The world is polarized in many ways and that situation is less about facts than confirmation bias.
Give or take, we all ingest the same inputs, but the way we contextualize that data is typically dependent on our existing biases.
When it comes to blockchain games, the phrase I’m increasingly using is ‘It’s a feature not a bug’.
Certainly I love the rhetorical flourish but basically all it means is that a situation someone else sees as a failure and often hence a damning indictment of all blockchain games is for me a glowing example of the potential of blockchain games, even though it may actually be a failure.
Or put another way, for some people, it doesn’t work so it will never work. For me, the default option is if it doesn’t work can we fix it?
Because - as we all know - most of the things we attempt in life will fail in some headline way many times; whether that’s starting a company, a creative project, a relationship, a soufflé etc.
That’s because these things are often difficult, multifaceted experiments. And actually the ongoing process of failure is a requirement to gain the knowledge required for something to be improved — maybe multiple times — and eventually become a success.
So, the fact that some blockchain games are failures, boring or downright scams and Ponzi schemes isn’t the issue as long as we also have examples of successes. Any one success invalidates the 99.999% of failures; at least to my way of thinking.
All I ask is you’re flexible in your thinking.
When something goes wrong - and it will - ask yourself is this a fatal bug that means the entire endeavour is doomed to failure?
Or is it merely something that can be improved?