Which direction would be better for a Global Crypto Alliance dedicated to bringing unity to many Cryptos, and to massive adoption of Cryptos: left or right? GCA has found that the right direction is a must when you pretend to build an organization of organizations. You cannot implement and ideal community-driven perfect democracy for the management of an organization that can contain many communities in itself. The very objective of the Alliance imposes a paradigm. From the perspective of a Global Alliance, the North and South poles of Crypto-politics are clearly visible and understandable. Inside GCA we welcome projects in all possible points of the spectrum. Thus, we appreciate them all.
What’s are the pros and cons of the community-driven constitution? History of politics and of all the idea of living in order have given us States, governments, institutions and control. Some philosophers would say our whole history translates into the evolution of Surveiller et punir —Surveillance and punishment— by third parties. Others would explain our centralized social conditions as an arrangement for the control and exploitation of these third parties against the masses. Community-driven Cryptos are born as attempts made by some groups to undertake entrepreneurship without any central authority: a true government for the people by the people. The possibility of fair distribution of power and profit represents a huge motivation here.
In a democratic community the ideal is everyone has a voice. Putting this into practice, however, has nothing to do with paradise. A perfect socialism can end up as a massive and hysteric anarchism too, because it never happens that all members of the community have the same opinions and intentions. Communities tend to divide into many forces. So, if you eliminate completely the presence of a central authority, all opinions and all forces are equally valid and must be taken into account. No power should prevail. A community-driven project has to face the danger of becoming chaotic and dysfunctional specially if democracy is not relativized and redefined. Some community projects get to impressive results. However, none of them does it by taking a radical left. Most communities even contradict themselves by depositing power in the hands of a few —the devs or some admins—.
On the other side,
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the business-model in Crypto projects?
Businesses are run by a small group of people who —ideally— have a brilliant career in business, in IT, in science or in some professional field. A good business team are not first-timers. The team knows what it is doing. It also assumes legal responsibility and accountability. And in most cases, as a serious team, they register as a company or as a formal organization before a legal government internationally recognized. This implies they promise to obey laws and pay taxes. All this does not mean that there is no community at all. In many cases, business-driven Cryptos maintain huge communities. Each of those can develop a particular culture with plenty of activities and support from their leading team. Interaction with devs and admins can be equally close and intense, but it is perceived by the community more as a special service from the organization and not as power on the hands of the many. Top hierarchies place themselves under legal and financial pressure. Administration must be transparent and accounting systems must be professional. Here, a Crypto project behaves as a business and the pursue of profit is above democratic idealism. Some investors feel more secure in this kind of corporate structure knowing that legal authorities protect their interests and that a professional team is in charge.
A business, like any other business, can be a scam too. Scam does not necessarily mean crime or criminal. There is a difference and sometimes honest investors lose thousands of dollars because of this difference. It is well known that some companies launch an ICO, sell tokens and, after that, they do not continue working. After collecting millions of dollars in the very first stage, they lose interest in investing that money in the business. So, they just take the initial funds and go away. Of course, not all cases are so critical. But one has to be very careful about intentions. Investors have to learn how to read between the lines to see if the team is really going to be there for the long term and also to understand if objectives are achievable or if they are only mere fantasy. One must never forget that if a legal company sells fantasy to you in an open and transparent way, later you can’t defend yourself. You were offered fantasy and you accepted fantasy and payed for it consciously. This is a dirty trick that bad companies can use.
Are good criteria, then, totally inexistent for a new project to decide about their existential identity at the beginning? Choosing left or right is just a product of a capricious feeling or of an obsession? Well, it depends. But from the point of view of Global Crypto Alliance, there is some objective and impartial criteria that could be followed in many cases. It has to do with basic Math. It starts with a question about probabilities: what are the odds that the nature of the project facilitates the emergence of multiple political poles or many forces in the inside of the new project? This could also be seen as a question about complexity. Higher complexity imposes higher levels of centralization to obtain efficiency at the lowest possible cost. If the project is extremely simple, then democracy might be a good option.
GCA discovered this Mathematical function since we began. Our main objective is to unite with many other Cryptos, to work together in partnership and to grow together. In very short time we can have an active network of communities and projects made up of hundreds of thousands of very different people. We need a centralized solid structure with maximum degree of legality and of management and administration. Business model is our only
