I kind of just burst into this space on the wings of morning Ritalin and started playing uninvited curator before getting a sense of the forum etiquette and letting the pinned guidance on posting norms sink in. So “planning” is a strong word for any next steps in this series of posts. I have really acute impostor syndrome (just kidding, I actually just don’t know very much about anything) so doing the equivalent of wall text for each post seems either:
- premature at this stage of collecting papers of primarily historical interest
- a suboptimal approach where the second-best of each reader filtering for personal preference, and/or letting passion take the wheel and drive them to contribute their own posts, would be better than tacking on a static “relevance” justification as a kind of discursive fixed header
- even more solipsistic / Reddit-tier than just PDF-spamming
- some combination of the above
I don’t want to chill the overall site with clutter in getting a feel for either the intended or emergent UX, and think your intuitions on the single thread would be especially right on - except I’m posting with the sense that platform effects between expert networks have a lot more power than my vision for a series of connections to histories of thought.
A corollary to that is that the typical codex - an aggregation of blog postings, compiled into a list and posted on Medium - is a form that amounts to a refusal to leverage existing technological development in the form of theory and documentation, both narrative and technical. That’s a long and pretentious way of saying that I hope people here are so much smarter than I am that they can collectively rise above the personal Not Invented Here syndrome that compels me - maybe by the narcissism of small differences, maybe by frustration - to act out a praxis of deference to established wisdom by posting objective classics in respectful silence. That is - until the charm of community qua community takes hold, and something like the excitement of watching this category called “Economics” take form, starts to kick in.
So, I have no idea, but here are some ideas:
Optimistically, a reminder of sometime uncertainty of purpose in reading and posting online may inspire a useful development, or at least serve as a reminder what’s so magical about the unknown in social science?
Realistically, I don’t know, and the rate limit of new topics precludes what I would have thought the most creatively enabling mode for a wide-open space in search of a collective habitus: shotgun threading on psychostimulants.
Theoretically, you could consider that a Williamsonian boundary problem in its own right, and I’m glad you chose the paper that lends itself most readily of those posted to accessible metahumor at this intersection of disciplines.
Quite literally, hope that helps. Maybe good faith would require me to soul-search, and admit to having hoped to play kitsch cryptoeconomic canon Ozymandias in a para-academic setting while the serious institutional economists are writing publishable papers, while the serious computer scientists and cryptographers are writing software. Maybe the communicative gas limit cabining my discretion is a reasonably optimal second-best. But I’m not familiar enough with the regret auction literature to cosplay someone who knows how to finish this setup about the distinction between uncertainty and opportunism with a punch line.
I think the cryptoeconomic term for that is “the Jonestown dilemma.”
tl;dr Girls Just Wanna Have Fun