<div class="text-justify">

It looks like Steem will be up and running again soon which is good because, *I am bored.* Well, I am actually not *bored
bored,* it is just that in the evenings is my time and that time for the last two years has been spent writing. What do people do when everyone else is asleep and they have to be relatively quiet? I tried watching some shows, but without my wife to share the experience with, it doesn't really feel like there is much value in it and I kinda just sat and stared, not really enjoying, not really paying attention. 

"The devil finds work for idle hands"

### Unicorns do too.

https://i.imgur.com/u6uDpXW.jpg

I have spoken about Steem being a past unicorn "company" before as it maxed-out at the All Time High of 8.30 and around 2 Billion dollars worth back at the start of 2018 before the bear set in. The value of Steem is something that is often overshadowed by the social aspects of it and perhaps that is a good thing. 

Sure, while everyone talks about the price of the coin and wants it to go to the moon, the things that people tend to spend the most time on aren't the factors that actually drive that price, it is the human points. This is probably a healthy think in many respects because it *somewhat tempers actions as on average, most people think a little about others, even if it is just a little.

This is something that doesn't happen in the consideration of most crypto projects because for the most part, there are no usecases for them making the value purely speculative without regard for others in the same project group. I am pretty sure there aren't many Bitcoin or Ethereum holders who consider how their buys and sells might affect other people buying and selling, but because Steem has a relatively high percentage of people who consider themselves part of a community collaboration, this does get considered.

Companies don't care about people either and while that is said often enough, most do not actually think why it is the case. A company is set up to increase shareholder wealth, and as an entity, it has legal rights and obligations, even though it is not human at all. However, being maximalist i nature means that the only thing that keeps it from expanding to monopolize everything, is the competition for resources from other maximizing entities. 

Companies don't care about people and, they don't care about shareholders either, it is just that the code they have been fed is to maximize shareholder wealth, and that is what they do. If one shareholder sells out, the entity doesn't miss them and that person is not considered at all in any way shape or form, other than from a financial opportunity perspective and the money of the next shareholder that takes their place is just as good. Character means nothing to the enterprise. 

The problem of course is that these organization entities with the rights to own real estate and resources and who compete against each other for space in the market, have zero need to think about the human elements as anything other than resources and tools either. This means that as these unliving entities battle for ownership, the tools they use and abuse are considered collateral damage. 

And while collateral damage is the "death, injury, or other damage inflicted that is an unintended result of military operations", it is quite different because the entity of the business has no intention at all, just the maximizing code that guides it. The argument could be that it is the people making the decision, which is true, however the decisions are heavily influenced by the code of business and to change the code while others do not means to die a fast corporate death. 

The business of business isn't made for the idea of "I have enough" and will always design itself to aim for having more. While face to face humans in a community have social checks and balances to affect this behavior, the anonymity of the shareholders who invest into a business through the faceless proxy of the corporate entity, insulate themselves from social concerns, making demanding more maximizing activities possible. 

When it comes to character, it is what we do when we think no one is watching us that matters and as we see quite publicly with increasing frequency, some of the public personalities are poor private characters behind closed doors. For example, Bill Cosby never even swore in his stand up, yet drugged and raped women.

However, this lack of social connection in our investments is something that we would probably benefit from changing because what it incentivizes is maximization, no matter the cost. This means that those who are willing to exact the greatest cost on others will do better than those who take a social stance that spreads resources wider. It is no wonder there is the 1% owning 80% or more of the worlds resources through entities and those who gloat about selling their Steem high while others held. What they don't realize is the price they gained, was at the expense of others. 

Yep, this is a free market system and while people might argue this point, it is fact. *Everything* s a free market system in the greater sense, because there is what is possible, and that is it. All of the atrocities of authority on earth were made in a free market, as were all goods. However, "free to do" doesn't mean "correct to do" from a human perspective and there i always a cost to action, *consequence of action.* 

A company can *successfully* make billions through systematically polluting the atmosphere, a government regime can torture citizens, a person can self-gratify by molesting women, but the cost is still going to be enacted, though not necessarily directly. This is the problem because the company, the government or the rapist may never have to pay the cost for their actions in any sense, only get reward. 

Of course, this changes when there is transparency of the action and, consequence applied to the performance of it where the demand for the company products dies and fines are issued, a revolution topples the government or, the rapist is caught, prosecuted and convicted. This rarely happens though and, even when it does it is still at the expense of the many people who paid the cost of past actions.

However, perhaps through blockchain tech, distributed individuals in communities, ownership of content and resource, as well as a high degree of interaction across real-world developments; a new process can be found. While Steem is not a corporation, has no entity or any human rights of a company - it does have shareholders, a cooperative of users. Those users are owners of Steem the experience and independent actions to increase personal wealth has the byproduct of increasing *shareholder wealth* simultaneously.

While far from a perfect system, a community of people who's personal actions to maximize support the development and maximization of the entire community as a whole is a much better model than proxied entities that work as masks to dehumanize the process to make harming others for self-gain okay. 

I think that through a continued effort to build the *valuable community* through individual ownership of resources and the development of products and services to support the whole, other projects are going to struggle to keep up. I also think that the model of ownership that is developing here is one that is going to fractal out into other aspects of the world and business itself as it creates a much more stable experience with more balanced outcomes. Rather than mega faceless corporations, there will be mega cooperations of many faces and at millions of points. Ownership and decentralization are the keys and while no one may ever know, what you do when no one is looking matters as it is here that the real person resides.

When people talk about personality these days, they consider the public profile and reputation - but true character exists in the individual, behind closed doors. 

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]

</div>