“There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.” (p 3)
This introductory paragraph of the book Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility by James P. Carse, initiates 149 pages filled with similarly structured aphorisms defining and supporting the differences between finite and infinite games, finite and infinite players, and why these distinctions matter. For an abbreviated version of the framework, watch this video summary or read this blog post. Familiarizing yourself with this content now will be helpful as you continue reading.
Over the course of this two part series, we will explore how this framework of finite and infinite games has a lot to offer our sensemaking in regards to Bitcoin, providing insight around hotly discussed topics including:
Part I
What went wrong with BTC?
How does one make sense of the actions and ideas of BTC “thought leaders”?
Part II
How does one make sense of Craig Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto?
What does it mean for Bitcoin to be “set in stone”?
What’s the proper approach for individuals moving forward into the Bitcoin enabled future?
The primary value of adopting this framework is equipping the individual to discern which games they are playing and understand whether they are finite or infinite games. Once one does, they can more appropriately play their particular game and avoid the confusion of accidentally playing the wrong game or assuming that all games are created equal.
Buckle up!
———————
BTC is a Collection of Finite Games
“If a finite game is to be won by someone it must come to a definitive end. It will come to an end when someone has won.” (p 3)
BTC’s games are finite and fundamentally about dollar accumulation. The primary BTC game is speculation on the dollar value of digital gold. Participants in this digital gold game are playing to win, thus it is not an infinite game. To win is to sell your digital gold for more dollars than you initially paid for it. This game comes to an end upon completion of this dollar-to-BTC-to-dollar exchange.
“Only one person or team can win a finite game, but the other contestants may well be ranked at the conclusion of play [...]. There are many games we enter not expecting to win, but in which we nonetheless compete for the highest possible ranking.” (p 6)
As individuals win and lose discrete digital gold games their overall status is measured and ranked relative to all players. Thus, there is a second BTC finite game; the cumulative outcomes of a player’s individual digital gold games dictate that player’s overall status amongst the set of players.
“What one wins in a finite game is a title. A title is the acknowledgment of others that one has been the winner of a particular game.” (p 19)
Even if one loses an individual digital gold game (“a trade”), they may still be a highly ranked and titled player. This ranked status allows the winner to leverage their title in various ways, often via the initiation of dollars-for-influence exchanges. In this case, the end goal (and thus culmination) of both BTC finite games is the accumulation of dollars and, as with all finite games, the potential to become a Master Player.
“The desire of all finite players is to be a ‘Master Player’, to be so perfectly skilled in their play that nothing can surprise them, so perfectly trained that every move in the game is foreseen at the beginning. A true Master Player plays as though the game is already in the past, according to a script whose every detail is known prior to play itself.” (p 17)
The BTC games reward potential Master Players with titles like “thought leader” and with high metrics relevant to the BTC game like Twitter followers. These thought leaders typically employ various backwards-looking logic, heuristics, and strategies in an attempt to predict the future as if it is already known. Surprises (especially in the negative), or things that happen in the future which the past did not predict, are threats for these thought leaders as their ability to be surprised diminishes the likelihood that they are indeed Master Players. As it becomes more clear that a particular thought leader is not a potential Master Player, their rank falls and they lose their ability to benefit in BTC’s dollars-for-influence games. Since negative surprises are so common, they are the primary threat to thought leaders who aspire to be Master Players.
A deeper, more existential threat to these aspiring Master Players is the loss of the relevance of the BTC games and thus the loss of memory of their earned titles.
“Since titles are timeless, but exist only so far as they are acknowledged, we must find means to guarantee the memory of them […], [for example] the numbers of great athletes are ‘retired’ or withdrawn from all further play […].” (p 19, 20)
The memory of a title ensures its continued usefulness to the winner of an already completed finite game. While most BTC thought leaders will lose their titles incrementally over time through the inevitability of many negative surprises, the existential threat of the disappearance of the entire game also looms large. If the NBA no longer exists, once-great players’ numbers cannot still meaningfully “be retired”. Retired from what? Similarly, if the BTC games of digital gold end, the thought leadership will no longer be useful for dollars-for-influence based dollar accumulation.
“Since finite games are played to be won, players make every move in a game in order to win it. Whatever is not done in the interest of winning is not part of the game.” (p 11)
For this reason, curiosity about potential (even likely) threats to the continued existence and relevance of the BTC games is not of interest to those playing it, and especially not to those winning it like potential Master Player BTC thought leaders. No matter how compelling the case against the longevity of BTC’s games may be, engaging in it is not a move that is done in the interest of winning the BTC games.
“Although it may be evident enough in theory that whoever plays a finite game plays freely, it is often the case that finite players will be unaware of this absolute freedom and will come to think that whatever they do they must do.” (p 10)
The seemingly impossible choice of choosing not to play the BTC digital gold or influence game (both obfuscated versions of their actual game: dollar accumulation) is often lost on those playing, even when there are better available strategies to win at dollar accumulation. Since the title of thought leader and the position as potential Master Players has a value within the BTC games, the existence of the option to stop playing is even less obvious to these players. For these players, they feel as though they must play the game. For players able to properly discern which games they are playing and which games they want to play, certain strategies will become obvious to them while they are hidden from others.
“A finite game must always be won with a terminal move, a final act within the boundaries of the game that establishes the winner beyond any possibility of challenge.” (p 20)
When one understands the finite nature of BTC’s games and their greater significance as component parts of strategies to win the dollar accumulation game, it is clear that those playing hope on exiting with a final victorious move measured in dollar accumulation. BTC is not a part of their continued future, rather it is a future part of their completed past. For many this will look like ceasing to play BTC’s finite games and finally using their accumulated dollars. Popular and telling memes within BTC imagine the acquisition of a “moon lambo” or membership in the “citadel” as representations of high status luxuries available to them as winners of the dollar accumulation game.
These status symbols are themselves likely titles of more fundamental finite games being played. There can be many finite games within finite games, but a key component of Carse’s framework is that there are no infinite games within finite games.
“Finite games can be played within an infinite game, but infinite games cannot be played within a finite game. Infinite players regard their wins and losses in whatever finite games they play as but moments in continuing play.” (p 7)
As Carse notes in the thesis and opening paragraph of the book, the continuation of play is the goal of infinite players playing an infinite game. An infinite game has no exit and its players’ would-be boundaries are actually new horizons. Because of this fundamentally different frame, finite players, perhaps ones consumed by the BTC games, are often confused by the actions of infinite players when they are encountered playing finite games. Who are some infinite players playing BTCs finite games? What does this look like?
“Finite players play within boundaries; infinite players play with boundaries.” (p 10)