A culture without heroes

I read this post on Twitter. It hit a nerve because this is one of the key value differences between India and the West—maybe even the East and the West. Read it carefully. It is a gem.

We broke Modi’s ego by not voting for BJP in Bengal, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Maharashtra. This is not the first time we have done this; similarly, we have broken the ego of many big personalities by not supporting them in the past. A long time ago, the ego of the Hindu king Dahir of Sindh was shattered by the Hindu kings of then Afghanistan and Rajasthan. Dahir wrote for help, but no one came. Dahir had a lot of ego about his valor and was killed. Now, it is a different matter that after that, the continuous decline of Hindus started in Sindh, and today Afghanistan is a completely Islamic nation. In the same way, we broke the ego of Prithviraj Chauhan by not supporting him during Mohammad Ghori’s invasion. The people of Mewar also had a lot of ego about their bravery. When Khilji surrounded Mewar, no one from the entire Rajputana supported them, Rawal Ratan was killed by deceit, and Padmavati had to commit jauhar with 16,000 women. Padmavati also had a lot of ego about her beauty, which was shattered. When Rana Sanga had captured Lodhi, the dacoit Babur was called to break their ego. In the battle, no one supported Rana Sanga, and his general was killed along with thirty thousand soldiers. Sanga’s ego was shattered. But the Lodhis had to endure the Mughal slavery, temples were destroyed, women were looted by the Mughals, but Sanga’s ego was shattered. The Marathas were very powerful; they had decimated the Mughals. They also had a lot of ego. When the Mughals were defeated, Abdali was called from Afghanistan to stop the infidels, and armies were set up in the battlefield of Panipat. Abdali’s army kept receiving supplies, but no one sent supplies to the Marathas, as their ego had to be shattered. The Marathas kept fighting on empty stomachs, kept dying, and were defeated. There is no house in Maharashtra where a son wasn’t martyred, but the ego was shattered. Countless times, we have shattered the egos of our own by not supporting them at the right time, and we will remove Modi from power as well. Even if we have to take help from the Goris, Mughals, Abdalis, or even Italy, Pakistan, and mortgage the country in their hands… We will break Modi’s ego, and in the future, we will break Yogi Ji’s ego too. Because we are only fit to live under the slavery of foreigners, non-believers, leftists, etc. Remember, we also broke Atal Ji’s ego and then endured ten years of suffering, but we are habitual of forgetting… We will break Modi’s ego. Jai Hind

https://x.com/JoshiGargiGoyal/status/1805463176156188940

This has been my typical experience, too. People will only support you once you have ‘made it’. In fact, there will be attempts to pull down someone who seems to have too much power.

This creates a weird trade-off.

My theory: We fear absolute power. If we fear too much power in the hands of one person, we pull down anyone who gets close to achieving it. This means no one can take the boldest of bets like Elon Musk. It also means no one can claim that tobacco is safe for pregnant women.

The easiest way to see this is from stock market circuit breakers that are employed much more frequently than their US counterparts.

In the US, the Iron Man is supposed to be egoistic. Ayn Randian thinking that they can act arrogantly if they are creating enough value.

But in India, even the superheroes will display more humility than they need to. You may have created immense value for the society, but if you feel you are above everyone else, you would be pulled down by the incompetent crowds.

The entrepreneurial side of me has wished for an American environment for a long time. I would often know clearly that many people around me are duds with certificates, lazy, incompetent or straight-up leeches. But I cannot press my competence, hard work, or the value created directly. It will be seen as arrogant even though I might say this in the most humble, matter-of-the-fact way. Anyone who has built anything knows this to be true.

My citizen side doesn’t want anyone, especially a politician, to have too much power like a typical American President.

—-

This dilemma needs to break if India has to become a superpower. I do not know the answer. If you do, tell me.

I will figure this out. Our heroes must be stronger, and our collective judgement of ego vs. competence must be clear. We have to send in reinforcements to our chosen heroes. Abandoning them in battle is the most cowardly thing to do.

I don’t think Modiji is being egoistic at all. I think he is just hastily achieving his desired outcomes—which are also the outcomes his core voters want. But if this is the example India sets, no one would want to be a hero.

We basically got him to clean up our mess for ten years and then tried to discard him. I am sure such stuff exists in our mythology. We need to change that. A person’s PoW should not go away, no matter what.

Like a hero owes to the society, the society owes to it’s heroes as well. If society doesn’t deliver, our heroes will rather play in a different team where they are valued.

For ‘control freak’ founders

Elon Musk: From Micromanager to Innovator

Control Freak: “Elon is a micromanager who frequently changes directions, sometimes late in the process” – The Wall Street Journal (2018).

