it is 'selfish' from the point of the collective to do so
Shit Punk Says
Oceans of Wisdom
19,158
matching drops
#1459158
2026-09-22 15:17
but because public education allows people with various talents to become maximally useful to society regardless of the economic circumstances of their birth
the reason we have free public education is not because someone cares specifically about you personally
but the purpose of the system is to optimize the collective, not to optimize you
systems still very imperfect
as we learn more, as humanity, we get better at this
is to get the right people, into the right position, with the right support to be maximally useful for society, for the collective
so the purpose of any civilization scale system
physics does not care
there is no equality of outcome
if someone jumps out of a helicopter incorrectly they die
and these things have different outcomes due to reality
someone has to jump out of helicopters special forces style, someone has to do genomics experiments, someone has to pick up the trash, someone has to dance ballet
which is right, I think
it cares about optimizing the collective
it cares about the collective
the system does not actually care about you personally
because the system (whether genetics or society) is not organized on behalf of optimizing for you personally
humanity's strength is having this vast spikeyness
in almost every aspect of life, there are many people who are better than me, it can't be any other way, there are 8 billion people, we have diverse genetic and environmental backgrounds, our skills, personality, motivations are all going to be different
it can't be any other way
what one does with those opportunities has to be your own issue
what we can do is offer a transparent, open, non-discriminatory platform where everyone is respected and given the same opportunities regardless of their background
maybe everyone was supposed to have equal outcomes in communism but stalin sure seemed to live in a bigger, nicer house than someone in siberia
and any and all attempts to force this just replicate the same outcome but in annoying and transparent and inefficient ways
systems are 'adverserial' because resources are limited
systems have this outcome
anytime real world resources are involved
and while this example is silly and stylized
and the tigers can all starve to death
from the gazelle's perspective, the optimal amount of times the tigers will eat them is zero
imagine the following: "I would like every tiger to eat an equal number of gazelles" so it is fair to all tigers
sure, but I am pretty sure the gazelles have some skin in the game too and views about this too!
forgets that there is someone else at the table, the counterparty who has agency
:to guarantee great outcomes for everyone"
lol there is no chance we will do this - it will break instantly! of course it is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome - equality of outcome has never been achieved in human history (or in nature) and we are not going to break the laws of physics and biology here
There is a danger in attempting to engineer a system that guarantees great outcomes for everyone.
Systems should aim to create equal opportunity, not equal results.
In the current design, the rules are transparent: anyone can submit, and anyone can vote in proportion to the TDH they have accumulated. Participation is open, influence is earned through time, commitment, and alignment with the network.
If we start redesigning the mechanism so that voting power is more evenly distributed regardless of contribution, we risk undermining the very incentives that make the protocol function. TDH exists because attention, risk, and long-term presence matter. Diluting that relationship weakens the signal and removes the motivation to commit in the first place.
A system that tries to flatten outcomes in the name of “fairness“ often ends up punishing engagement while rewarding passivity. In doing so, it may feel morally attractive at first, but structurally it erodes the behaviors that allowed the network to grow.
History offers many examples of this pattern. Efforts to equalize results rather than opportunities frequently led to stagnation, declining productivity, and the disappearance of responsibility. When rewards no longer correlate with effort or risk, participation becomes symbolic instead of real.
By contrast, systems that keep entry open but allow differences in outcome tend to generate stronger incentives, clearer signals of value, and more durable coordination.
The present protocol is not perfect, but it preserves a crucial property:
you can join at any time, and what you build from there depends on what you contribute.
hard but right
it is anyway the right answer
we need to be ZKP all the way
it is ZKP all the way
vitalik has cleared up his roadmap
anyway the time is now
KIND REMINDER @[6529er] LOL
also wanted to ask really quick if there's any update on the first exibition for the photography museum/collection? no rush of course just curious!
can you share with punk6529?
oh it’s private at the moment
wen maybebartechfeedback?
github link is 404ing
https://ethunlock.io Is open source Decentralized lock that will open via address or TDH (product)
and force us to first principles
i will need to implement some executive privilege soon
and will never stop
and 1 year later new features all day every day
i said a year ago today we just put a skeleton chat up etc etc