Granted the title of this post might seem like I've all of the sudden become one of those crypto-prophets of doom, but I assure you this is not the case, not even close. However, I'm not blind to the reasons why some crypto-projects don't make it, and being someone who enjoys learning, I've dedicated quite a bit of my time to studying humanity if you will, what has made otherwise great ideas fail miserably.

img src

The Head of the Spear

I don't remember precisely when someone shared with me this concept, but it's been one of those truths that no matter to what aspect of my life I apply, it never ceases to be effective. To be honest, as archaic as it might seem at first glance, the concept that is, there are evolutionary reasons as to why we default to these dynamics.

Regardless of the project or initiative we are talking about, something akin to "The head of a spear" must exist, and be clearly defined. Some would argue that I'm making a case for the lack of a democratic system, but I think that critique comes from conflating this concept with mainstream politics.

My point however, is that someone, or a group of people, must hold a clear vision of where the project needs to go, and must be willing to make plenty of sacrifices to get there. These leaders, because that is what they are, must realize that in the initial stages of their projects, their role is almost strictly one of self sacrifice and delayed gratification. In other words, they must be ready to be uncomfortable, to confront disappointment, and to be constantly reassessing their goals and expectations.

In my personal experience, the selection of the core team, sometimes comically comprised by one, is most often than not the make or break variable. In other words, if the leadership has different goals in mind, and is unwilling to be flexible, whether its ego driven or not, the desired lift off will more than likely never happen.

Among the participants of the project's core team, there also seems to be a need for a hierarchy system, and this can be a controversial thought for some to accept. However, experience has taught me that this is just a feature of human nature we can't get away from. If there is not one person with a higher vote per say, one who get's taken as more committed to the long term outcome, or even just stronger, because that word is not out of place here, then the culture and direction of the project suffers a lot, especially at times of difficulty, and there is never a shortage for those.

Shaping Culture

All projects require a set culture, a mindset that somewhat dominates the plethora of conflicting ideas. Yes, by all means every individual that contributes to a project has different ideas on how to solve issues, how to overcome challenges the project was created for, but if the culture of behavior is not set by the time big differences arise, those difference can create a negative domino effect and sometimes kill the momentum.

There are many elements of psychology here at play and I don't pretend to be able to outline them all effectively, but in a very basic level we are all capable of understanding the dynamics that take place. However, for the sake of abandoning abstracts lets define some palpable examples we can all relate to.

A strong positive culture if effective might create less friction between incompatible personalities. Have we not met two people that can't seem to stand each other, yet their similarities are comically undeniable? I'm sure very few people can tell me they've never encountered such conundrum, but if the culture is right, these opposing characters can learn to respect each other and thus agree to disagree for the sake of project.

A negative culture or environment is not necessarily one that promotes negative behaviors, although it could be, but it's more accurately described as one that is not worth "saving". In other words, if the culture of a project is normally negative or toxic then, What difference would more toxicity make? To a rational mind, any toxicity is bad, but we default into adding more stripes to a tiger because in end it was a tiger anyways.

But we can't really look at a negative culture and in the same breath say that it fosters growth and happiness. Needless to say, one of our directives as sentient beings is to move away from discomfort towards comfort, so it's unavoidable that toxic cultures spray emotional cyanide on everyone who is in them, usually leading people to move away from the toxic situations.

Resilience & Expectations

I think these two concepts are quite connected because more often than not, when expectations are not set correctly the projects resilience gets put to the test. There will always be crucial stages for projects, whether its funding, member recruiting, etc. It's exactly when these stages are planned that expectations are set, and thus most put themselves in a precarious emotional situation.

I often compare setting expectations to placing bets. Because in many ways it seems to be precisely what we are doing. The moment we believe that something has to work, we've already deposited a sort of emotional weight on that certainty, and if for some reason it doesn't happen the way we thought, that investment is lost, and all the emotional kickback sets in with that failure.

It might seem a bit too much to connect the idea of being emotionally attached to investments, but they are very much connected. I would even go as far as to say that emotional investment is one of the riskiest type of investments we can ever take on, because the success or failure of them is connected to our sense of self worth, and that branches out into different aspects of our lives.

In my view dedicating a lot of mental power towards having reasonable expectations at every step of the way is time well spent. Simply because disappointment chips away at our resilience, at our ability to continue when things are not optimal.

If I had to give some solid advice to anyone who is thinking about taking on a project is this:

"Be prepared to fail, but don't stay on the floor for too long."