Why everybody should consider soft commitment more v.02

Hard Commit is when you took credit/debt for a venture to scale up your success. 

Soft Commit is when you use disposable income for investments

I think the way our culture is, hard commitment is at saturation point and even more. Mistakes are highly penalized, new innovations are frowned upon, selling at low prices even if it's not at a loss is frowned upon, closing a company signifies failure, and firing spells possible demise of someone's life. 

When you hard commit, if you failed you would've lost your livelihood, your employee's livelihood, your life savings, etc. Maybe not if you had a lot of reserves but if people do then the culture wouldn't be too much like this. Putting all of those economic demise on the table not only dangerous for you but also a risk factor for future competitors because they would be talked about as those who caused the devastation. This is kind of a penalty to success. 

When you play you make mistakes, but if you made mistakes during the context of hard commiting you're playing with economic demise. Innovation, came from playing. Yes it came from pressure too but a lot of the time from playing, and this is frowned upon. 

Innovation should lift up the economy and make the innovators feel good, but too much hard commit gave the illusion of "too much innovation" and upon bankruptcy/firing, resentments appeared. Is this what will come for you bringing upon the Intellectual Property into the community? 

Why couldn't we have businesses opening and closing here and there? After success close, a lot of followers would came out of the tailwind and then be the vanguard. Figured out an innovation, start something new... then the vanguards exited you came again at the front... they learned something new and immitated you they opened up at your tailwind... then you close again and figured out new stuff and then next and then next... 

Barrier to entry is too high! If we allow this to happen people wouldn't have to be so afraid of losing jobs, people wouldn't had to work 9-5 everyday at one place. It would be a norm for people to have multiple jobs at decent working hours. Like a mesh structure one guy's boss is another guy's servant, and that guy was also the other guy's customer

------------------------------

Are the credit institutions evil? All institutions that are prominent in the world are evil, but they are also good for what they've done for everybody. 

It's just that, like a leader who don't want to step down would scale up their blank spots, things that are oversaturated and uncountered are unbalanced.