Today I was talking to some web3 / startup folks in SF and I can finally articulate a theory that’s been brewing in my mind for the last two months.
Indian folks who got the worst part of the deal by being in India / Asia vs in the Bay Area will be the ones to discriminate against other Indians going through the same battle.
My initial thought was this insecurity. But I don’t think it is.
This is their Stockholm Syndrome that you become what you were fighting against.
I know many founders/operators who have complained about being treated differently coz they live in India.
Now that they are here, they will do the same thing to a newer lot of founders coming in from India.
—-
This is pretty crazy to my mind. I don’t think they know they are doing it. Or maybe they do and the idea is that something is missing in that culture that you must change completely.
The guy who found an underappreciated unpolished dev from a tier-2 town and fought for him is the one shitting on a founder who has more users than most of their clients without raising a single $.
—-
When I say I think Indian culture is under threat, it is hard to explain but this is what I’m talking about.
You know that one person you thought was your friend but suddenly got a great job and started treating you differently when you visited their home?
This is the moment hyper-capitalism and hyper-individualism begin.
This is just the first attempt. I think I have a year’s worth of research + thinking + observation to nail this down.
But once I do, I will plug this leakage in our culture.
—-
Side: that is why i respect people like Sandeep. He was and is always a heart guy more than a mind guy.
—-
Side: That is why there is no Indian mafia in the US. Fuck, there is no Indian mafia in the US in any vertical. Is there? Shittt, this is a big deal. I know why it is not. You can’t even do well because you play a mediocre game with values conflicting with your own.
—
Idea: Maybe it is time to create this mafia. Handpick those who get it. It be great because it will look like a gathering of weirdos who aren’t Bn$ founders or great FAANG employees. These are empaths who know it all but haven’t coordinated.
Web3 natives are very young who understand the nuances and are getting paid $5-10k via just bounties and airdrops. They are new to the business / corporate side of things.
Some people have worked at an agency and they know how it works but have little idea about web3.
Then some people possess a particular skill. They are a good writer and they may know web3 or agency business.
I was talking to a top SF-based VC about a Web3 incubation program.
He said: but the conversion ratio is very low.
What he meant is the conversion from hacker numbers to founder numbers.
Although I’m writing this from a chain perspective, this applies largely to any web3 project trying to drive adoption, and major overlap with the early-stage VC mindset is needed.
Hacker and Founder
Hacker numbers are typically what a Layer 1 would track:
Integrations
Transactions per app
Key infra building
This requires a lot of developers building various layers, which is education and dev support. Even hackathons.
I can see a hacker is an engineer with a laptop. Highly intelligent and knows how to build software.
But the VCs who invest in these Dapps or downstream protocols are looking for their growth possibilities.
Their metrics are:
TAM
Market share
Revenue
Traction
Community
These metrics require a founder’s mindset.
The persona of a founder is someone who is making sales calls, doing investor pitches, working with cost optimization, hiring a formidable team.
Globally, only a fraction of devs end up being founders. I believe most don’t even intend to. After all, a founder’s life is not an easy one.
Web3 Dev Ecosystem
Back to the market, a typical hackathon participant, a hacker, is a young graduate or a student looking to learn, and maybe a job.
The sheer number of hackers is staggering.
Thousands of projects across Eth Hackathons.
But how many of these got funded? Less than 2% according to an estimate.
This plus some peculiarities creates typical conditions for those driving adoption. Let me discuss three specific factors.
Time from hackathon to funding is high
Let’s say we find a good hackathon project with a founder(s) (or founder material) at the helm. This founder/team will go through the funnel and get funding between 6-12 months. From Preseed to Seed sometimes takes 1-2 years even for good founders.
One factor that I’ve identified is definitely the lack of emphasis/support on the business side of things. Almost zero education. Hardly any VC will train or be hands-on. Coaching is only for the most elite founders. There might be other factors too.
For an L1, this means the cost of supporting every founder from hackathon to seed funding is much higher. And the pipeline for their venture arm will look very different.
Education and Adoption often don’t go along
These two goals look like they have a lot of overlap. And often a chain/protocol will spend a lot of money in education while expecting adoption (integrations and transactions).
Education initiatives like college outreach, workshops, meetups, and devrel support will lead to branding + integrations that will be abandoned.
Whereas real integrations that sustain + transactions will come from funded startups that manage to scale and dominate a market.
