ARCHIVE (originally posted on Revue Jul 06 2022). High-grade loot area. Edge food for thought. Biased takes on what we refer to as “real life”.

“I wanted to make this sound and appear alongside the shift of the magnetic poles, or some other important stuff you’re currently spending your reading ability at. Hey, no disrespect. Just gonna leave some tips on the table and I’m out.”

Whether you are a Rockefeller abomination or a DeFi degenerate, you definitely have watched, if not personally experienced, people becoming not millionaires, no. This is not the 90s. We’re talking about multi-billionaires, and I am pretty sure we’re going to start seeing the first casual trillionaires making their first thirteen-numeric sum behind a computer screen in less than a decade. 

“Masonry, insider trading, they were rich already, they were lucky, someone helped them somehow..” and many other words in a plethora of sentences attempt to justify the path of what some would refer to as a shortcut to being one of the leading influential forces of current industry standards.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/01/144958/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/?utm_campaign=Weekly%20spoils%20of%20Lvl.%2099%20Raid%20Ross%20%F0%9F%90%B2&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20newsletter

I mean, there must be an underlying correlation between the current status of a trend, in terms of mass adoption, the outreach/venture a business model and/or an individual performs to tap into a specific trend area, at a specific time, and the gauge in terms of funding and human capital allocated to sustain the potential level of engagement. I’m almost certain about it. 🧐

Let’s assume that the gasoline and petrol-based automobile industry is a “Past Trend”. You won’t see a lot of bright folks going long on petrol cars with eight-figure investments are ya?. That’s because petrol cars, although still mainstream, have virtually no future of alleviation in growth metrics, considering that mainstream adoption is the tipping point for any given trend.

Now think of autonomous vehicles and other low-hanging Industry 4.0 fruits. It’s a short-coming trend that’s practically unavoidable, yet there are still opportunities for growth from an investment perspective, especially analogizing the fact that self-driving cars are still far from being mainstream.

To the point, disregardless of the nature of a trend, whether we’re talking unmanned aerial vehicle deliveries that are practically just around the corner or exotic tech that’s still tackling conceptual technological theorists, there is money to be made along the way, and most certainly, there is some sort of a fixed fractal movement, kinda like a pre-designed frequency that can direct you to the right investments at the exact right moment, whether what they imply appears to be near or further into what we refer to as “the future”.

There is indeed chronological uncertainty attached to every long-term investment nevertheless, but eventually, all trends become mainstream at some point, and that’s mainly driven by the amount of interest those trends gained from investors, as well as from practicians who actively contributed to the development and adoption of each respective trend.

A1* = Where 10: Mainstream trend, eg. Past Trends, and 0: Exotic Trends, eg. Quantum Teleportation, and other Future Trends. The lapse between Year X and Year Y is undefined and is not equal to 1 (one) year. it could be a decade, an investment cycle, or Moore’s law for as far as I am concerned. Notice the correlation between the hypothetical Past Trends and Future Trends, around Year F. Let’s call this occasion a “Shift Of Trends”.

If we assume that Past Trends are the sole mass-adopted market as of “now”, we can be assured that there’s not much room for growth - again, in terms of adoption - or otherwise, you can’t be possibly investing in petrol cars having in mind that the industry will boom.

I am not implying that there is no money to be made if you for some godly reason decided to start a gas-station business. All I am trying to underline is that you’re going to have a hard time becoming the next trillionaire any time in your next thousand lifetimes.

And the reason is simple. Watching the growth of all top-shelf players in the phase of “now”, eg. FAANG, China, Blockchain pioneers, etc., you can spot the unparalleled timing that made the visionaries behind these ventures the self-sustainable men they appear to have become in, what our parents would call, “no-time”.

I mean many people invested in the internet way before Google or Facebook had, but that doesn’t mean every single one of them is now riding the “Shift Of Trends”. Put aside the psycho-genetic factor that would only empower a couple of them to be even attracted to such absurd ideas of what we perceive physical and digital reality as we know it to be.

Probably, the most important factor that determined the success of what is perceived as successful by our current comprehensive capabilities, would be all the above. Let’s take a look at the same graph from before with some Microsoft paint enhancements all over it - in order to avoid philosophy in a noble fashion.

In a nutshell, Red ventures indicate failed attempts to ride the trend (eg. overlooked closer opportunity, or aimed too high and got busted by lack of liquidity to maintain the level of engagement). Yellow arrows describe pithanological success stories that could have happened if anyone decided to take that path, while Green arrows, pretty self-explanatory by now, refer to success stories that actually happened.

