their home countries or from without (the 'China' thing). Together with (real) gradual decline of the funding for real public services (not re-distributions, subsidies, etc., this was up the last decades, but knowledgeable and competent real public services have been harmed a lot), this lack amplifies. THIS is what we see.

Another interpretation is that the big players actually abandon 'their' states rather than that the state doesn't want to provide relevant frameworks. Which explains a lot more of current conflicts of interest and PR-Mania on social and narratives portrayed about 'broken systems' than the given opinions do.

5 Are you in control of your identity, property rights, and decisions?

When we discuss those matters, we love to think that it's OUR identity, OUR property rights, OUR decisions. And that there should be as little intervention as possible to those. Then we would call it 'freedom'.  

But there is an extremely strong fallacy baked into this. Those are all things where ‘the other side matters more’ than you. All of those are of value only if the other side accepts it and respects it. Not if you claim it. If you are alone, no others humans around you, you own nothing. You just 'are'. You can try to tell you something, but you tell it only to yourself. It's a hallucination.

So ultimately, your identity is yours only as long as others respect or agree to what you think your identity is. Why? Because you are the minority. Always. 

You can say you have property rights of ABC. And exert decisions over it as much as you want. But if no one respects it, you can hold as many titles as you want. It's worthless. Actually, that is what happens in a Mafia state.

So the discussion about being free, about identity, property rights, decisions is way more about convincing 'the other side' to accept what you do and not challenge it rather than you doing something. As without consent (implicit, explicit, or by ignoring), you can scream and shout identity, ownership, decisions, opinions, etc. as much as you like. Not worth a penny. And in reciprocity, you need to accept first others' identities, property rights, and decisions before you will qualify for being accepted. A concept many people do not understand. Freedom, identity, property rights, free decisions are mutually dependent, not independent. And you cannot make them independent. This is an interesting relationship to the first question.

Again, that is what happens these days, too. But while the ones who break the old rules are more than aware of this (but their followers don't understand the dire consequences for themselves in the next iteration), the 'old guard' doesn't want to speak out loud.

So What?

Those are interpretations when taking a different than the (often) propagated perspectives. And interestingly, they yield insights. I hope some of you can reflect openly without the 'I don't want to hear this' attitude. You don't need to come to those conclusions. I don't follow those as my starting point was different and still is on some. But it helped me coming to a more balanced approach on some of the matter.