Hello! Thanks for reading another super long thing I wrote. I'll be noodling around in the comments on my work breaks if anyone has any questions or anything. Believe it or not, this piece was once even longer, so there might be one or two things I can add a bit of context or clarity to.
I just wish someone could tell me why these super rich people don't give a large proportion of their money to Friends of the Earth, Medicins sans Frontiers, Sea Shepherd, Save the Children or a thousand other charities.
I really have a huge sympathy for the French is 1789. Let's send these oxygen thieves to the guillotine and use their ill-gotten gains to try and undo the damage the 1% have done and continue to do. (We could give them the option of choosing to disburse themselves of 95% of their wealth. They'd still end up with more than normal people could ever spend, but, I mean, I'd give them a chance, before sending them for the chop!)
I consider myself to be a relatively intelligent person, but I have now read a number of explainers about NFTs and my brain simply cannot grasp the what, how, why, or even where. I can feel my mind straining for comprehension and it simply eludes me. I wonder if this is because of my age? (45) NFT's more than anything have given me a glimpse into a future of me watching the world in utter bewilderment.
Wait till your 70😳I’m holding on to my money for the next round of pyramid game’s where you get to stand around in someone’s house with a plastic tumbler of cask wine hoping some other deluded fuckwit is daft enough to come in at the bottom 😂😂
Don't feel bad for being bewildered. In a lot of ways, the tech is needlessly complex, and I reckon this complexity functions as a stand-in for actual value - a bit like how multi-level marketing scams have intentionally byzantine structures. "Wow this thing is so complicated! It must be legit!"
All you really need to know is that NFTs are receipts with extra steps.
I'm a couple years younger but this shit is totally out of my realm of comprehension despite several attempts to get a rudimentary understanding. Appears like that's not such a bad thing though so let's be content in our ignorance!
Yes, me too! Exactly this. I’m one of those sci-fi fantasy geeks and I like to think that symbolic, high concept stuff is kind of where I live - but I just don’t get it. Are they… selling imagination? Selling ideas? None of it is real, right? I’m a makeup artist in my day job and it involves a fair amount of hands on drawing/painting. I’m a fan of several cool accounts featuring digital art on social media. But the concept of crypto just confuses me (especially since… isn’t all our money mostly digital now? Like, there’s not a corresponding pile of money held by my bank that is “mine” and is the physical representation of my paycheque) and I really don’t get NFTs!
Also 45 - and wondering if taking economics in 4th form would have helped me understand the global market now 🤷♀️
I feel this deeply. I’ll be 40 this year and would say that I am fairly confident navigating the changing world, especially online. Though I generally observe rather than participate. This is the exception. Even Bitcoin I could follow, but this is just a level that makes me anxious of aging out and being totally lost in the new financial technologies.
I agree with everything Joshua has addressed in this piece… crypto as a whole is still a total wild-west, the use cases are minimal, the environmental impact of the leading tokens is disgusting, and a majority of the NFT space currently is get-rich-quick meme art and questionable ‘ownership’.
Something I do continually find with these discussions though is that they’re always focused on how messy things are *right now* with no potential positive future in sight.
I think we forget how quickly tech moves. How giant and clunky the first PC’s were. How nasty (but kinda fun) MS-DOS was, or the very first website you visited on your 14.4kbs dial-up modem. These mad internet algorithm/encryption scientists are figuring new things out at such a rapid pace and testing the limits of things that have never been explored before. And I don’t know if it’s fair to shut down this ‘Web3’ idea as a whole until we see some dead ends arrive. As in, the development has slowed down and progress has stopped. Right now it’s moving at light speed.
That was what drew me in to crypto originally. Not cos I’m interested in finance or investment (I assumed I would lose every cent I put in), but just the sheer concept of a brand new type of technology that completely fascinated my geek brain.
As a musician, I have hopes for blockchain one day streamlining ownership. Rather than waiting for the royalty of a single play on the radio to filter through 3 independant collection agencies, 5 different spreadsheets, a record label and a publisher to finally reach my bank account a year later, imagine being able to see that automated in an instant with no margin of error and in a totally transparent way. Dream. And there are blockchains out there trying to figure that out. Just again, it’s in the ‘work in progress’ category.