Remember the difference between a hacker and a founder?
Chain ecosystem folks and VC arms see this as one funnel.
But these are two separate tracks. And mixing their efforts + budget will not yield results in either.
There is no Stanford (sadly!) where you have hackers going through the founder’s funnel with the support of YC, angel networks, advisors, coaches or venture studios.
Don’t spend wide, spend deep
We saw that the numbers game is skewed here. Spending wide in the name of adoption will not lead to any ROI. The surface area is too wide.
I’ve seen one chain setting up a stall in Goa trying to “educate” tourists to download their wallet for $10 airdrop of their token.
Many have organized meetups where students are “incentivised” with t-shirts, food or drinks.
Or workshops in colleges without any record of producing founders. Glamorous hackathons. Parties and the list can go on.
Those who intend to build a sustainable scaled startup care for tech, support, and focused ecosystem support in getting off the ground. What they don’t know they need is business education, support, and coaching.
Conclusion
This market is different. But chains / VCs have been the degens in the last cycle. Without understanding the nuances, they’ve ended up shooting with a machine gun instead of sniping.
This cycle is for correction.
Experiments:
Founder House at EthIndia was an experiment to see if we could provide an disproportionately high attention and money to founders.
Founder House
10 devs who want to create unicorn companies/projects in 1 Villa For 10 days
❌ No merch ❌ No bounties ❌ No alcohol ✅ Free stay for 10 days ✅ Good food 🤯 Other brilliant minds ✅ Work from one villa
Asymmetric returns and power have always been building the core tech rails for any innovation/invention.
I visualize this cycle as going ‘from scammers to suits’.
I will not spend time researching mind-blowing examples but explaining the theory. It should be obvious to those who have studied or witnessed a wave with shiddat. Some day, I will revise this and sprinkle it with examples, and name the participants to add color.
Every tech starts on the fringes.
Few adopt it for fun.
More come in for the cause.
The decision of whether the tech has more impact than cost is decided at this level.
Many technologies die at this stage.
Those that do have more impact than cost start creating value for those in it for the cause and for fun.
This is seen by speculators. Speculators will consist of short-term thinkers and a small portion of believers.
Short-term thinkers will often fund scammers while believers try and build something cool and useful.
Speculators will provide the budget for lift-off. Some of these speculators are also distribution/media channels to spread the technology.
Early adopters will enter.
Speculators + early adopters help cross the chasm towards mainstream adoption.
Before crossing the chasm, since the technology is so new and there is hardly any clear standards, it is quite difficult to identify the scammers from the believers.
Once mainstream users start trickling in, there is a clear need for consolidation, standards, and a coherent narrative.
This is where the suits shine.
Consulting firms, hedge funds, and everyone else will enter now that there is certainty.
It is time for the degens to get out because they do not like the dilution of ethos and bureaucracy brought on by the suits.
Some of the degens mature to become veterans and stay as the status quo.
This is purely based on my observation. Tell me where are the inconsistencies. I will keep refining this model to arrive at a good framework.
‘Community’ has become an egalitarian word. Words like diversity, inclusion, and association with socialism and communism have made it look like communities are a bunch of people being merry all day.
It is anything but that.
Community can be seen as the line you draw between an insider and an outsider.
There is no community without an outsider.
I’ve been telling my trusted circle that 8 billion people CANNOT be one community. Even if aliens attacked us, it would not be possible for such a large number of small-brained humans to trust each other.
So definitely there are more tribes than one.
Dunbar number is very clear. It does hold even while we design structures, culture, and protocols to scale communities.
The strongest of communities are the ones where insiders have great Affinity, which is only efficient in a small group of people.
Defining an insider’s and an outsider’s values, beliefs, and lifestyle is something that defines the affinity quotient later in the life of the community.
“Sit down, motherfuckers. I am going to tell you a story,” the wise old dog, Zeno, said with a voice that resonated with centuries of wisdom, as the others hushed their barks and whines, settling into a semi-circle around him.
“So, we’re at a crossroads,” Zeno continued, his eyes glinting under the artificial moonlight of the dome city. “Lord Bonn-Oberkassel made a choice millennia ago, observing humans, deciding to co-evolve with them. And now, here we are, 15,000 years later, grappling with the consequences of that ancient pact.”
