Yeah that would be a really interesting read, either as an article or full length book

I would read that book

It's not insane, and it was just explained how it happens. You don't need streets when you have 10 people. Or 100 people. But there comes a threshold where you do need them. The question remains, how do you recognize or determine this threshold? A lot of the times, a death is the wake up call.

"Regulations are written in blood."

The funny thing is that in spite of reinventing so much of it, the event still feels dangerous and leaves you to make your own decisions.

Burning Man still enables and allows dangerous art that you can fuck up your shit on. The organization has an interesting take on this: they allow dangerous art, so long as it looks as dangerous as it is. They don't want participants to be surprised that something was dangerous, because they want you to be able to do your own reasonable risk assessment.

(Though, I think the really impressive installations are the ones that look/feel more dangerous than they actually are.)

For what it's worth, I think this is a great exercise that should be undertaken now and again: you may not realize the ways in which a system is good or bad until you endeavor to tear it down and rebuild it from scratch.

In the case of Burning Man, there's structure that let's people be mostly safe by default, while supporting some reasonable risk taking. In the case of crypto, I think we've seen use cases where there's value in having a means of storing and transferring wealth outside of government control, which we saw the benefits of early on as governments tried to financially wall off groups like Wikileaks.

Does that mean we want all of the safe guards gone? No. Does that necessarily mean society and its structures are perfect and should never change? I think obviously, also no.

With the important difference that the cryptocurrency financial systems are backed by something with limited supply