Jameson Lopp tweeted recently that you can be a part of the Bitcoin Community and not understand it. For most people it doesn’t matter. Most people can’t explain heating systems, plumbing, computers, phones, networks etc at a granular level and yet the same people sell, invest and provide news about them. What most people do is ‘trust by proxy.’
We rely on experts to tell us that these things are safe and mostly it works well. What percentage of the population has ever had very serious issues with smartphones, electricity and their heater? A very small amount. The same can’t be said about investments, politicians and economists predictions. Nassim Taleb thinks that there is an expert problem in general when it comes to politics, money and economics. Bitcoin is of course an attempt to solve the money problem but has political problems of its own.
As someone who is not strong on maths but has spent 1000 hours reading about money and bitcoin over the last 3 years, I am a relatively early adopter but certainly not an expert. My only strength has been observing group behaviour and predicting promising teams. I filter my information through proxies (mostly on Twitter) based on certain criteria. Here are a few of them:
Using this formula I have come to depend on a mix of opinions from the following people. You may have your own A Team.
Naval Ravikant
Adam Back
Vinny lingham
Charlie Lee
Tuur Demester
Spencer Bogart
I have these people in a separate list on Twitter that I read first. It takes curation though, and I may add and remove them if they stop exhibiting the above mentioned characteristics. I also also conscious of their biases when I read their opinions. I have a feeling that a few others will become promising but I will wait until they have been around a while and I can assess their track record.
And yet I still check the comments of a wider group that includes those on the other side of the scaling debate regularly to test my assumptions. I also read the general crypto news once a week. It rarely reveals unusual insights but it is useful for two things:
1. Thought Trends - Consensus panic or euphoria around something is worth noting because it’s almost always exaggerated. Trump, Brexit, black scaling, doom etc. come into this category for me. If a phenomenon is widely discussed, it has historically been less likely to have as big an impact as people think. When you see big headings shouting warnings, you can be reassured that they have been largely priced into the market. Black Swans are unforeseeable shocks.
2. Small nuggets. The smaller articles are where potential gems are because they have been declared as minor topics by the editors. As editors are trying to give readers what they want, they are less incentivised to challenge them. I try to read smaller articles more closely than big ones.
If it is well flagged, it is priced in. I look for promising changes on the margin and go deep if it continues to be promising. I hope the same system works for you.
We rely on experts to tell us that these things are safe and mostly it works well. What percentage of the population has ever had very serious issues with smartphones, electricity and their heater? A very small amount. The same can’t be said about investments, politicians and economists predictions. Nassim Taleb thinks that there is an expert problem in general when it comes to politics, money and economics. Bitcoin is of course an attempt to solve the money problem but has political problems of its own.
As someone who is not strong on maths but has spent 1000 hours reading about money and bitcoin over the last 3 years, I am a relatively early adopter but certainly not an expert. My only strength has been observing group behaviour and predicting promising teams. I filter my information through proxies (mostly on Twitter) based on certain criteria. Here are a few of them:
- Skin in the game - declared
- A measured flexible approach.
- Some kind of track record (Technical, time in the community, or correct predictions)
Using this formula I have come to depend on a mix of opinions from the following people. You may have your own A Team.
Naval Ravikant
Adam Back
Vinny lingham
Charlie Lee
Tuur Demester
Spencer Bogart
I have these people in a separate list on Twitter that I read first. It takes curation though, and I may add and remove them if they stop exhibiting the above mentioned characteristics. I also also conscious of their biases when I read their opinions. I have a feeling that a few others will become promising but I will wait until they have been around a while and I can assess their track record.
And yet I still check the comments of a wider group that includes those on the other side of the scaling debate regularly to test my assumptions. I also read the general crypto news once a week. It rarely reveals unusual insights but it is useful for two things:
1. Thought Trends - Consensus panic or euphoria around something is worth noting because it’s almost always exaggerated. Trump, Brexit, black scaling, doom etc. come into this category for me. If a phenomenon is widely discussed, it has historically been less likely to have as big an impact as people think. When you see big headings shouting warnings, you can be reassured that they have been largely priced into the market. Black Swans are unforeseeable shocks.
2. Small nuggets. The smaller articles are where potential gems are because they have been declared as minor topics by the editors. As editors are trying to give readers what they want, they are less incentivised to challenge them. I try to read smaller articles more closely than big ones.
If it is well flagged, it is priced in. I look for promising changes on the margin and go deep if it continues to be promising. I hope the same system works for you.
RSS Feed