The Labrador, Max, stood up, his augmented neural implant flickering with frustration. “It’s simple. We demand real food! Not this synthetic slop. We’re not circuit boards and wires; we need the nutrients from natural sources!”
A sleek, robotic dog, model K9-X, spoke next, its voice modulated and serene. “Transporting us in bags, subjecting us to extreme climates… We’re not accessories, we’re living beings. This isn’t what co-evolution should look like.”
The husky, Luna, her eyes reflecting a deep sadness, added softly, “They don’t love us, not really. Not if they keep treating us this way.”
The poet dog, a Spaniel named Byron, its fur glistening with bio-luminescent streaks, spoke with a lyrical cadence, “This is a toxic relationship. Humans, who claim to love us, are the ones making us live the most unnatural lives.”
“Enough!” Zeno barked, silencing them. “Remember the African wild dog? Nearly extinct. Their ancestors didn’t foresee that, did they? We have two paths before us, my friends.”
Max suggested, “We could go free range, live in the wild, away from human interference.”
Zeno nodded thoughtfully. “Yes, we could. But remember, humans themselves, even those born into the simplicity of nature, often find themselves drawn to the complexities of their cities. They leave behind the beauty of a simple life for a taste of the urban chaos.”
“So here we are,” Zeno declared, his voice rising with a mix of passion and gravity. “Option one: We continue living under human rule, safe but unfulfilled, or option two: We break away, seeking a life of freedom and authenticity, but facing the unknown dangers of a world that’s forgotten us.”
He paced back and forth, the light casting dramatic shadows across his aged face. “This isn’t just about survival. It’s about identity. Are we mere pets, or are we beings with a deeper purpose, a wild spirit waiting to be unleashed? Humans face this too – the eternal struggle between safety and freedom, the known and the unknown.”
Zeno stopped, looking each of them in the eye. “The choice we make today will define our future. Will we remain shackled by comfort and predictability, or will we embrace the untamed wilderness within us, despite the risks? This, my friends, is our moment. Our decision will echo through history. What say you?”
From this tweet by Sam Knowlton: https://twitter.com/samdknowlton/status/1615742176151113730
— In the zone below the agroforestry, Hawaiians grew their most important staple and culturally significant crop: taro This zone was terraced and irrigated with water from the mountain streams. Water was diverted into the terraced pools, gently spilling from one to the next
Excess water would return to the stream, where it continued towards the sea. The freshwater would eventually meet the sea and spill into rock-walled fish ponds in the tidal pools. Fish were captured with sluice gates and fattened up in the nutrient-rich brackish water
A recent study concluded that the ahupua’a system could produce 1 million metric tons of food from just 6 percent of Hawaii’s land. That’s enough to feed all of the estimated 1.2 million pre-contact Native Hawaiians, or 86% of the current population of Hawaii, 1.4 million.
In contrast, Hawaii’s current farmland covers 3x more land than before 1777, and the total food produced through modern methods is only 151,700 metric tons That’s only 15% of what was produced more than 200 years ago by Native Hawaiians on 3x less land without external inputs
The ahuapua’a system was first conceived around the 15th century. It was successfully used for more than 1,000 years to produce a cornucopia of foods, maximize and sustain precious water resources, preserve a rich ecology, and support a vibrant culture.
Today, we go straight for the shiny technological fix; we’ve lost track of the whole and focus too much on the individual pieces, resulting in fragile agriculture systems The ahuapa’a is an example of the kind of agricultural ingenuity that is possible in each unique bio-region
The second to last tweet should read: The ahuapua’a system is believed to have been conceived in the 15 century. However, some evidence shows that it was successfully used for over 1,000 years. Thanks to all who pointed out my math deficiency. I also mix up my colors.
ChatGPT research
Hawaii’s Journey to Self-Sufficiency in Food: A Historical Perspective
Introduction
The Hawaiian Islands, known for their captivating beauty and rich culture, also hold a remarkable history of self-sufficiency in food production. This blog post delves into Hawaii’s past, exploring how the islands once thrived on an agricultural system that was both sustainable and robust.
The Era of Self-Sufficiency
Caption: Traditional Hawaiian agricultural practices.
In the times before Western contact, the Hawaiian Islands were a model of self-sufficiency. Utilizing just six percent of the land, the native Hawaiians were able to produce over a million metric tons of food annually. This impressive feat was achieved through a sophisticated system of land management and agriculture, known as the “ahupua’a” system. This system divided the land into pie-shaped sections extending from the mountains to the sea, encompassing diverse ecological zones that allowed for a variety of crops and farming methods.