Finally as a small feel good foot-note to this to show cryptocurrency doing some good: I run a dog rescue in Los Angeles, and last year we set ourselves up to accept donations via cryptocurrency. Thanks to sites like The Giving Block (a platform dedicated to crypto donations for registered non-profits), we had over $50k USD donated in various forms of crypto. That is HUGE for us. That money is funneled directly to saving lives, from whatever weird place on the internet it came from. And there’s another 100 million USD where that came from, making its way through to other non-profits globally for 2021.
Who knows what Web3’s final form will be. Maybe it will all be a burst bubble train-wreck, but for now I’m holding on to glass half full.
These are good points. First, I'm really stoked to hear about the donation to the shelter! That's fantastic.
I think the issue I have with the idea of "web3" being analogous to the early days of the online revolution (which also attracted a lot of cynicism) is that it's not truly analogous. A lot of the development and proliferation in this space, when you squint a bit closer, is actually duplication.
Put it this way: for all its flaws, the Web runs on a set of standards. DNS, HTML, etc. Crypto is a bit like if every developer, instead of using DNS, was saying "actually we have our own tech that's a clone of DNS but is also better than DNS, and - get this - it prints special money, without which you can't actually use our version of DNS!"
I also love the idea of NFTs automated royalties or resale percentages on original art. But it looks like any obligation to pay that royalty is easily avoided by simply paying for a given NFT via a different cryptocurrency/blockchain. I'd be happy to be wrong about this! I want to believe that there's a great new way for way more artists to be rewarded for their work.
When you get past the bad actors and grifters, I like the optimism and a lot of the values - democratization, ownership, profit-share - that I see in this space. But, on closer inspection, it seems that the tech doesn't actually enable those things. In many cases, it's actively hostile to them. Then all you have left is a bunch of outliers; a few artists who've done well (and who I am genuinely happy for: it's almost always great to see artists succeed) but who also get held up as exhibits for "look how great this tech is" which ignores the majority who haven't been successful, and those that have been ripped off.
Feb 2, 2022·edited Feb 2, 2022Liked by David Farrier
Great write up, and mirrors a lot of my thoughts.
I do differ on crypto in general. I'm still a believer... In its potential. Not proof of work, which as Josh pointed out, is horrific energy wise, but proof of stake. I still think that there's a possible future where they become a viable alternative to fiat currency.
However, I'm worried about how much hype crypto, and NFTs, are getting. Crypto is currently useless (apart from making crypto investors rich) because the tech just isn't ready. All these various crypto blockchain companies are working tirelessly, coding and problem solving and trying to create something new.
I think their work will eventually pay off.
But not for a while.
So what you have now is a prospective gold rush and all that implies. There are individuals and corporations trying to get rich, you have people trying to exploit the ecosystem that's developing around it, you have straight up criminals doing criminal shit, scammers and grifters taking advantage of people's greed.
It's toxic as fuck. And that makes me sad. Because if you listen to the people actually involved in the development of these various crypto/blockchain projects (well... The reputable ones anyway), they're not toxic at all. They're optimistic tech nerds, trying really hard to create something unique and useful. But their projects are getting coopted and cannibalised by hype and greed.
And then there's the whole NFT market, which Josh is absolutely right about. It's just the fine art world, turned digital and cranked up to 11.
I'm an artist too, and people often suggest I sell NFTs, but I haven't, for all the reasons listed by Josh. It just feels like a huge bubble, waiting to burst. There are times where I think it serves a legitimate purpose. Beeple, for example, is a legitimately renowned artist, who works in a purely digital format (so you can't buy an "original") and his NFT was a representation of five years of artistic work. I can see why an art collector would want it. Is it worth $69 million? Probably not. But that's an art world problem, not an NFT problem.
The Bored Apes, or those stupid lions though? Those things are completely fucking pointless and exploitative capitalistic nonsense.
As Josh says, NFTs are essentially a receipt. They're a bit of background tech that no one should know about. They can potentially have uses for things like a ticket receipt, or to be used as membership to an online service (I've heard of a boxing trainer selling NFTs that act as links to his database of training videos, for example). Basically, you shouldn't be buying an NFT. You should be buying something useful, that is delivered to you using NFT technology. Literally the only people who should know what an NFT is are tech nerds and the people responsible for coding them.
In some ways, I think this backlash against crypto and NFTs is probably a good thing. Hopefully the hype will die down a bit, the world will move on to something else, and the crypto developers can get back to trying to create some cool technology that can actually help people, and not just turn the fucking planet to ash.