Attention to Detail: “Musk’s attention to detail and hands-on approach are key reasons for SpaceX’s success” – The Economist (2020).

Jeff Bezos: From Overbearing Boss to Customer-Centric Leader

Control Freak: “He had to be involved in everything, and he could be a bit of a control freak” – Former Amazon employee (1999).

Attention to Detail: “Jeff’s relentless attention to detail and focus on customer experience is what drives Amazon’s success” – Brad Stone, The Everything Store (2013).

Mark Zuckerberg: From Controlling to Strategic

Control Freak: “Zuckerberg insisted on being involved in every product decision, often seen as controlling” – Early Facebook employee (2005).

Attention to Detail: “Mark’s attention to detail in product development has been crucial to Facebook’s continuous innovation” – David Kirkpatrick, The Facebook Effect (2010).

Bill Gates: From Micromanager to Software Pioneer

Control Freak: “Bill would review every line of code; it was like he had to control everything” – Microsoft employee (1985).

Attention to Detail: “Bill Gates’ meticulous attention to detail and involvement in product development helped establish Microsoft as a leader in software” – Paul Allen, Idea Man (2011).

Vijay Shekhar Sharma: From Controlling to Visionary

Control Freak: “Sharma’s controlling nature was evident as he micromanaged Paytm’s operations in its early days” – Paytm employee (2015).

Attention to Detail: “Sharma’s detailed focus on product development and user experience has been crucial to Paytm’s success” – Economic Times (2020).

Deepinder Goyal: From Micromanager to Detail-Oriented Leader

Control Freak: “Goyal was known to be deeply involved in every aspect of Zomato’s operations, often being seen as a micromanager” – Zomato employee (2013).

Attention to Detail: “His attention to detail and hands-on approach have helped Zomato maintain its competitive edge” – Mint (2019).

Takeaway: If you are a control freak, it is a feature if you don’t give up till you create the perfect product/project. If you give up, it becomes a bug.


Not to say that the other end of the spectrum doesn’t work. It does, check Matt Mullenweg or Sridhar Vembu. Just not for me.

Don’t mid this though

Only problem with Suits

The more i watch it, the more i fall in love with those values.

The only thing i haven’t been able to digest is the fact that they do not tell each other their mistakes or be vulnerable at all. Unless it is extreme, no one does.

Like Harvey has to ask Mike why he got fired from Sidwell. First he says, “besides losing the deal?” instead of “coz i cut him out of the deal and he found out from Forstman”.

This behaviour caused so much inefficiency in the entire story, with enough datapoints i can probably make a case that there would be >90% drama if this was solved for.

I know it is a series and they got to make it dramatic but i am expecting better from Aaron Korsh. I know he is no Vince Gilligan too but I’m sure this was solvable.

Layering of content

Hold your horses, friends. I will post this in a bit. Creating this placeholder so i can link in the prev post. (no shit guys i need a writer to compile these well. it has been over a year now. get me someone man)

This is the key to creating a personal tribe in the era of social networks.

How do you tweet to create a personal tribe?

There is a technique i unlocked.

Most of our primary audiences are in a time zone. Unless you’re Vitalik. Then you’re not on this page trying to create a personal tribe. (Vitalik, if you are, do DM me)

Back to the point.

If our primary audience is in a particular time zone, tweet your most personal thoughts at night. Post them at 2 a.m., when no one is reading them.

Twitter algo will deboost your post because it did not get engagement for the first 4-5 hours. It will only be visible to the true true followers you have. Many of them, you will notice, are mutuals. A larger audience will not see it, which is what you want if you want to layer your content. (Placeholder)

The stuff you tweet for engagement, distribution and business, post it from 8am to 11pm in your primary audience’s timezone. This will get you an ‘audience’ because it goes far and wide with immediate engagement from your primary followers during the day.

The Brown Ceiling

The brown ceiling is brown.

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 living in the Western countries are the ones to discriminate against other Indians who live in India.

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. In their quest to fit into their circles in places like US, they will start looking at Indians living in India with a lens of superiority.

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.

Hiring Trilemma of web3

Web3 is in a unique transition mode.

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.

This presents this trilemma.

Time to move from hackers to founders

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.

On-going collection of Datapoints:

Observed:

  • Chain loyalty hardly ever shifts in early stages
  • Devs become loyal to whichever chain supports them in their earliest days

Hacker mindset Datapoints:

  • Build on my chain or leave. These devs are potential founders who would build on your chain if you form a relationship with them and help them out.

Tech waves: from scammers to suits

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.

Insider and Outsider in communities

‘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.