The goal of the 1Hive protocol is to foster a healthy community economy by allocating a steady stream of Honey towards development, maintenance, and improvement of the common goods that bring the most value to the 1Hive community.

The growth of the 1Hive economy is directly related to the community's ability to foster an inclusive and welcoming culture that people feel proud and delighted to adopt as their own.

A community member will be required to stake Honey when submitting a proposal, attesting that the impact of the proposal could be reasonably considered to align with 1Hive’s social contract. A dispute can be created by another community member if they disagree with the proposers attestation by challenging the proposal and staking an equivalent amount of Honey. If after being challenged the proposal is not withdrawn, a decentralized oracle will be used to settle the dispute.

To reimagine what is basically a giving circle as slaying Moloch through coordination does something to the nature of the giving. (Giving in MolochDAO is called making “tributes.”)

Tocqueville’s perceptions had limits. He did not sufficiently extend his vision of democracy to people facing European colonization, from Africa to the Americas—imagining a democracy through conquest rather than against it.17

I suggest that the death drive has something to do with it.

His release strategy is based on spontaneity and immediacy rather than the deliberation and calculation of major label-style marketing and promotion; his mentality is pro-digital media and anti-middleman: “If I record the song right now, I can drop it on YouTube right now, and I’m going to get paid for it,” he says.

I mean we have too much confidence in our beliefs, and overconfidence really is associated with a failure of imagination. When you cannot imagine an alternative to your belief, you are convinced that your belief is true. That's overconfidence. And overconfidence — whenever there is a war, there were overconfident generals. You can look at failures, and overconfidence had something to do with them. On the other hand, overconfidence and overconfident optimism is the engine of capitalism.

That’s not easy for anthropology, because we don’t like to offer simple answers. Part of this is about the style of academic prose (generally not easygoing), but even more than that, it has to do with the anthropological sensibility, upon which we’ve already touched. We’re not a how-to discipline, but we’re also not a quantitative discipline. We don’t use numbers. We don’t trade in facts in the way that some disciplines presume to. We are skeptical of big data. To make matters more challenging, it’s not even just that we’ll never answer “17!” to some question, or “30 percent!” to another, it’s that we’ll scratch our heads and say, Well, you could look at it that way, but actually it really depends. And of course that mode of thinking, that mode of reasoning, is not conducive to the public sphere and to public discourse, because the push is always to come up with a sound bite. The push is always toward a conclusion, and this book is not constructed to have a conclusion. It’s certainly not constructed in the manner of trying to present anthropology as a discipline in which there are four or five major lines of work going on that everyone can speak to or has opinions on. Anthropology is messy. And anthropologists don’t like definitive answers, or predicting outcomes. Sometimes that’s because we think people are asking the wrong questions. I was once asked by a journalist whether I thought the Church of England would be extinct in a generation’s time. How the fuck should I know? That’s what I thought to myself. But also, Why are you asking that question? Why is the value of “prediction” so high, when it comes to marking expertise and knowledge? I couldn’t say that in a radio interview, but I can express this ethic in a book (with no swearing).