Source: "Superstructures with Daniel Schmactenberger" with Kevin Owocki as interviewer, Green Pill episode 32 (Aug. 2, 2022), available on YT.
The Relevance.
In sociology, a "boundary object" is an object that is used as a vehicle or bridge to cross boundaries between different constituents.
"Risk" has been my boundary object.
As it relates to investing--particularly in early-stage venture (and perhaps loudest in many parts of the crypto ecology)--there is a perverse incentive and cultural imperative to focus on upside risk capture while ignoring or footnoting downside risks (sometimes first order, but often second order).
And, this is not merely a problem of "cognitive biases" in the investing process.
In Field Note #80: On "Lessons from Adaptive Market Theory," I posited:
"[G]iven crypto is intertwined with venture and meme-style entrepreneurship, the extreme bias toward action ("shoot first, ask later or never") often results in financial suicide" (sec. "Adaptive Market Hypothesis" in Field Note #80).
To adopt Daniel Schmachtenberger's words, the existing entrepreneurial ecosystem tends to "socialize the losses while privatizing (monster) gains." (paraphr.)
Perhaps I had been far too shortsighted: In an age of exponential technology, those losses do not only create conditions for a "financial suicide" but an existential one.
The Details.
Companion notes to the interview that is the subject of this Field Note are attached.