A2* = The larger / deeper the arrow, the more capital it represents. Investing more capital doesn't mean you will succeed over those investing with less capital. Quick math: you could invest $100k in masks in 2018 and become a billionaire by the end of 2020. You could invest a $billion into space exploration and would have done a hole in the water.

Let’s take the first Red flag under the scope. This dude could literally ride the Trend #1 (eg. electric scooters) wave with that funding - even if he disliked electric scooters - and save some power (money and human capital) to attempt a second reach out to Trend #2 he’s after, accounting for all the gains he could have been making from riding #Trend #1 as well. I mean his neighbor (first Green flag) practically got into scooters with one-third of the investment dude spent chasing his dream and is now closer to Elon Musk than dude and his fancy investors. Ouufff, why does life has to work like that? Right? You’d go “I Invested earlier, I had more money…out of all possible scenarios, how did he make it and not me?”

Coming up next, dude’s cousin (second Green) spent as much as dude (first Red) and not only didn’t fail to become America’s next fintech bachelor, but he actually managed to strike a hot seat in two trends at the same time! (eg. 5G and C19 masks) (How about that?!) Impressive!

Then you get the bigger picture. There are always a lot of dudes and myriad more opportunities that literally no one leveraged at their full potential at the right time, and you’re right - how would anyone know when it’s the right time? 

“If this doesn’t make sense, you most likely skipped the MIT Technology Review piece also found at the beginning of this article - I am confident now it would be a good time to open one more tab in your browser of choice.”

If you invested in a potential trend and have failed, the best thing you can do is to invest in that same trend again, when better prepared. = every “failed” attempt feeds the overall industry - similar to a decentralized fund. That means sooner or later that very industry will be sitting among mainstream trends, as long as it’s approaching the mass-adoption surface (10) over time, and taking for granted there are active ventures that seek into reaching out to that specific trend. Think of it like a slot machine. I mean, eventually, if you can sustain the attempt, you get your money back in the worst-case scenario.

So is it that simple? Does money really follow money? 🤔 If you are in a position to recall the dude from Figure 2, and the countless shills of that MIT article, you’ll quickly realize that is not the case.

Similar to the “Shift Of Trends” G spot in Year F, some of these changes are instantaneous and occasionally irreversible. Take the Covid-19 era as an example. For a period clubbing have been completely vanished from the menu, literally, yet everyone was suddenly obligated to wear a mask, everywhere, at all times. I am not tapping into the political dimension here, entirely disregarding if it’s good, bad, or necessary. The point is the “Shift Of Trends”, and whether we like it or not, we tend to believe it or not, we take an active part in it or not, it still remains a solid fact.

Paper money settlements now reduced by X% worldwide, while the rate of new fintech companies popping on top of the relevant trend grew by X% - like, I am not entirely sure about the actual numbers, but it feels like I can be sure you don’t need Statista to convince you that IS, in fact, the reality. The list goes on, you can do the math - eg. global internet activity grew by X%, while cream event venues practically lose money as you read this.

There are opportunities. There always have been. There are now that we point at them and describe them, and there will be when we will not. The best we can do is to aim at the right target, find the right party, the right amount of whatever money has evolved to become, usually accessible with the help of a smart hand-held device - that practically enables what you’re available to experience and what will remain as a never-touched dream - and of course, the right timing.

My next potential top-performing trends before the end of the century include but are not limited to:

• Autonomous Societies 

• Solar Travel on a Regular Basis

• Digital Twins as WorkForce

• AR/VR users as WorkForce, Contributors, Nodes

• Permanent Reality (PR)

• Designer Babies

• Gov-run Blockchain Era

• Race For Virtual Estate Dominance

• Pay As You Live Subscription Models

• Psychological Discrimination Marketing Trends

and more.

I know, I know, these are too far-fetched but remember that we said the same for BlackMirror and it’s not even that old as a reference to how we perceived the future in what we refer to as “the past”. We were like “Dayuuum, look at these drones everywhere, can you imagine that?” - two years into life, there are drones everywhere.

The point is, that trends usually become mainstream, when the right people reach out to the bottom, with the right resources, and at the right time. That’s not far or short in the vicinity, but rather whenever someone chooses to explore that potential.

*“Google announced that one of those chips, called Sycamore, had become the first to demonstrate “quantum supremacy” by performing a task that would be practically impossible on a classical machine. With just 53 qubits, Sycamore had completed a calculation in a few minutes that, according to Google, would have taken the world’s most powerful existing supercomputer, the IBM Summit, 10,000 years.” *

10,000 years away yesterday, a couple of minutes away today. - link to the full story.

~

Hope this served as a delicious meal for thought <3

Feel free to ping me on Twitter or anywhere else you prefer, I lit use all social media ☺ happy to debate and philosophize around the topic.

