Last night I woke up in the middle of the night, entangled in the "Middle Treatise" of Nagarjuna for a long time. The concept of "conditioned arising" is indeed not easy to understand. However, this morning, I happened to chat with a friend about a decentralized product, and taking advantage of this profound coincidence, I decided to write about some interesting innovative thinking methods.
Today, let's talk about the product thinking model in the Web3 world. We often use several thinking models in product innovation, such as incremental innovation thinking model, creative thinking model, first-principles thinking model, and a newly emerged zero-based thinking model.
Of course, before these, there is the model of copying, which includes benchmarking or replication thinking models. In the traditional internet, it’s called replication; in the new Crypto world, it’s called "forking". Essentially, it’s a mindset of following and replicating, characterized by several features. That is, often one has to wait until a system achieves a certain level of success, then quickly follow and replicate in the most conservative way in another time or demographic, to strike fast. The key aspects are following, replication, grafting, and rapid strike. This is a very conservative but stable thinking model, especially in the Crypto field. Such methods have advantages in safety and stability. Of course, this thinking model establishes a very solid anchor or benchmark. In our minds, we first need a successful anchor to fixate upon, so we can quickly replicate a similar system in another market or community. Despite its guaranteed safety and stability, its expansiveness and legitimacy are actually limited.
That is to say, the boundaries of this thinking model are clear and the rules simple. It's relatively easy to get started and quickly form a certain adoption effect within its boundaries through shifts in time and community grafting. The advantage is that it’s relatively safe and reliable, with something to rely on in thinking. However, its downside is that, in terms of global horizontal and vertical growth potential and depth, it might not be sufficient. In the long term, once intellectual property on a general scale gets redefined, such a thinking model could be problematic.
Of course, every new economy might start with breaking the boundaries of intellectual property, then rapidly and savagely copy. For example, the early innovation development in the United States and China clearly relied on decoupling from Europe's existing intellectual property system. In other words, the benchmarking thinking model is suitable for early-stage, inexperienced developers and latecomers - a kind of rapid strike thinking model.
Next comes the creative thinking model, which Steve Jobs once articulated very well: "Good artists copy, great artists steal." How should we understand this thinking model? In layman's terms, if you copy a lot, it becomes unrecognizable that you copied; this is stealing. A classic example is the emergence of the iPhone, which combined a phone, iPod, and Wi-Fi. From various perspectives, it's odd why no one has simplified the deconstruction of the thinking model left by Steve Jobs to this day.
The creative thinking model often involves a key element: three. Three gives rise to all things; putting together three new concepts from different fields usually results in an invention or creation. This angle helps to understand many creative systems. Of course, this thinking model is also evident in the Ethereum whitepaper. Yes, it's simple: thoroughly understand three different concepts, then piece them together - that’s invention or creation. Naturally, the more concepts, the better.
From this perspective, Jobs thoroughly grasped the concepts of the internet, phone, and music. Of course, this is just on the product dimension. If extended to business models, more concepts come into play. So, from this perspective, systems like Uniswap and Blur aren’t that difficult. Of course, finding concepts might not be hard, but truly grasping them is extremely difficult. Once the concepts are fully understood, creating them is relatively easier. We probably overemphasize the details of the execution process. The resulting combinations are often hard to trace back to their predecessors; they contain more subjectivity and originality. To a certain extent, the creative thinking model isn’t that difficult.
Where exactly is the difficulty in the creative thinking model? If we observe the world for a long time, the answer might be super simple: courage. This thinking model needs to be encouraged, which explains why there are more people with such creative thinking in the Western education system, especially in the Web3 world. I often ask my friends, have you ever asked yourself, who exactly is pointing at your head and telling you it's impossible? From this point, Satoshi Nakamoto’s creative thinking model is exquisitely beautiful. Of course, we are grateful to Satoshi Nakamoto; didn’t he precisely tell us that we are possible, because we all have the Satoshi within us?
One disadvantage of the creative thinking model is that it is difficult to get started, as the boundaries are too vague. Especially for those who are used to replicating thinking models, it's like setting sail without clear boundaries, as it expands the boundaries by several dimensions. This makes it challenging at the beginning, often unstable and not very reliable. Essentially, it demands a high level of conceptual understanding. As dimensions increase, the system naturally becomes more complex. Such systems might be fragile and unstable in the early stages, seeming rough and untamed. However, from a higher perspective, these systems or products shine brightly. In the past ten years, there have been very few such standout creations.
