<div class="text-justify">


I have never wanted to be rich and famous - rich is fine, it is the fame that is the issue. But, when it comes to careers that rely on social media, exposure and the attraction of attention, how many people are able to be successful and stay out of the spotlight?

<center>![PA040321.jpg](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/gAhWg8kV-PA040321.jpg)</center>

If you read me often enough, you will know that I am not a big fan of social media and the way we tend to use the internet, or the affects that they have on us as individuals and society. However, I do believe we are yet to use either the technology or the platform expansion upon it well, but web 3.0 will hopefully start improving upon this relatively rudimentary version we currently have. 

Currently, it is the centralized platforms who have the greatest say over internet *fame and fortune* where they are able to influence who will be famous through their ability to direct the attention of users they control, while they make fortunes. Yes, *some* of their users will also make relative fortunes, but very few of those people will be those who aren't already famous. Anyone dreaming of making 62 million a year from a handful of Instagram posts, *firstly* has to become as famous as Ronaldo. 

But, they have built the desire for fame and the "great American dream" potential of it, where people protect their right to be a billionaire, even though they and 99.999% of people will never come close. For those counting, there is one billionaire in the US (the place with the most) per 500,000 people - A *two in a million* chance - but you have to have the idea, skill, do the work and enjoy a very healthy dose of luck to get there. 

Just think, with 4 billion users on the internet, how many are able to become rich through social media profiles and personal branding? Out of the many, many millions, how many bloggers can live off their earnings, how many Instagram stars are able to live off theirs? At best, most who are monetized are able to get a small trickle of money coming in and some free swag, but how long can it last before the next "star" arrives to replace the passé, yesterday's news?

The collective attention span on celebrity isn't very long, unless a person is able to bring value in some other way, to keep themselves in the awareness by providing a product or service, or have a career that keep the spotlight on them over time. How many internet stars can manage to maintain the level of attention that keeps them earning, when the competition rising behind them is getting ever more numerous and fierce? 

<center>![PA040328.jpg](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/OjgQ25ah-PA040328.jpg)</center>

This is the opportunity of Web 3.0 and places like Hive, where it is lucrative to get that attention, but long term, the stability comes through being an owner and investor so that the trickle of value is able to be partly self-directed, where how we consume and how we interact with each other is part of the value cycle that *we* have access to, not just the platforms that we use. This shift in technology and cultural paradigms, starts to bring power back to the consumer and the creator alike, as there is a far more direct relationship between the two, as there are far fewer middleman leakages of value. 

What I think this means is that we don't need the current stars to join aboard, though they will be welcome, we need to create new stars, web 3.0 advocates who are able to not only consistently deliver, but keep demonstrating their commitment to the future by owning it, *literally.* On Hive this means the people that are earning and powering up, rather than continually leaking back into fiat, it means the people buying in and supporting the projects as investors in the new economy, it means the applications that are looking to advance the new industries, create the positions for new employment at all levels and continually attract a change of wealth from the old economy over onto the chains of the new. Essentially, people who say,

*"Fuck the Lambo - there are more important things to do with my wealth."*

Every generation is tasked with improving the world and each does, but it doesn't mean that there isn't damage done along the way, short-sighted profit-seeking, unintended consequences. Each generation has two tasks that need to be performed simultaneously in their way forward - 1) Build better 2) Clean up the mistakes of the past. 

Perhaps that is where our collective attention should be turning, that is where we should support, that is where we should be placing our wealth. Rather than being drained by the wealthy, we should be making those who add real value to the world in either of these directions - Wouldn't you rather see 62 million go to a handful of Instagram posts where the account has improved the efficiency of batteries by 50% - or a startup that has discovered a way to process waste more effectively to produce cleaner energy? Shouldn't we be using our attention and resources on those that improve our life, not just those who entertain us when bored?

Most people become famous and then start giving back to the world, start using their influence to affect conditions - but perhaps we should change the model of what it takes to become rich and famous in the first place, so that to be lifted up, one has to do something worthy enough to be lifted. 

People want to earn from doing what they love - but in respect to how it improves the world, most of what we love isn't worth much. Resources are finite, including our attention and we have built ourselves around an insatiable model that keeps drawing more of our energy, while returning very little that helps us. 

Consumption is an investment decision and the ROI on what we pay is negative. 

  
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
 

</div>

Posted Using [LeoFinance <sup>Beta</sup>](https://leofinance.io/hive-167922/@tarazkp/the-potential-fame-of-web-3-0)