ARCHIVE (originally posted on Revue Jul 06 2022). High-grade loot area. Edge food for thought. Biased takes on what we refer to as “real life”.

“I wanted to make this sound and appear alongside the shift of the magnetic poles, or some other important stuff you’re currently spending your reading ability at. Hey, no disrespect. Just gonna leave some tips on the table and I’m out.”

Whether you are a Rockefeller abomination or a DeFi degenerate, you definitely have watched, if not personally experienced, people becoming not millionaires, no. This is not the 90s. We’re talking about multi-billionaires, and I am pretty sure we’re going to start seeing the first casual trillionaires making their first thirteen-numeric sum behind a computer screen in less than a decade. 

“Masonry, insider trading, they were rich already, they were lucky, someone helped them somehow..” and many other words in a plethora of sentences attempt to justify the path of what some would refer to as a shortcut to being one of the leading influential forces of current industry standards.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/03/01/144958/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/?utm_campaign=Weekly%20spoils%20of%20Lvl.%2099%20Raid%20Ross%20%F0%9F%90%B2&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue%20newsletter

I mean, there must be an underlying correlation between the current status of a trend, in terms of mass adoption, the outreach/venture a business model and/or an individual performs to tap into a specific trend area, at a specific time, and the gauge in terms of funding and human capital allocated to sustain the potential level of engagement. I’m almost certain about it. 🧐

Let’s assume that the gasoline and petrol-based automobile industry is a “Past Trend”. You won’t see a lot of bright folks going long on petrol cars with eight-figure investments are ya?. That’s because petrol cars, although still mainstream, have virtually no future of alleviation in growth metrics, considering that mainstream adoption is the tipping point for any given trend.

Now think of autonomous vehicles and other low-hanging Industry 4.0 fruits. It’s a short-coming trend that’s practically unavoidable, yet there are still opportunities for growth from an investment perspective, especially analogizing the fact that self-driving cars are still far from being mainstream.

To the point, disregardless of the nature of a trend, whether we’re talking unmanned aerial vehicle deliveries that are practically just around the corner or exotic tech that’s still tackling conceptual technological theorists, there is money to be made along the way, and most certainly, there is some sort of a fixed fractal movement, kinda like a pre-designed frequency that can direct you to the right investments at the exact right moment, whether what they imply appears to be near or further into what we refer to as “the future”.

There is indeed chronological uncertainty attached to every long-term investment nevertheless, but eventually, all trends become mainstream at some point, and that’s mainly driven by the amount of interest those trends gained from investors, as well as from practicians who actively contributed to the development and adoption of each respective trend.

A1* = Where 10: Mainstream trend, eg. Past Trends, and 0: Exotic Trends, eg. Quantum Teleportation, and other Future Trends. The lapse between Year X and Year Y is undefined and is not equal to 1 (one) year. it could be a decade, an investment cycle, or Moore’s law for as far as I am concerned. Notice the correlation between the hypothetical Past Trends and Future Trends, around Year F. Let’s call this occasion a “Shift Of Trends”.

If we assume that Past Trends are the sole mass-adopted market as of “now”, we can be assured that there’s not much room for growth - again, in terms of adoption - or otherwise, you can’t be possibly investing in petrol cars having in mind that the industry will boom.

I am not implying that there is no money to be made if you for some godly reason decided to start a gas-station business. All I am trying to underline is that you’re going to have a hard time becoming the next trillionaire any time in your next thousand lifetimes.

And the reason is simple. Watching the growth of all top-shelf players in the phase of “now”, eg. FAANG, China, Blockchain pioneers, etc., you can spot the unparalleled timing that made the visionaries behind these ventures the self-sustainable men they appear to have become in, what our parents would call, “no-time”.

I mean many people invested in the internet way before Google or Facebook had, but that doesn’t mean every single one of them is now riding the “Shift Of Trends”. Put aside the psycho-genetic factor that would only empower a couple of them to be even attracted to such absurd ideas of what we perceive physical and digital reality as we know it to be.

Probably, the most important factor that determined the success of what is perceived as successful by our current comprehensive capabilities, would be all the above. Let’s take a look at the same graph from before with some Microsoft paint enhancements all over it - in order to avoid philosophy in a noble fashion.

In a nutshell, Red ventures indicate failed attempts to ride the trend (eg. overlooked closer opportunity, or aimed too high and got busted by lack of liquidity to maintain the level of engagement). Yellow arrows describe pithanological success stories that could have happened if anyone decided to take that path, while Green arrows, pretty self-explanatory by now, refer to success stories that actually happened.