If we lack great artists, we can consider reducing some dimensions of first-principles thinking. First-principles and benchmark thinking models are contradictory. The former means breaking away from benchmarks to understand each term, not waiting for a phone to succeed before making another one. It asks foundational questions, like what problem does a phone solve? Given the limits of modern physics, might there be better ways to address these problems? First-principles thinking requires a certain knowledge structure, preferably a solid one. If you master the basics of physics, building systems isn't a problem. But if you add the dimension of economics, business might become more rational.
In layman's terms, it's about removing anchors from thinking, using one's own words, feelings, and experiences to redefine a term, a problem, or an answer. For example, consider decentralized trading platforms. With this thinking model, one would begin by asking the first three questions: What is decentralization? What is trading? What is a platform? What problems do they each solve? Then, what new methods might exist under new theories or technologies? Clearly, the combination of these methods increases. If both system and economy achieve a 2x effect, combined with a certain Token mechanism, achieving a 10x impact is likely. The benchmarks we take for granted might not be reliable.
First-principles thinking is somewhat reduced in dimension compared to pure creation. However, it is systematic, and from a historical perspective, it works for large-scale projects. But the foundation might not be solid enough for large-scale projects, which require strict collaboration. This might explain why even under traditional rules, few companies have succeeded with this model over the past decade. Experimental failure rates are high. Assumption A might need over ten fast experiments before a positive result emerges for system feedback.
In the context of Web3, systems with defined boundaries might be suited for reconstruction or production using this thinking model. The boundaries of Web3 have already been broken, with a diverse knowledge structure that includes not just physics and mathematics, but also political science, law, etc. Applying first-principles thinking comprehensively becomes almost impossible. In some culturally related fields, this thinking model might even fail.
From Satoshi Nakamoto's perspective, it's about removing trust intermediaries. Many terms in our minds are left after benchmark thinking. Breaking a few can be beneficial.
Lastly, let's discuss Zeroth-Principles Thinking, which I read about from a Silicon Valley blogger. It's associated with a certain AI model and stems from the invention of the number zero. It's about discovering or inventing something that doesn't exist in reality. This thinking model is bold and dangerous, like a discovery. Shifting perspectives, if we were those ancient Indians, we might believe in the concept from within. From a Zen perspective, under a state of inherent sufficiency, one can discover new things. Zeroth-Principles thinking might require confidence in production. Once production begins, existing concepts easily influence thinking.
To some extent, Zeroth-Principles thinking could be realized by connecting with the philosophical world. For example, transferring from the spiritual to the material, from material to concept, from concept to rhythm, and from physical energy to our informational side. Satoshi Nakamoto's story with Bitcoin can't be verified, but we can appreciate the philosophical transition, energy and information, concept, and rules. Bitcoin is certainly an invention, but Nakamoto discovered it.
Why is Zeroth-Principles thinking essential? It's bold, especially now, when human order is decoupling from traditional rules due to new technologies and theories. Thanks to Nakamoto, when the freedom of various dimensions is opened, not only will innovations emerge, but also completely new dimensional transformations and unimaginable existences. Faith and imagination have never been so stimulated, with many abandoning low-end production pursuits, while many thinkers daring to shift dimensions are incentivized.
Personally, I believe this Zeroth-Principles thinking should be called Emptiness Thinking, rooted in Zen and Silicon Valley. We won't delve into this today, perhaps after some thought experiments.
I didn't initially want to write a "how-to" article. I believe "just do it" is more important than "how to do it." But for some reason, I felt inspired last night. This is for those who want to create something good.
But what is considered good?
Is it tangible? Or is it intangible?
Is it stable? Or is it fluid?
Is it vast? Or is it profound?
Is it long-term? Or is it intricate?
Is it profound? Or is it primal?
Is it iterative? Or is it robust?
Is it about the self? Or is it about us?
Is it controlled? Or is it evolved?
Is it invented? Or is it discovered?
Because of causes and conditions, conditions lead to more conditions, from four conditions all dharmas arise, there's no fifth condition.
Here, let's quote these lines from Nagarjuna (龙树).