Living wearing golden handcuffs, success and having something to lose

dana-edwards (74)in #life • 7 years ago (edited)

What are Golden Handcuffs?

Golden handcuffs, a phrase first recorded in 1976,[1] refers to financial allurements and benefits that have the objective to encourage highly compensated employees to remain within a company or organization instead of moving from company to company (or organization to organization) (opposite of a golden parachute). Golden handcuffs come in different forms: Employee stock options, which endow only when the employee has been with the company or organization for different years and contractual agreements, that consist of bonuses or other forms of benefits which must be repaid to the company if the employee leaves before the date agreed on.[2] Golden handcuffs are frequently used for jobs that require rare and specialised skills or in a "tight labor market", where jobs are more common than workers. In any case, they are very expensive and although they can be less expensive than the cost to replace a particular employee, golden handcuffs often receive scrutiny from shareholders and directors.[3]

As people become more successful, develop a reputation, acquire wealth, or privileged careers/professions, there is a tendency for persons in this position to become gradually more conservative over time. This conservatism can manifest in the form of protecting one's reputation, avoiding legal conflict or and risks, avoiding economic risks, etc. In this case it makes a lot of sense for people who have a lot to lose to avoid risky adventures such as ICOs, playing with altcoins, or any other high risk high return investments. A young person who is poor and who is seeking wealth has much more to gain by taking risks, even if the risk could include big fines, prison, bankruptcy, big losses, etc. In fact, just going to college to get a degree is a big risk, as big as buying into an altcoin or buying Bitcoin, as there is no guarantee that the degree will translate into future employment, yet many young people are encouraged to take that risk, and even encouraged to enlist in the military to risk their lives.

As people get older, gain more success, acquire more wealth, have children, a companion, and then the idea of risking everything on a gamble becomes a lot less attractive. High risk high reward activities are in my opinion most attractive to people who have the least to lose, and because blockchain technology in many cases offers the only opportunities at all to people who are young and poor, the prediction I will make is that there will always be risk takers doing ICOs, betting everything on the next big coin, no matter how big the crackdown is from regulators, no matter what the consequences. It is shown that people will risk everything if the rewards are great enough, and as more money flows into cryptospace there will be many people in positions in society to take on the risks to try to capture life changing rewards. This is something which may be lost on many people who come from backgrounds which are considered well off, or in order words high opportunity backgrounds, but for people who don't come from a high opportunity background the cryptocurrency market is the golden opportunity for people living off $2 a day, or even $10 a day, as the risk vs reward may be much more acceptable culturally.

Conclusion

My conclusion is ICOs are unstoppable just as file sharing is unstoppable. People who are willing to take the risks in exchange for the possibility of getting rich will continue to do so no matter how much there is a crack down. The best or ideal outcome should be to empower the participants in token sales to have automated or enhanced means of due diligence which can leverage decentralized and AI. Traditional regulators in my opinion have very limited tools, and their tools such as fines, or arrests, might work on people afraid of being fined or arrested, but this works best on people who have more to lose than to gain from being fined and or arrested. For people who already have a criminal record, who already are poor, who will do anything to change their economic conditions, then for these people the chance to make millions from an ICO will be irresistible.

If regulators crack down too much it may evolve the situation just as what happened with Napster which led to where we are now, the scenario could result in there being lots of uncensorable ICO scams, along with illicit activity primarily being funded by uncensored ICOs, and even more high risk business concepts being funded, such as Silk Road type businesses, and less mainstream stuff. The funding isn't likely to go away, the risk takers aren't likely to be suppressed, so it's a matter of what is the best way to deal with it where people can start legitimate businesses with minimal regulation? If Legitimate businesses are made no longer practical then illegitimate businesses will probably be funded instead.