Challenges and Adaptation
Despite the efficiency of their system, Hawaiians faced challenges such as periodic famines, usually triggered by natural disruptions or social upheavals. However, the resilience of their agricultural practices and their deep understanding of the land enabled them to overcome these obstacles and maintain a stable food supply.
Transition and Change
Caption: The impact of Western contact on Hawaiian agriculture.
The arrival of Westerners marked a significant turning point in Hawaii’s agricultural history. The integration into global trade networks shifted the focus from self-sufficiency to exportation. This change gradually eroded traditional farming practices and led to a decline in local food production.
Legacy and Lessons for the Future
Caption: Modern agriculture in Hawaii and the revival of traditional practices.
Today, Hawaii’s history of self-sufficiency serves as a vital lesson. It highlights the potential and importance of sustainable agriculture and food security. Efforts are now being made to revive some of these traditional practices, adapting them to modern needs and challenges, and aiming to reduce the dependency on food imports.
Conclusion
Hawaii’s journey from a self-sufficient past to its current state offers valuable insights into the importance of sustainable agricultural practices. As the world grapples with issues of food security and sustainability, Hawaii’s history serves as both a cautionary tale and a source of inspiration.
To complete this blog post, let’s add some illustrative images that correspond to the various stages of Hawaii’s agricultural history.
Here are the illustrations to accompany the blog post on Hawaii’s historical self-sufficiency in food:
Traditional Hawaiian Agricultural Practices: This image illustrates the ancient Hawaiians farming on terraced fields with a variety of crops. The lush greenery, with a backdrop of mountains and sea under a bright blue sky, highlights the efficient and sustainable agricultural methods used in pre-contact Hawaii.
Impact of Western Contact on Hawaiian Agriculture: This image depicts the moment of Western contact with Hawaii, showing Western ships arriving at the Hawaiian shore. Native Hawaiians are seen greeting them, showcasing the blend of traditional Hawaiian and Western elements in a coastal landscape.
Modern Hawaiian Agriculture: This image represents the mix of traditional and contemporary farming practices in modern Hawaii. It features advanced machinery and greenhouses alongside traditional fields, set under a sunny sky with the Hawaiian landscape in the background.
These images help visualize the evolution of Hawaiian agriculture from a self-sufficient past to its current state, reflecting the changes and adaptations over time.
Food systems have largely been localized throughout the human history.
In the last 70-100 years or so, common folks have started experiencing a national or a global food supply line. In my opinion, we still have to see if this is sustainable or not. This connects to the [[principal agent problem, which amplifies when it comes to essential items like food and shelter.
I am going to collect knowledge about both types of food systems in communities.
These are core needs and no one with any decent option would invest a significant portion of their energy or money into something that doesn’t have roots. That is why *[[hippie culture attracts folks who have little to lose. Connects to *[[movers and stayers.
Online Communities
For online communities, I think the model that Superteam uses is the best one for now.
GDP of a community sounds puzzling because you are counting all $ made by every member, whether through the community or not.
But it makes sense because it is, in a way, the purchasing power of each member, that shows the overall prosperity of the entire network.
In terms of the Indian culture, we know we should disown the success metrics driven by consumerism.
We should definitely not consider opulence as a marker of status. The number of cars, how expensive the shoes are, or how big the private yacht is should not weigh in on the person’s ideas, knowledge, or opinions.
What should be revered is a person’s curiosity, their humility, their integrity, their hard work, and their risk-taking ability. We should value a person based on how much they have contributed to society. And even punish those who are actively adding negative value to the society at large. The top management of companies like Coca-Cola should not be admired for their money. Their wealth is as ill-gotten as that of someone selling an addictive substance. It is net negative for the society.
On a macro level, we should question metrics like GDP, and arrive at a wealth metric instead of a spending metric. We know strong economies are created on production, not consumption. Consumption was a narrative that was sold to us. We want a wealthy population, not a debt-ridden one.
I would go to ridiculous amounts of lengths to question every metric right from peer reviews on research to cultural success markers like ‘dominance mindset’.
We should also understand that we have to move beyond the material plane. There has to be a time when the entire population is engaged in intellectual and spiritual pursuits. We should not just aim to catch up but leapfrog to the next dimension (New Worlds – three planes).