I'm writing sitting in my home office surrounded by art works made or collected by family. I grew up in the 80's with raku kilns in the garden, originals for lost-wax bronze casting sitting in the porch workshop and paintings all over the place, and I rather like that forward slash 'drawing' so I get the attraction to art. I draw and take photos myself when I get a moment which isn't often.
However, the connection of 'high end' art to finance/speculation/art 'investment' really bothers me. I'm much happier in the kind of tradition where people make art to communicate, or to build communities, or to express something!
I think as an artist who hates this shit the moment I finally snap is coming. Will it be tomorrow? Maybe. Next month? Possibly. Most likely a few years from now when some kid looks at prints I have for sale at a show and says “cool! Fungible Tokens”.
To anyone still on the fence (somehow) I would point you to the New Zealand National party's spokesperson for science and technology, the Honourable Judith Collins, who thinks NFTs are "incredibly exciting". https://twitter.com/JudithCollinsMP/status/1488665936597237763
I think the comparison to contemporary art is a really useful one because it points out how NFTs (and crypto in general) aren't actually allowing people to do anything new. Everything around it is stuff that people would be doing anyway. It actually makes me a lot less bothered by the whole thing.
This is fascinating and a topic I try to get my head around so thanks.
Like many gentrified areas I wonder if NFT's is just another gentrified space [this may not be a that-accurate use of the word] occupied by a particular sub-set.
I do ponder though how could NFT's be applied in a more useful, less investment-style - like for warranty's for products and rego's for cars - say I brought a fridge that had a 'Lifetime' warranty, but I brought second-hand and I wanted to argue that said 'lifetime' warranty was still valid - some design error or part malfunction happened, then perhaps the domestically functional NFT could mean I could service the fridge with the manufacturer - reduce waste, holding producers to more accurate advertising standards, reducing all that mountain of paper/printing/bureaucratic-process to a single string of numbers.
I've also just read Ministry of the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson which proposed a use of the blockchain that created greater transparency and reduced the hiding of currency in tax havens etc.
As mentioned the current web 3 is like a 'Wild West' scenario, but it must be remembered the the Wild West we have in our head is often the product of Hollywood & not real life, AND whatever that period was actually like it was only temporary. Is it possible to bend this towards something better, and away from the grift.
just thoughts, but thanks again for the provocation.
I reckon your first bit about gentrification pretty much nails it. To your point about warranties and such - I'm always interested in genuine use-cases for blockchain tech. The problem I find is that whenever one is posited, it always seems like something that can be done faster and more cheaply with... a database. For the fridge, couldn't that be managed with a database and a digital warranty that one owner can simply pass on to another? And all these kinds of things still require a level of goodwill and centralized authority to enforce them. Not to mention that if the whiteware company goes under, it doesn't matter whether your warranty is written on paper, SQL, or the blockchain - all are equally useless.
I'm a big fan of Ministry for the Future. I even recommended it wholeheartedly in the Webworm I wrote about climate change. But when KSR writes about blockchain, I can't help but think he has in mind a version of the technology that's fast, computationally inexpensive, environmentally neutral, doesn't incentivize crime, and is universally adopted without schisms. Which is currently science fiction :)
I work in tech, as a non-IT trained person but still, almost every application proposed for blockchain seems to me to be something a database should do. As you point out the connection to the physical world of fridges, houses, food or whatever still requires trusting some organisation so you might as well trust them with the data too. Blockchain is just the least efficient and slowest database ever. Its decentralisation advantages mostly seem to accrue to the worst applications: crime, speculation etc.
Thanks Josh, nicely considered, I appreciate your thoughts on this.
And on point re KSR - it is sci-fi but one of the things that I like about KSR is that, in instances like this book, I think I heard him say somewhere that he only writes about technology that already exists.
I enjoyed this podcast interview ( shorturl.at/cCGQ0 ) with him where he comments on Ministry after the arrival of the pandemic. In it he comments that the Chen Papers, on which he based his blockchain scenario, is actually based on the work of a Dr Chen from Australia ( shorturl.at/dzAMT ) - who I am still trying to digest
What is the difference between a long establish bank doing it's best to maximise profits and take money off me, than some celebrity shill or other rich person? I don't see much difference at all, in the amount of abuse that can come from either source. The long list of grievances against "too-big-too-fail" and massive bonuses and stupid lending and blah blah blah all seem same same-y with abuses by crpto fiends.
Josh has a better brain than me, and I feel lucky to be able to tap him on the shoulder to write here from time to time. He's also a really good artist. As I said - good brain.
Was interesting to hear this podcast after reading this. Covers some similar points, about the carbon costs of Crypto & NFT but also a bit of optimism about potential solutions. Have included Dr Walker's bio as think it gives the, at times, fun and lighthearted conversation credibility.
The Future of Carbon Drawdown (with Dr Gabrielle Walker) | Jon Richardson and the Futurenauts - The Book of Revelations
BIO: Gabrielle gives keynote addresses to corporate audiences around the world. She is also an accomplished moderator of high-level debates, guiding panels involving global CEOs, former heads of state, government ministers, military generals and global humanitarian leaders. She has extensive experience at designing and facilitating innovative “safe-space” conversations between global leaders, from small round tables through to major international meetings. Gabrielle has presented many TV and radio programs for the BBC.
She has been Climate Change Editor at Nature and Features Editor at New Scientist and has written very extensively for many international newspapers and magazines, including The Economist, Prospect, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. She is author of four books including co-authoring the bestselling book The Hot Topic, how to avoid global warming while still keeping the lights on, which was described by Al Gore as “a beacon of clarity” and by The Times as “a material gain for the axis of good”. She has a PhD from Cambridge University and has taught at both Cambridge and Princeton Universities.
A self-confessed “ice addict” Gabrielle has made more than a dozen trips to both poles. She has also climbed trees in the Amazon rainforest, swum with piranhas, been sneezed on by a humpback whale, hooked lava out of a live volcano, and flown in zero gravity.
Hello! Thanks for reading another super long thing I wrote. I'll be noodling around in the comments on my work breaks if anyone has any questions or anything. Believe it or not, this piece was once even longer, so there might be one or two things I can add a bit of context or clarity to.
I just wish someone could tell me why these super rich people don't give a large proportion of their money to Friends of the Earth, Medicins sans Frontiers, Sea Shepherd, Save the Children or a thousand other charities.
I really have a huge sympathy for the French is 1789. Let's send these oxygen thieves to the guillotine and use their ill-gotten gains to try and undo the damage the 1% have done and continue to do. (We could give them the option of choosing to disburse themselves of 95% of their wealth. They'd still end up with more than normal people could ever spend, but, I mean, I'd give them a chance, before sending them for the chop!)
I consider myself to be a relatively intelligent person, but I have now read a number of explainers about NFTs and my brain simply cannot grasp the what, how, why, or even where. I can feel my mind straining for comprehension and it simply eludes me. I wonder if this is because of my age? (45) NFT's more than anything have given me a glimpse into a future of me watching the world in utter bewilderment.
Wait till your 70😳I’m holding on to my money for the next round of pyramid game’s where you get to stand around in someone’s house with a plastic tumbler of cask wine hoping some other deluded fuckwit is daft enough to come in at the bottom 😂😂
I think your method is perfectly sane!
Don't feel bad for being bewildered. In a lot of ways, the tech is needlessly complex, and I reckon this complexity functions as a stand-in for actual value - a bit like how multi-level marketing scams have intentionally byzantine structures. "Wow this thing is so complicated! It must be legit!"
All you really need to know is that NFTs are receipts with extra steps.
I feel exactly the same as you!
I'm a couple years younger but this shit is totally out of my realm of comprehension despite several attempts to get a rudimentary understanding. Appears like that's not such a bad thing though so let's be content in our ignorance!
I'm only just coping with my laptop and phone!! Can't take any more.....
Yes, me too! Exactly this. I’m one of those sci-fi fantasy geeks and I like to think that symbolic, high concept stuff is kind of where I live - but I just don’t get it. Are they… selling imagination? Selling ideas? None of it is real, right? I’m a makeup artist in my day job and it involves a fair amount of hands on drawing/painting. I’m a fan of several cool accounts featuring digital art on social media. But the concept of crypto just confuses me (especially since… isn’t all our money mostly digital now? Like, there’s not a corresponding pile of money held by my bank that is “mine” and is the physical representation of my paycheque) and I really don’t get NFTs!
Also 45 - and wondering if taking economics in 4th form would have helped me understand the global market now 🤷♀️
I feel this deeply. I’ll be 40 this year and would say that I am fairly confident navigating the changing world, especially online. Though I generally observe rather than participate. This is the exception. Even Bitcoin I could follow, but this is just a level that makes me anxious of aging out and being totally lost in the new financial technologies.
I agree with everything Joshua has addressed in this piece… crypto as a whole is still a total wild-west, the use cases are minimal, the environmental impact of the leading tokens is disgusting, and a majority of the NFT space currently is get-rich-quick meme art and questionable ‘ownership’.
Something I do continually find with these discussions though is that they’re always focused on how messy things are *right now* with no potential positive future in sight.
I think we forget how quickly tech moves. How giant and clunky the first PC’s were. How nasty (but kinda fun) MS-DOS was, or the very first website you visited on your 14.4kbs dial-up modem. These mad internet algorithm/encryption scientists are figuring new things out at such a rapid pace and testing the limits of things that have never been explored before. And I don’t know if it’s fair to shut down this ‘Web3’ idea as a whole until we see some dead ends arrive. As in, the development has slowed down and progress has stopped. Right now it’s moving at light speed.
That was what drew me in to crypto originally. Not cos I’m interested in finance or investment (I assumed I would lose every cent I put in), but just the sheer concept of a brand new type of technology that completely fascinated my geek brain.
As a musician, I have hopes for blockchain one day streamlining ownership. Rather than waiting for the royalty of a single play on the radio to filter through 3 independant collection agencies, 5 different spreadsheets, a record label and a publisher to finally reach my bank account a year later, imagine being able to see that automated in an instant with no margin of error and in a totally transparent way. Dream. And there are blockchains out there trying to figure that out. Just again, it’s in the ‘work in progress’ category.
Finally as a small feel good foot-note to this to show cryptocurrency doing some good: I run a dog rescue in Los Angeles, and last year we set ourselves up to accept donations via cryptocurrency. Thanks to sites like The Giving Block (a platform dedicated to crypto donations for registered non-profits), we had over $50k USD donated in various forms of crypto. That is HUGE for us. That money is funneled directly to saving lives, from whatever weird place on the internet it came from. And there’s another 100 million USD where that came from, making its way through to other non-profits globally for 2021.
Who knows what Web3’s final form will be. Maybe it will all be a burst bubble train-wreck, but for now I’m holding on to glass half full.
These are good points. First, I'm really stoked to hear about the donation to the shelter! That's fantastic.
I think the issue I have with the idea of "web3" being analogous to the early days of the online revolution (which also attracted a lot of cynicism) is that it's not truly analogous. A lot of the development and proliferation in this space, when you squint a bit closer, is actually duplication.
Put it this way: for all its flaws, the Web runs on a set of standards. DNS, HTML, etc. Crypto is a bit like if every developer, instead of using DNS, was saying "actually we have our own tech that's a clone of DNS but is also better than DNS, and - get this - it prints special money, without which you can't actually use our version of DNS!"
I also love the idea of NFTs automated royalties or resale percentages on original art. But it looks like any obligation to pay that royalty is easily avoided by simply paying for a given NFT via a different cryptocurrency/blockchain. I'd be happy to be wrong about this! I want to believe that there's a great new way for way more artists to be rewarded for their work.
When you get past the bad actors and grifters, I like the optimism and a lot of the values - democratization, ownership, profit-share - that I see in this space. But, on closer inspection, it seems that the tech doesn't actually enable those things. In many cases, it's actively hostile to them. Then all you have left is a bunch of outliers; a few artists who've done well (and who I am genuinely happy for: it's almost always great to see artists succeed) but who also get held up as exhibits for "look how great this tech is" which ignores the majority who haven't been successful, and those that have been ripped off.
Great write up, and mirrors a lot of my thoughts.
I do differ on crypto in general. I'm still a believer... In its potential. Not proof of work, which as Josh pointed out, is horrific energy wise, but proof of stake. I still think that there's a possible future where they become a viable alternative to fiat currency.
However, I'm worried about how much hype crypto, and NFTs, are getting. Crypto is currently useless (apart from making crypto investors rich) because the tech just isn't ready. All these various crypto blockchain companies are working tirelessly, coding and problem solving and trying to create something new.
I think their work will eventually pay off.
But not for a while.
So what you have now is a prospective gold rush and all that implies. There are individuals and corporations trying to get rich, you have people trying to exploit the ecosystem that's developing around it, you have straight up criminals doing criminal shit, scammers and grifters taking advantage of people's greed.
It's toxic as fuck. And that makes me sad. Because if you listen to the people actually involved in the development of these various crypto/blockchain projects (well... The reputable ones anyway), they're not toxic at all. They're optimistic tech nerds, trying really hard to create something unique and useful. But their projects are getting coopted and cannibalised by hype and greed.
And then there's the whole NFT market, which Josh is absolutely right about. It's just the fine art world, turned digital and cranked up to 11.
I'm an artist too, and people often suggest I sell NFTs, but I haven't, for all the reasons listed by Josh. It just feels like a huge bubble, waiting to burst. There are times where I think it serves a legitimate purpose. Beeple, for example, is a legitimately renowned artist, who works in a purely digital format (so you can't buy an "original") and his NFT was a representation of five years of artistic work. I can see why an art collector would want it. Is it worth $69 million? Probably not. But that's an art world problem, not an NFT problem.
The Bored Apes, or those stupid lions though? Those things are completely fucking pointless and exploitative capitalistic nonsense.
As Josh says, NFTs are essentially a receipt. They're a bit of background tech that no one should know about. They can potentially have uses for things like a ticket receipt, or to be used as membership to an online service (I've heard of a boxing trainer selling NFTs that act as links to his database of training videos, for example). Basically, you shouldn't be buying an NFT. You should be buying something useful, that is delivered to you using NFT technology. Literally the only people who should know what an NFT is are tech nerds and the people responsible for coding them.
In some ways, I think this backlash against crypto and NFTs is probably a good thing. Hopefully the hype will die down a bit, the world will move on to something else, and the crypto developers can get back to trying to create some cool technology that can actually help people, and not just turn the fucking planet to ash.
Im starting to think I'm not smart enough for webworm because I still don't get it.
But I love birds and bird art and I've just discovered birds in hats
☺ 🐦 🧢
Great piece, thank you.
I'm writing sitting in my home office surrounded by art works made or collected by family. I grew up in the 80's with raku kilns in the garden, originals for lost-wax bronze casting sitting in the porch workshop and paintings all over the place, and I rather like that forward slash 'drawing' so I get the attraction to art. I draw and take photos myself when I get a moment which isn't often.
However, the connection of 'high end' art to finance/speculation/art 'investment' really bothers me. I'm much happier in the kind of tradition where people make art to communicate, or to build communities, or to express something!
But I'd sell an NFT of one of my photos for the value of my mortgage...
I think as an artist who hates this shit the moment I finally snap is coming. Will it be tomorrow? Maybe. Next month? Possibly. Most likely a few years from now when some kid looks at prints I have for sale at a show and says “cool! Fungible Tokens”.
I'm seriously considering selling some original charcoal drawings as "Analogue NFTs" just for the lolz.
Nothing makes sense anymore. I snapped a long time ago, midlife crisis and all. I've found long breaks from social media help. And art for arts sake.
To anyone still on the fence (somehow) I would point you to the New Zealand National party's spokesperson for science and technology, the Honourable Judith Collins, who thinks NFTs are "incredibly exciting". https://twitter.com/JudithCollinsMP/status/1488665936597237763
Ah, Judith. Sigh.
I’d love to hear her explainer🤣
I asked her why it was exciting, no response
https://twitter.com/robincapper/status/1488926487634124800?s=20&t=rk8YZP5HSJGsaP7IAOGpMA
Inherently exciting😆
I think the comparison to contemporary art is a really useful one because it points out how NFTs (and crypto in general) aren't actually allowing people to do anything new. Everything around it is stuff that people would be doing anyway. It actually makes me a lot less bothered by the whole thing.
This is fascinating and a topic I try to get my head around so thanks.
Like many gentrified areas I wonder if NFT's is just another gentrified space [this may not be a that-accurate use of the word] occupied by a particular sub-set.
I do ponder though how could NFT's be applied in a more useful, less investment-style - like for warranty's for products and rego's for cars - say I brought a fridge that had a 'Lifetime' warranty, but I brought second-hand and I wanted to argue that said 'lifetime' warranty was still valid - some design error or part malfunction happened, then perhaps the domestically functional NFT could mean I could service the fridge with the manufacturer - reduce waste, holding producers to more accurate advertising standards, reducing all that mountain of paper/printing/bureaucratic-process to a single string of numbers.
I've also just read Ministry of the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson which proposed a use of the blockchain that created greater transparency and reduced the hiding of currency in tax havens etc.
As mentioned the current web 3 is like a 'Wild West' scenario, but it must be remembered the the Wild West we have in our head is often the product of Hollywood & not real life, AND whatever that period was actually like it was only temporary. Is it possible to bend this towards something better, and away from the grift.
just thoughts, but thanks again for the provocation.
I reckon your first bit about gentrification pretty much nails it. To your point about warranties and such - I'm always interested in genuine use-cases for blockchain tech. The problem I find is that whenever one is posited, it always seems like something that can be done faster and more cheaply with... a database. For the fridge, couldn't that be managed with a database and a digital warranty that one owner can simply pass on to another? And all these kinds of things still require a level of goodwill and centralized authority to enforce them. Not to mention that if the whiteware company goes under, it doesn't matter whether your warranty is written on paper, SQL, or the blockchain - all are equally useless.
I'm a big fan of Ministry for the Future. I even recommended it wholeheartedly in the Webworm I wrote about climate change. But when KSR writes about blockchain, I can't help but think he has in mind a version of the technology that's fast, computationally inexpensive, environmentally neutral, doesn't incentivize crime, and is universally adopted without schisms. Which is currently science fiction :)
I work in tech, as a non-IT trained person but still, almost every application proposed for blockchain seems to me to be something a database should do. As you point out the connection to the physical world of fridges, houses, food or whatever still requires trusting some organisation so you might as well trust them with the data too. Blockchain is just the least efficient and slowest database ever. Its decentralisation advantages mostly seem to accrue to the worst applications: crime, speculation etc.
Thanks Josh, nicely considered, I appreciate your thoughts on this.
And on point re KSR - it is sci-fi but one of the things that I like about KSR is that, in instances like this book, I think I heard him say somewhere that he only writes about technology that already exists.
I enjoyed this podcast interview ( shorturl.at/cCGQ0 ) with him where he comments on Ministry after the arrival of the pandemic. In it he comments that the Chen Papers, on which he based his blockchain scenario, is actually based on the work of a Dr Chen from Australia ( shorturl.at/dzAMT ) - who I am still trying to digest
cheers
What is the difference between a long establish bank doing it's best to maximise profits and take money off me, than some celebrity shill or other rich person? I don't see much difference at all, in the amount of abuse that can come from either source. The long list of grievances against "too-big-too-fail" and massive bonuses and stupid lending and blah blah blah all seem same same-y with abuses by crpto fiends.
Man, having a conscience really sucks sometimes.
Thank you Josh, this is brilliant. I'll be thinking about it for weeks. Humans *sigh
Great piece.
Josh has a better brain than me, and I feel lucky to be able to tap him on the shoulder to write here from time to time. He's also a really good artist. As I said - good brain.
Was interesting to hear this podcast after reading this. Covers some similar points, about the carbon costs of Crypto & NFT but also a bit of optimism about potential solutions. Have included Dr Walker's bio as think it gives the, at times, fun and lighthearted conversation credibility.
The Future of Carbon Drawdown (with Dr Gabrielle Walker) | Jon Richardson and the Futurenauts - The Book of Revelations
BIO: Gabrielle gives keynote addresses to corporate audiences around the world. She is also an accomplished moderator of high-level debates, guiding panels involving global CEOs, former heads of state, government ministers, military generals and global humanitarian leaders. She has extensive experience at designing and facilitating innovative “safe-space” conversations between global leaders, from small round tables through to major international meetings. Gabrielle has presented many TV and radio programs for the BBC.
She has been Climate Change Editor at Nature and Features Editor at New Scientist and has written very extensively for many international newspapers and magazines, including The Economist, Prospect, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. She is author of four books including co-authoring the bestselling book The Hot Topic, how to avoid global warming while still keeping the lights on, which was described by Al Gore as “a beacon of clarity” and by The Times as “a material gain for the axis of good”. She has a PhD from Cambridge University and has taught at both Cambridge and Princeton Universities.
A self-confessed “ice addict” Gabrielle has made more than a dozen trips to both poles. She has also climbed trees in the Amazon rainforest, swum with piranhas, been sneezed on by a humpback whale, hooked lava out of a live volcano, and flown in zero gravity.
https://pca.st/m0n0lylu
meant to say 'optimism about potential solutions' to climate change related carbon offset, not crypto or NFT!