The arena rewards those who arrive early | Hacker News Reader

The arena rewards those who arrive early

workingtheorys.com

What are some of these new arenas? The writer brought up social networks like Clubhouse and Twitter. So what are the new arenas today? Threads?

From the article they mention several:

> User-generated content platforms: Instagram, TikTok, Reddit, Substack - Movements built around new technology: crypto, AI, Apple VisionPro - Communities based on professional/ lifestyle trends: remote work, nomading - Emerging cities/ sub-communities: Palo Alto, Silicon Valley, “Cerebral Valley” - Local establishments: a coffee shop, bookstore, community theater

With the exception of Apple Vision Pro and maybe AI, all of those are mature and examples of previous successes. OP is asking for the next thing. Like joining Twitter in 2006 or Vine in the beginning of 2013.

I don't know, but if you asked about 5 years ago, people would have told you that the plant-based meat "arena" is growing exponentially and you MUST invest in the early adopters (Beyond Meat, Impossible). Same with cannabis (Tilray, Med Men).

IMO there are arenas which are long lived slow growing. We might not define them as arenas, because the word used gives the impression of an enclosed space.

These long lived arenas will reward persistence, that is simply being part of them ends up paying dividends in the long term. Though this could be due to survival of the fittest.

An example I think is in academia/research.

This article is a meta-contradiction of itself. It also suffers from confirmation bias, think of all the "arenas" which failed or provided no advantage. But it discusses nostalgia for various "arenas" in their earlier stages. This is because the early-adopters had some genuine interest in being there. Whether that was early Tech Twitter, moving to Austin or Asheville, or talking about preserving old-school sneakers, whatever. Of course, as these things get popular and begin to produce economic opportunities, the original interest gets diluted by plenty of people with little genuine interest in the base concept but lots of interest in making money. So the suggestion of the article, is simply to jump on any trend or novel idea or new web site early, regardless of genuine interest, in order to optimize your position to reap economic benefits later. The article acknowledges the popularity of "arenas" that initially grew due to genuine interest, then suggests you disregard your genuine interests in order find, and to participate in (and pollute) as many early "arenas" as possible.

Did we read the same article?

"New arenas are by nature unproven. In order to get the potential benefit, you have to invest time early on without a guarantee of any kind of satisfying return. And new arenas often fail. Even if they don’t, the rules of the game are controlled by someone else. This is a common critique of social media platforms that court creators to invest time in their platform without offering any guarantees in return.

So the truth is you have to have some tolerance for risk to play in new arenas."

At the end: "Find out what games will be played there and the arbitrage opportunities that may pop up. Then decide which ones are worth investing time in. Prioritize. Be picky."

Being picky is the opposite of "participate in (and pollute) as many early "arenas" as possible." to me.

It's just a commentary on not overlooking new things and a counterweight to all the people who say "All new things are gone, there's nothing like XYZ anymore"

> Find out what games will be played there and the arbitrage opportunities that may pop up

It is advising you to get involved in new communities based on the economic rewards that may be available in the future rather than any actual interest in the focus of that community.

You have a finite amount of time, so yes, ultimately you have to be picky on which communities you will fully commit to. However the author is still advising you to dip your toe into a wide range of "arenas", regardless of personal interest, in order to choose those with the highest economic prospects.

I take "Then decide which ones are worth investing time in" to mean do I have interest in it. If I don't, it's not worth my time.

I think we are just reading this article in different ways, I don't find it so cynical.

I believe I can do something I like, AND it be of economic interest. e.g. I enjoyed being in the early Counter Strike competitive scene, it also ended up giving me some of the most valuable connections I have. The two are not mutually exclusive. Economic benefit != malicious exploitation. Most environments are positive sum not zero sum.

It's interesting to recognize when you are in an "early arena" because the people there are unique and have self-selected for an interesting reason.

Did you choose to get involved with Counter Strike after "looking for signals about which arenas are likely to reward you, to endure, and to scale"? Or did you get involved because you loved Counter Strike, and the fellow people who played it?

I'm guessing you dove in because of the latter, and happily did so without any long-term economic expectations whatsoever.

Ironically, I was a professional at the time so there were "long term economic benefits" (if you can call them that hah). Sounds like we just live different lives; I don't really go through my life completely unaware of the value/privilege of situations I am in. Not because I want to "exploit" them, but just because it's hard not to see "signals about which arenas are likely to reward you, to endure, and to scale"

Another alternative is to not fight. Just be a spectator. The fatigue of having to find the “newest and best arena” really got to me (looking at you, Elon buying twitter)

No, I just read stuff here, write stuff there. It’s a more solitary life, but I don’t regret it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com