My username on social media is 'speculation' and it is part of a small crusade I've had for a long time to try to bring value to this much-maligned term. Another project I founded in Spain a long time ago was Crypto Plaza, using another much-maligned term, 'Crypto'. Engaging in these crusades has a strong negative social impact, and I'm not really sure if it makes much sense. Maybe I should change my name since, in the end, the impact I can humbly make may not outweigh the initial rejection of my profile.

It is interesting to reflect on the 'Evil Degens' and the definition that Vitalik offers in his article

Layer 2s as cultural extensions of Ethereum

In my recent post on the differences between layer 1 and layer 2 scaling, I ended up roughly coming to the conclusion that the most important differences between the two approaches are not technical but organizational (using the word in a similar sense to the field of"industrial organization"): it's not about what can get built, but what will get built, because of how the lines between different parts of the ecosystem are drawn and how that affects people's incentives and ability to act.

https://vitalik.eth.limo

• Degens: Users driven purely by speculation and wealth accumulation at all costs, the degens (degenerates). Degens are financial nihilists who focus on current trends and hype to strike it lucky and escape the rat race of contemporary neoliberal capitalism. Degens will often take extraordinary risks, but in an ironic, almost detached way.

The main reason for being so evil is that they are speculators. Speculation is an activity that Vitalik seems to consider immoral or illegitimate, given that being solely driven by speculation and the accumulation of wealth at all costs appears to be something negative for our society.

Let's analyze this widely held belief in our society. To do this, we should first try to define what speculation is.

“The act of forming opinions about what has happened or what might happen without knowing all the facts”

“Speculation (in something) the activity of buying and selling goods or shares in a company in the hope of making a profit, but with the risk of losing money”

In the case of Crypto, we would be talking about investing in project tokens of a project instead of shares. These two definitions reflect the concept of a speculator well, as they would need to exercise thinking about the most likely futures in order to take that risk with the best probabilities.

Is this activity so negative for our society? Should we try to pursue and stigmatize people who speculate? Should we try to create the greatest possible disincentives for this activity?

One option as responsible citizens would be to never buy or acquire shares or tokens of a project. This way, we wouldn't be making money in a way that society considers illegitimate. Usually, what we consider illegitimate is making money. If a speculator loses money, since they are already suffering the consequences of their questionable behavior, they are not as detested. In some way, it is a penalty that we consider appropriate for something so socially negative.

The second option it would involve buying shares without the aim of making a profit. In some way, it would be an activity closer to that of NGOs, where one invests money without expecting anything in return. In this case, we would indeed be doing something even more positive for society. Therefore, our criterion should be to try to select what we consider to be the most beneficial based on our judgment, as the economic criterion should not prevail.

I understand that saving is indeed something positive for society, so what a responsible citizen should do is not invest their savings. Any type of investment would ultimately have a speculative intention of making money. Perhaps the closest option would be to invest in treasury bonds, which in some way is a vehicle that allows states to have more resources, which is something collective.

I do not share this generalized view of speculation and I believe that people who, instead of leaving their savings idle, take risks to enable others who cannot take those risks to do so are doing something tremendously positive for society. I think they are brave, because in most cases, and especially if they seek high returns, they will lose their savings because when trying to do very new things, the risk is extremely high. Nevertheless, we need people willing to take these kinds of risks for society to progress. And if they are able to succeed in these bets, having more money to keep trying seems like the best option for our society. I do not think we can advance much as a society if all the savings are idle.

It is necessary that, on some occasions, we all become speculators to provide resources to these entrepreneurs who, without this financial support, could not attempt to put their ideas into practice.

I strongly believe that

   ***Speculation lies at the heart of entrepreneurial success and innovation.***