A Butthurt Rant on Insufficient Outsider-Criticism of Blockchains and Cryptocurrencies | Pt. 2/2
Now on a positive note, I did stumble upon some interesting symbologies and subtle visual cues represented in some of the terms and logos used within certain cryptocurrency- and blockchain-projects out there and there could be a great case made here if one is willing to stay close to the actual findings instead of associating everything with occultism right off the bat because of a vaguely similar look. Often though, people are overly quick to relay symbolism back to worrying roots and paint the crypto space as a whole in a certain light when - to my perception - there are different projects started by different people and companies with different agendas in this space - some highly worrying others highly promising, also on a symbolism level.
We need to stay willing to not draw premature conclusions until we can find ACTUAL catches beyond a three-hour surface-investigation of occult logos of secret societies and remotely similar logos of some random blockchain project of today that often has little actual resemblance to what is claimed, unless you squint really hard or want that connection to be established. Or maybe I'm just uninformed about symbology, you tell me.
The effect of this undifferentiated analysis is not only harmful to the crypto space as a whole (because it cements our assumption that everybody outside the space has still not caught on to the times for their apparent lack of understanding of the technology and its potential benefits to humanity), it also is harmful for those stuck in age-old systems of servitude hopelessly looking for a way back to more sovereignty and financial independence who are at the end of the day staying away from this space because of some inferred connection to a clandestine agenda without much substance.
I am tempted to link some of these interviews here but I chose not to do so because I generally appreciate their work in other areas of inquiry and I do not want to portray their engagement for truthseeking as worthless, the same goes for the examples I mentioned in part 1. Many of these shows do great investigative work on a multitude of topics, alternative narratives supported by actual evidence and mindblowing considerations we seldomly stumble upon in mainstream society that go beyond a vaguely similar correlation and wishful association. But as great a job I have heard some interviewees make on certain topics - I am painfully missing the same diligence for the cryptospace and its nuances. Maybe because ithe space as a whole seems like an easy target these days...
I just want to point out that there exists a certain dichotomy between those inside this new technological field totally and bamboozled by the crypto space to a degree that can only be described as gullible... and those on the other side who point at the space from the outside with false and blanket assumptions that are simply unfactual, at least considering the slim trail of "evidence" that has been presented thus far.
I would welcome more willingness from inside the crypto community to point out discrepancies and looming dangers on the horizon that go beyond price action and whatever some self-appointed authority decides to classify cryptos as. While there is a lot of knowledge about the problems of debt-based fiat money in this space, there is just as much ignorance about potential dangers of unfactual interpretations of certain words that could end up biting us in the ass in a major way down the road, i.e. the confusion of actualities with legal fictions to name but one example.
The funny thing is, neither the 'experts' within this space have warned of this (because they may be too carried away with their own assumptions as to what this space is, and their own excitement about being in it so early, overlooking crucial points such as legalese aspects of making contracts)... nor have the allegedly critical interviews from outside this space warned of this, despite their alleged "thorough" analysis of the warning signs inside the space as seen from the outside.
As far as I am concerned, both camps have overlooked major potential catches already that actually do need to be explored and talked about.
So while I OF COURSE do not KNOW with certainty how these cryptocurrency developments will play out myself, I have thought about starting a series on "the crypto conspiracies" of my own - fictional scenarios based on experiential insight into what these technologies offer and where their unrecognized catches may lie. Brainstorming nefarious ideas just so that we can sharpen our view for potential traps in this new space before we are in danger of falling into them unwittingly.
We have to be willing to stay open-minded in our analyses if we really care about the future of projects like Steem etc.
If you feel the same way I would be thrilled to hear from you and I wonder: Did you ever stumble upon a reasonable case for certain projects or the crypto-space as a whole being an utter and unrecognized trap? And if so, shouldn't we draw attention to it among people on Steemit who seem to have a grasp on the technical fundamentals a thousand times more sophisticated than most of the "critical interviews" floating around in cyberspace that try to draw conclusions about the space with a lot of unfounded assumptions?
The best candidates to cast doubt on the crypto space have not been sufficiently explored in my view,. I will gladly change my mind and let everyone know I have been wrong once a sufficiently convincing case IS made but all I hear and read is speculative nonsense and inference by people who have not done their homework to qualify themselves as anyone worth listening to about this space provided you have been part of projects like Steem for more than a few weeks.
Thus far, the only writings I have seen that come close to this analysis-ideal have been the amazing blockchain-conspiracy writing contest hosted by @v4vapid asking people to come up with their best, most solid blockchain conspiracies nobody saw coming (and amazing articles poured in by Steemians from all over the platform), as well as articles by people like @clarityofsignal, @thoughts-in-time and @ura-soul drawing attention to the questionable, censorship-like occurences on the Steem blockchain a few months ago, with influential individuals downvoting certain non-PC comments and articles alleged to be "unscientific nonsense".
I think there is way more to uncover, and if we really want this space to succeed WE have to be willing to make solid cases for AND against developments and individual projects within this space as the early adopters that we are, we can't expect people outside of this space to understand anything about it if we don't ourselves.
It is up to the scouts to glance danger in a new land, not to those settlers coming in with their whole families decades after the land had been first sighted and long settled by pioneers who overlooked major threats due to their amazement for the seeming beauty of these new shores.
We will be back to way more positive things tomorrow but this wanted out for a long time, if only to be taught that I am wrong and to elevate my understanding when somebody actually offers a solid case after reading this rant. If you have one, please never hesitate to share it with the community.
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
wikimedia.org
binance.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com
unsplash.com