Thinking aloud: deeds vs dollars…

What are your thoughts about the situation when the success of simbi could be against the interests of a state to collect taxes for every exchange? 
— @llabball

What a great milestone for humanity when wisened communities can smoothly self-organise without needing a ‘state’ to mediate? Across the world ‘state’ is synonymous with tribalistic, power-grabbing, self-important, out-of-touch bureaucrats. As an industry, the ‘state’ has latched onto the most powerful business model: heighten your primordial fears, sell you security/nirvana, and divert your money to entrench its negotiating power at the next sales event (election, if that). Meanwhile, the ‘state’ is the biggest enabler of the rigged economy: when did the state last shift tax-payer money to bail out your startup misadventures, or print money to credit your little balance sheet, or cut you slack on your real tax-rate, let alone invite your opinion at the advisory council on the economy?

Technology at its disruptive best should be shifting power back to the people by taking out as much friction as possible from their desire to connect across geographic, political and cultural barriers. That said, money — uncorrupted — is one of the greatest technologies ever invented. Fixing corruption as a ‘bug’ is the actual challenge: that might take inventing a completely new technology to exchange value or debugging the current one, whichever scales quickest and most sustainably (bear in mind every new technology introduces new bugs). Whether machine-powered or human-powered, I see blockchain, Simbi, etc all trying to tackle the same entrenched problem from different angles.

I am willing all of these technologies to succeed in solving one of the great structural barriers standing in the way of a higher order of civilisation (culture is the elephant in the room). I echo much of the sentiment shared by @antonsekatski, @arisalexis, @inventitorfixit … as I carry some scars (and helpful baggage) having failed at a focused attempt a few ago to tame the beast from similar angle as Simbi (in ethos and execution). There are also some subtle red-flags/blindspots from words by @kjer if true disruption of the ‘system’ is indeed the goal. I think a truly disruptive approach, even if we can’t predict its sustainability, needs a radical shift away from the more fundamental ‘bugs’ that have enabled the corrupt status quo: lack of transparency; asymmetry of information flows; inequality in negotiating power on exchanges; metrics of ‘success’ — and a language/vocabulary beyond Silicon Valley’s finest. Statements like these are slippery: “we don’t right now [monetise] as we focus on getting the experience right and building the network”; or “we’re growing the number of services by about 300 each day!”. What’s the future? How is it really different from the present? I think a new new way needs to start with the end-game in mind, and work backwards in an honest (scientific) way with modular and testable components (tech and human). The components ought to be laid out clearly and simply for all who want to jump from the frying pan…