A2* = The larger / deeper the arrow, the more capital it represents. Investing more capital doesn't mean you will succeed over those investing with less capital. Quick math: you could invest $100k in masks in 2018 and become a billionaire by the end of 2020. You could invest a $billion into space exploration and would have done a hole in the water.

Let’s take the first Red flag under the scope. This dude could literally ride the Trend #1 (eg. electric scooters) wave with that funding - even if he disliked electric scooters - and save some power (money and human capital) to attempt a second reach out to Trend #2 he’s after, accounting for all the gains he could have been making from riding #Trend #1 as well. I mean his neighbor (first Green flag) practically got into scooters with one-third of the investment dude spent chasing his dream and is now closer to Elon Musk than dude and his fancy investors. Ouufff, why does life has to work like that? Right? You’d go “I Invested earlier, I had more money…out of all possible scenarios, how did he make it and not me?”

Coming up next, dude’s cousin (second Green) spent as much as dude (first Red) and not only didn’t fail to become America’s next fintech bachelor, but he actually managed to strike a hot seat in two trends at the same time! (eg. 5G and C19 masks) (How about that?!) Impressive!

Then you get the bigger picture. There are always a lot of dudes and myriad more opportunities that literally no one leveraged at their full potential at the right time, and you’re right - how would anyone know when it’s the right time? 

“If this doesn’t make sense, you most likely skipped the MIT Technology Review piece also found at the beginning of this article - I am confident now it would be a good time to open one more tab in your browser of choice.”

If you invested in a potential trend and have failed, the best thing you can do is to invest in that same trend again, when better prepared. = every “failed” attempt feeds the overall industry - similar to a decentralized fund. That means sooner or later that very industry will be sitting among mainstream trends, as long as it’s approaching the mass-adoption surface (10) over time, and taking for granted there are active ventures that seek into reaching out to that specific trend. Think of it like a slot machine. I mean, eventually, if you can sustain the attempt, you get your money back in the worst-case scenario.

So is it that simple? Does money really follow money? 🤔 If you are in a position to recall the dude from Figure 2, and the countless shills of that MIT article, you’ll quickly realize that is not the case.

Similar to the “Shift Of Trends” G spot in Year F, some of these changes are instantaneous and occasionally irreversible. Take the Covid-19 era as an example. For a period clubbing have been completely vanished from the menu, literally, yet everyone was suddenly obligated to wear a mask, everywhere, at all times. I am not tapping into the political dimension here, entirely disregarding if it’s good, bad, or necessary. The point is the “Shift Of Trends”, and whether we like it or not, we tend to believe it or not, we take an active part in it or not, it still remains a solid fact.

Paper money settlements now reduced by X% worldwide, while the rate of new fintech companies popping on top of the relevant trend grew by X% - like, I am not entirely sure about the actual numbers, but it feels like I can be sure you don’t need Statista to convince you that IS, in fact, the reality. The list goes on, you can do the math - eg. global internet activity grew by X%, while cream event venues practically lose money as you read this.

There are opportunities. There always have been. There are now that we point at them and describe them, and there will be when we will not. The best we can do is to aim at the right target, find the right party, the right amount of whatever money has evolved to become, usually accessible with the help of a smart hand-held device - that practically enables what you’re available to experience and what will remain as a never-touched dream - and of course, the right timing.

My next potential top-performing trends before the end of the century include but are not limited to:

• Autonomous Societies 

• Solar Travel on a Regular Basis

• Digital Twins as WorkForce

• AR/VR users as WorkForce, Contributors, Nodes

• Permanent Reality (PR)

• Designer Babies

• Gov-run Blockchain Era

• Race For Virtual Estate Dominance

• Pay As You Live Subscription Models

• Psychological Discrimination Marketing Trends

and more.

I know, I know, these are too far-fetched but remember that we said the same for BlackMirror and it’s not even that old as a reference to how we perceived the future in what we refer to as “the past”. We were like “Dayuuum, look at these drones everywhere, can you imagine that?” - two years into life, there are drones everywhere.

The point is, that trends usually become mainstream, when the right people reach out to the bottom, with the right resources, and at the right time. That’s not far or short in the vicinity, but rather whenever someone chooses to explore that potential.

*“Google announced that one of those chips, called Sycamore, had become the first to demonstrate “quantum supremacy” by performing a task that would be practically impossible on a classical machine. With just 53 qubits, Sycamore had completed a calculation in a few minutes that, according to Google, would have taken the world’s most powerful existing supercomputer, the IBM Summit, 10,000 years.” *

10,000 years away yesterday, a couple of minutes away today. - link to the full story.

~

Hope this served as a delicious meal for thought <3

Feel free to ping me on Twitter or anywhere else you prefer, I lit use all social media ☺ happy to debate and philosophize around the topic.