Street credibility and legitimacy marketing

Street credibility is keeping it real

Bitcoin, Dash, SAFE Network, are examples of platforms which have plenty of street credibility but which lack legitimacy. If we look at Bitcoin we will see they have endorsement from the cypherpunks, from the libertarian elite, from the anarchists, from groups of political activists, and from hackers. Bitcoin is marketing itself through street credibility, so is Dash, and in the case of Bitcoin and Dash right now the balance is almost entirely on the side of street credibility.

Legitimacy is being endorsed by the big players

If we look at Ethereum and Ripple we can see examples of legitimacy marketing. Legitimacy marketing is a strategy of winning endorsements from big players. Big players are large powerful entities such as big business, big banks, governments, big billionaire investors, old money, aristocracy, etc. Winning over the big players is how mass adoption is had, because the masses for the most part see legitimacy as cool and anything legit is cool. Facebook is legit, Google is legit, Microsoft is legit, Apple is legit, they are also considered cool, and these are the brands people sign up for, trust, want to associate with. So in order to capture the attention of the masses, legitimacy marketing is necessary.

Street credibility vs legitimacy is a delicate balance

To be successful in the 2017 environment seems to require a balance between street credibility and legitimacy. Street credibility if completely sacrificed for legitimacy will never catch on, never have a "heart and soul", never have a sub-culture. Street credibility is necessary, and street credibility is had by appealing to the demographics who make up the culture from which these technologies emerge. If we were to look at anything, not just crypto, but it could be skateboarders for example, we would have to maintain street credibility with our company by respecting the skating subculture and cherishing it's traditions. To tip the balance too far would be to try to corporatize the culture and this of course might result in a backlash or rejection.

Legitimacy is the other side of the balance and is just as necessary. To seek and obtain legitimacy is called crossing over. Bitcoin is not a mainstream success and never will be. Bitcoin has failed to cross over and will always likely be a toy of the cypherpunks, anarchists, hackers, and never obtain the level of adoption that the big block Bitcoin Unlimited demographic desires. It appears at least for now that Bitcoin has chosen to maintain street credibility. The problem I see of course is that any tech can come alone with greater privacy, greater street credibility, newer, and for this reason without continued growth Bitcoin will in my opinion not be able to compete with Dash, or SAFE Network.

Legitimacy is very necessary for the platforms which want to have the world and as much of humanity as possible as stakeholders. Legit in the sense that you don't have to be a cypherpunk, or an anarchist, or a libertarian, or male, or speak English, or part of any specific sub culture in order to appreciate the platform. The platform would have to compete on the basis of offering utility, services, features, rather than cultural significance. In this sense Ripple is already achieving mainstream adoption, and Ethereum is also becoming mainstream, specifically because these two platforms struck a different balance between street credibility and legitimacy.

Ripple does not pretend to be anything more than a bankCoin, it does not try to compete on anything other than offering efficient features, and it's algorithm is actually better than Bitcoin even if it's not perceived as being decentralized. Ethereum tries to maintain a balance where there is just enough street credibility that cypherpunks, hackers, anarchists, will trust and use it, but not so much that it alienates the vast majority of the planet from using it. When TheDAO hack occurred Ethereum had the option to sacrifice legitimacy forever in favor of being pure street credibility and decided it was in the best interest of token holders to maintain legitimacy. As we can see by the price of Ethereum this decision was the best one for token holders because everyone who survived TheDAO and held, and who kept faith, are now reaping the rewards. Mainstream adoption if it is the goal of Ethereum, is increasingly in reach.

Endorsements as legitimacy marketing

Ethereum Alliance broadcasts with lists of endorsements are legitimacy marketing. These are signals which are picked up on by the mainstream but which many in the crypto subculture do not understand. These signals are more powerful than any other kind of marketing to bring in ordinary people. It's Intel, Microsoft, Google, JP Morgan, all the most trusted companies, and by most trusted I mean the majority of people in the world know Microsoft Windows 10 is closed source and they use it anyway, they know Intel chips could have backdoors but use them anyway, they trust their government. It's the tiny minority subculture which doesn't trust it's government which the cypherpunk and hacker community appeal to but this will never be big enough for mainstream adoption which means the cryptospace would never have 100 billion market cap, or 1 trillion market cap, and would only grow at the rate of discontent with the government.

Street credibility marketing

When Edward Snowden, Alex Jones, anti-war activists, hackers, hustlers, endorse a particular technology, it gains street credibility. People tend to believe that if the most paranoid people on the planet are using a particular privacy app that it must be safe. People who distrust their government, probably distrust Intel, Microsoft, the banks, and all the sort of people who are most trusted by the mainstream population. So the marketing to these demographics is going to be dramatically different as it addresses different concerns, fears, etc.

Conclusion

When thinking about marketing a particular project it would help to determine early on if the goal of the platform or project is street credibility, legitimacy, or a balance. If it's either extreme on the spectrum then you're sacrificing something, and to balance concerns of different demographics is challenging. It is only by balancing these concerns that we can have a platform which makes most stakeholders happy most of the time.