Unfortunately people tend make value assessments that I think are horrible, and that causes entire industries to pivot in ways I don't like. For example, I love Nintendo's $60 games that come with plenty of content and no microtransactions. I don't like "free" smartphone games that do the opposite.
However, huge numbers of people have determined that getting nickel-and-dimed with thousands of dollars in microtransactions is something that adds value to their lives. I certainly don't think I have any right to object to their conclusion, except in the way that I'm already objecting: by refusing to spend any money on microtransactions. It just stings a little that I'm quickly finding myself in the minority.
It sounds like you're going through something similar with respect to the cryptocurrency market.
"Whales" - the term for those spending thousands - although few in numbers, are the ones accounting for most of the profit.
https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-whales-of-microtrans...
marketing was born with competition, you need marketing, because you are not the only one good at what you do
marketing is anything and everything you do, to influence others, to achieve your objectives .. this does include the product design and features .. or in other words, the features you chose to include in your product
marketing is not bad, and is not a waste
marketing is not, in my opinion, more important than the skills required to create a product, but it is definitely very important ... because simply put, you are not the only "skilled" one in the market
nah. while not always bad, most of the time it looks like a prisoners dilemma
Building a brand is a skill many artists don't excel at. It requires similar people skills to being a salesman. Often they have to rely on dealers, gallery owners and store owners who have the people skills to do retail and wholesale more successfully. The situation is somewhat mirrored in tech with the schism between programmers and CEO/investor/founder type personalities.
In the niche I work in, some people got lucky and became 'famous' in a kind of underground video way on Instagram and Snapchat. These days it's starting to resemble a more traditional art market.
“To get rich. In what way? Dishonestly if they can, honestly if they must.
[1]: http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/26/technology/business/amazon-e...
With a bit of help from the taxpayers: http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180105/amazon-makes-list-of-l...
So, 0.14% of their workforce.
"Amazon likely has about 700 workers [in Ohio alone] receiving food stamps, more than 10 percent of its Ohio workforce"
"Oh, Father. You're so wrong. Let me explain.
[Puts and empty water glass on his desk]
Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Now take this empty glass. Here it is: peaceful, serene, boring. But if it is destroyed
[Pushes the glass off the table. It shatters on the floor, and several small machines come out to clean it up]
Look at all these little things! So busy now! Notice how each one is useful. A lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life. You see, father, by causing a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business.
It's a good idea - people will act selfishly instinctively, so if you can align that to make it good, then everything works.
Of course, we know raw capitalism doesn't work (e.g: monopolies break it). So our systems have all sorts of hacks to try and fix it. The problem is that so many of the richest people just focus on breaking those fixes and finding gaps to exploit to avoid creating value for society.
Currently, a lot of the groups in power across the world are actively trying to make more of those gaps they can slip through, and remove the layers of fixes we have put in to support the people that are not helped by that simple system.
Yes, it's good for people to want to make money in a capitalist system, assuming the system is perfect and that there is no way to break it is to ignore reality.
No, it's not; that's an after-the-fact rationalization.
I mean, we were a few centuries into the feudalism-capitalism transition before anyone started even talking about property rights in those terms in general, at least another century before capitalism as a system was even described (and by it's critics, not it's supporters), and I think several decades later till this excuse was cited specifically as a justification for capitalism as such.
Capitalism was created, incrementally over time, because rich merchants decided to use their wealth to force feudal overlords to cede progrrssively more power and influence to the rich merchants. Not as a manner to harness greed for the public good. Just as a matter of greed, pure and simple.
My point was that, while that may be the aim of the system, it's not inherent to it - you are backing up my point by saying that it was not always used that way.
No that's completely false. Capitalism is the replacement (and logical continuation) of feudalism, after its collapse, as a system of social stratification. Saying that is trying to validate your thinking and ignoring the history of the matter.
My point was that, while that may be the aim of the system, it's not inherent to it - you are backing up my point by saying that it was not always used that way. (You may argue it still doesn't, although I'd say it does at least to some extent).
The GP was talking about essentially scamming people.
I don't think your assumption is true.
My, how the world was improved by ruthless optimization and margin squeezing, centralization of commerce and retail, concentration of wealth, buying of legislators, invasions of privacy, etc.
Cryptotokens work particularly well because of pseudonymity, a very receptive audience and exchanges that will happily provide a stage for just about anything as long as they get a little cut.
Competition between similarly inflated tokens make success and failure a matter of storytelling quality. The legend doesn't even have to personally convince anybody, but it should lend the sock puppet buys some plausibility.
I love games, but this emerging trend is boring, and worrying in equal measure. Games have shown so much positive potential, and I’ve been defending their value for a couple of decades at least. Now... I’m really worried, st least in the near-term, and I don’t know if I can still support them in the aggregate.
Separately, CMC delisting some Korean exchanges is actually probably a good thing since prices in Korean Won have been trending 20 to 30% higher than crypto assets priced in USD or EUR. It was creating a lot of weird market conditions. A correction in price isn't a bad thing.
If I would join an ICO I would probably not spend more than a few hundreds of dollars on it. Something I wouldn't worry about losing.