Analogies are dangerous b/c they displace explanatory theories - esp. b/c people are terrible at comparisons
When people can't think scientifically they substitute in analogies and are guided by bad comparisons instead of good explanations
And bad analogies created this bubble
When people can't think scientifically they substitute in analogies and are guided by bad comparisons instead of good explanations
And bad analogies created this bubble
Yes, many great apps had a bad UX at launch--but so did shitty ones. This does nothing to help explain or predict their success.
Instead of comparing the UX of Augur to the UX of FB, people should be trying to logically explain and predict why an app should work / accrue value
Instead of comparing the UX of Augur to the UX of FB, people should be trying to logically explain and predict why an app should work / accrue value
Augur actually looks fine. The problems are more w. its value prop and logical foundation: will it be trusted or too costly, can it be shut down, etc.
Instead, comparing Augur's UX to FB's precludes this explanatory thinking and excuses issues that are more fundamental in nature
Instead, comparing Augur's UX to FB's precludes this explanatory thinking and excuses issues that are more fundamental in nature
Using this analogy, people assume that all Augur's issues will be solved b/c FB solved theirs. But not all problems are equally soluble.
Facebook just needed a better CSS dev -- many dApps need to reinvent computer science.
Facebook just needed a better CSS dev -- many dApps need to reinvent computer science.
I see this constantly in crypto. Analgoies like "Follow the devs" and "platforms accrue value" are also terrible analogies.
Comparisons should only be made if they can be supported with logic -- not blindly imitated
Comparisons should only be made if they can be supported with logic -- not blindly imitated
Follow the devs, for example, works in a very specific context -- namely with platforms that accrue value through the tried and tested equity.
There's good reason to believe cryptocurrencies -- that is money -- will accrue value in a fundamentally different fashion.
There's good reason to believe cryptocurrencies -- that is money -- will accrue value in a fundamentally different fashion.
Instead of analogizing, we need to break everything down to its foundational principles. Then from there, build explanatory theories and predictions of how something can succeed
Ex: Why do more devs = more valuable currency? Are ETH devs comprable to iOS devs in terms of value?
Ex: Why do more devs = more valuable currency? Are ETH devs comprable to iOS devs in terms of value?
Analogies are a cop out. They remove rigorous scientific thinking. And are the reason for the ridiculous overvaluation of 99% of cryptoassets.
