How Capitalzodlerism Works

Zodling, Not For Ostriches

Here’s Yuval Harari, on Adam Smith:

The belief in the growing global pie eventually turned revolutionary. In 1776 the Scottish economist Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, probably the most important economics manifesto of all time. In the eighth chapter of its first volume, Smith made the following novel argument:

“”“When a landlord [zodlord], a weaver, or a shoemaker has greater profits than he needs to maintain his own family, he uses the surplus to employ more assistants, in order to further increase his profits. The more profits he has, the more assistants he can employ. It follows that an increase in the profits of private entrepreneurs is the basis for the increase in collective wealth and prosperity.”“” <== Adam Smith, 1776

This may not strike you as very original, because we all live in a capitalist world that takes Smith’s argument for granted. We hear variations on this theme every day in the news. Yet Smith’s claim that the selfish human urge to increase private profits is the basis for collective wealth is one of the most revolutionary ideas in human history—revolutionary not just from an economic perspective, but even more so from a moral and political perspective. What Smith says is, in fact, that greed is good, and that by becoming richer I benefit everybody, not just myself. Egoism is altruism.

Smith taught people to think about the economy as a “win-win situation,” in which my profits are also your profits. Not only can we both enjoy a bigger slice of pie at the same time, but the increase in your slice depends upon the increase in my slice. If I am poor, you too will be poor since I cannot buy your products or services. If I am rich, you too will be enriched since you can now sell me something. Smith denied the traditional contradiction between wealth and morality, and threw open the Gates of Heaven for the rich. Being rich meant being moral. In Smith’s story, people become rich not by despoiling their neighbors, but by increasing the overall size of the pie. And when the pie grows, everyone benefits. The rich are accordingly the most useful and benevolent people in society, because they turn the wheels of growth for everyone’s advantage.

I think there’s a lot of truth to this.

Personally I have reinvested the majority of my ZEC in… ZEC. I can point to projects and people that have now exist because of those investments. People and projects that are actively contributing to the Zcash community.

Investing takes a lot of attention, someone, somewhere must make decisions about how their capital is allocated. I am grateful to people who choose to allocate their ZEC to secure the community by Zodling it and not moving it.

Folks like that, Zodlers who aren’t involved in daily decisions directing Zcash, are a cornerstone of Zcash, and they deserve a vote in our future.

But what about people who hold ZEC AND want to directly weigh in on the day-to-day evolution of our cutting edge technology?

To you, those of you with passion for our endeavor, Zodling isn’t enough.

If you want to push against the frontier of human knowledge, you must invest.

It’s not that giving hackers and engineers the Option to create new technology is better for our movement, it’s the only way we can exist.

If you have time to speak, then you have time to put your ZEC where your mouth is.

Like the rest of us.

4 Likes

So you are saying that ZEC stakeholders are not doing enough? And they shouldn’t speak unless thay pay up?

How disrespectful. My bad, we’re definitely not aligned philosophically.

I’m not sure how you got that?

Here’s what I said:

Can you please help me understand how you arrived at your interpretation from my words?

What I said was:

A Zodler is not the same thing as an active participant.

One can be one, the other, both, or neither.

Got what?

That’s all I need to get. This is inherently disrespectful. The context is not even necessary, but the rest of your message does align with that point anyway.

How is that disrespectful?

Sorry, talking of time, I don’t have any more to dedicate to self-evident matters, I’ll relay to AI:

  • It creates a financial barrier to participation - It implies that simply holding ZEC isn’t enough to have a valid voice in the community, potentially excluding smaller holders or those who can’t afford additional investment.
  • It dismisses non-monetary contributions - Community members might contribute valuable insights, technical knowledge, advocacy, or other non-financial support that this statement appears to devalue.
  • It has a gatekeeping tone - The statement suggests that only those who actively invest beyond basic holding deserve to participate in discussions, which could feel exclusionary.
  • It oversimplifies participation - The binary framing (either invest more or don’t speak) doesn’t acknowledge the spectrum of ways people can meaningfully engage with the project.
  • It potentially conflates wealth with wisdom - There’s an implication that those with more resources to invest might have more valuable opinions, which many would disagree with.

Good? Thanks.

But you do have time because all you do is spam the forum. I haven’t calculated it, but at least 10% of everything posted in the forum in the past year feels like it belongs to you.

So, try not to straw man others’ thoughts, and, what was the prompt that you used to get that last text because I don’t seem to be able to get the same results as yours?

It’s funny because I arrived about two months ago.

AIs are non-deterministic, that’s normal.

It was great having this conversation with you as well. Bye now.

So just two months feel like a year with you… Huh, interesting.

In any case, especially if you are new here (welcome btw), maybe try to see things from multiple perspectives.

Since you used AI I will do you the same courtesy. Here is the favourable interpretation of the phrase " If you have time to speak, then you have time to put your ZEC where your mouth is. " :

A call to action, urging someone to back up their words with tangible support or commitment, using Zcash (ZEC), a privacy-focused cryptocurrency, as the means to do so.

It suggests confidence in Zcash as a valuable tool for action—perhaps implying that if you’re willing to voice an opinion or make a statement, you should also be ready to invest or contribute using ZEC to demonstrate your sincerity or belief in the cause. It’s a twist on the classic saying “put your money where your mouth is,” reframed with a modern, crypto-friendly spin.

Here is the straw man version of it:

This phrase is just a lazy demand that anyone who dares to say anything at all must immediately throw their Zcash around recklessly, as if talking isn’t worth anything unless you’re dumping cryptocurrency on it. It’s basically saying that opinions don’t matter unless you’re rich enough to waste ZEC, and if you don’t, you’re a hypocrite who shouldn’t even bother speaking.

None of this is making the points raised in my previous message any less valid.

Regards,

You can mute/ignore spams by users who hide their profile by going to Preference/Users page. Is it possible to mark a user as ignored if they have a hidden profile? - Support - Discourse Meta

1 Like

I personally buy and shield 10-20 Zec/month and try to spread the protocol among friends. Worse case scenario I lose my investment.

2 Likes

I have been accumulating and spreading the Zcash gospel as well, but apparently some people think it’s not enough to speak in here: