Some thoughts on TERRA 2.0.

(Probably won’t win me any points with the community and will definitely hurt my bags!)

A thread 🧵…

1/ Crypto is all about a magic combination of:
- identifying ideological problems.
- creating a technology to solve them.
- building a community of passionate developers to build amazing products to solve the problems.
- building a passionate community of investors and users.
2/ $LUNA did all of this around the problem of centralized, collateralized, stable money. Developers, Investors and users all wanted a truly decentralized stable money! (And they also wanted to earn 20% on it risk free 🤣)
3/ A movement was started around a UNIQUE COMMON PURPOSE AND MISSION.
Developers did their thing, passionate VC’s followed with money and investors and users that believed in the mission (or just 20% returns) followed passionately.
4/ The experiment failed! Just like 90% of the other experiments will fail. Only this one failed at size and failed much faster than anyone could have imagined! Anyone! It’s dead.
5/ Now, since humans are naturally emotional and struggle with loss, investors that became attached need to hold onto something to make themselves feel better, to avoid having to take a final loss. Especially those that invested their lives building on this vision.
6/ So, to comfort their inability to accept loss they are now are now fighting to hold onto anything to avoid the final loss and so a new chain is born! Terra 2.0!
7/ This chain has a strong community of people that can’t let go & accept the loss. It has a lot of brain power behind BUT it doesn’t have a unique mission any more and without this there is no way it can succeed. It is a chain with a mission of protecting the devs and community
8/ A chain needs a mission and the mission must be strong and differentiated enough to attract the best minds in the space. Not just to attract the minds that were in before collapse and can’t face letting it go.
9/ So, I don’t think that this chain will succeed. We don’t need another L1. This L1 is not very different from what’s out there. It has no unique mission so devs won’t come. There is no real leader. Capital will be hard to attract to a chain with a stigma.
10/ I think the chain will launch and will forever struggle to attract talent, capital and users. Eventually the top developers will leave for better chains with strong missions. We are seeing this already with some of the top projects.
11/ I really hope I am wrong, for the sake of builders and the huge community that have incurred losses! There have been cases where a small group of smart people have innovated their way out of really bad place and if they do I will be the happiest bag holder out there!
12/As an insurance policy I will hold my bags that I get in the airdrop. Since I wrote this off anyway, it’s free money if it succeeds and will remind me that a small group of smart people can really change the world!
13/ If you liked my second thread in 2 days, please share and like! If you hate me for being real, also share and like.

More from All

The best morning routine?

Starts the night before.

9 evening habits that make all the difference:

1. Write down tomorrow's 3:3:3 plan

• 3 hours on your most important project
• 3 shorter tasks
• 3 maintenance activities

Defining a "productive day" is crucial.

Or else you'll never be at peace (even with excellent output).

Learn more


2. End the workday with a shutdown ritual

Create a short shutdown ritual (hat-tip to Cal Newport). Close your laptop, plug in the charger, spend 2 minutes tidying your desk. Then say, "shutdown."

Separating your life and work is key.

3. Journal 1 beautiful life moment

Delicious tacos, presentation you crushed, a moment of inner peace. Write it down.

Gratitude programs a mindset of abundance.

4. Lay out clothes

Get exercise clothes ready for tomorrow. Upon waking up, jump rope for 2 mins. It will activate your mind + body.

You May Also Like

First update to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL since the challenge ended – Medium links!! Go add your Medium profile now 👀📝 (thanks @diannamallen for the suggestion 😁)


Just added Telegram links to
https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL too! Now you can provide a nice easy way for people to message you :)


Less than 1 hour since I started adding stuff to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL again, and profile pages are now responsive!!! 🥳 Check it out -> https://t.co/fVkEL4fu0L


Accounts page is now also responsive!! 📱✨


💪 I managed to make the whole site responsive in about an hour. On my roadmap I had it down as 4-5 hours!!! 🤘🤠🤘
So the cryptocurrency industry has basically two products, one which is relatively benign and doesn't have product market fit, and one which is malignant and does. The industry has a weird superposition of understanding this fact and (strategically?) not understanding it.


The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.

This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.

The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."

This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?