It's easy to always talk about the wins in crypto, the 10x flips with NFTs, how our bags are holding up, and it's so much more fun talking about how great communities are when our Twitter timelines are filled with good vibes *puff puff pass*

But as woman of colour in a space that thrives off anonymity and a 'Crypto Bro Culture', there are so many harmful aspects about web3 that I've noticed following years of learning and unlearning prejudice, biases, microaggressions, and what it means to be an ally for the Black community as well as my own. These are rarely discussed topics, but I know they're essential for developing crypto culture.

Most people are too busy thinking of web3 mass adoption, and I don't blame them. When you're bullish about this space, it's hard not to want to share it with others. But this Wild, Wild, West is not without faults and we need to directly address them. The more we prolong meaningful discussions like these, the harder it will be for us to cross the chasm.

Here's the ugly truth: more shitty people will be given power in a decentralised world. Or they feel so anonymous– perhaps even invincible–  that they believe they can avoid accountability altogether.

Here's what that ugly looks like:

Often, as users, we're too busy consuming and advocating for the blockchain tech revolution that we forget the underlying principles that help us thrive as humans beyond our screens such as empathy, self-actualisation, cultural awareness, respect, and moral goodness. These are important. Because who we are outside of the Metaverse translates into who we become in Discord chats, Twitter spaces, Town Halls, etc. Who and how we are IRL converts to what and why we produce and consume such art.

This reminds me of a segment from Toni Morrison's book, 'Mouth Full of Blood: Essays, Speeches and Meditations', where she talks about Art Advocacy and what it means to be an artist and how "a good deal of the art of the future can be aborted by carelessness, whimsy, and disdain among art providers and consumers".

"Should [art] examine artists' lives, note the pain in so much of them, and imitate that pain by enfranchising it– even producing it...folded into the equation of the work's value in the marketplace in years and eras to come?" - Toni Morrison

A decentralised web allows for art to be produced by anonymous creators. It also means unidentifiable buyers can freely consume art however they want. This is lit AF and an incredible innovation for our society. But when some NFT traders say they're not just in it for the money, they're in it for the A R T 👀, I get concerned because there's so much more to it than that!

The majority of people know NFTs as digital artwork and JPEG collections so it's easy to look at a piece of art, decide you like the way it looks, buy it, and start shilling it. But there are nuances and factors at play when it comes to creating and consuming NFT art. A lack of cultural awareness in the space, as well as a gap in civic education in our schools means that a lot of harmful intentions get lost in translation and get interpreted as innocent. Trust me– they often aren't.

Floydies, an offensive NFT project co-opting the image of George Floyd, was launched on the OpenSea platform in December last year. It has since been removed. Trayvon Martin, a young Black man murdered in 2012 by a police officer, is now being used by an OpenSea NFT project called Trayvon’s Hoodie Club and it's not entirely clear why. Another example of a harmful project is Lil Baby Ape Club, yet another derivative of BAYC. The art exhibited "skinhead" characteristics and a jam boy ape (a racist term used during slavery in the British Empire). There's even multiple ETH projects selling 'N-word' passes as NFTs. 🤦🏽‍♀️

But if great, beautiful art on a blockchain that stays forever is an underlying reason why we're bullish, why are we not questioning the negative impact bad art can have by being immortalised? Or even worse, why are we being so passive about Black men's death being packaged as non-fungible and allowing anonymous creators to profit from it? Why are people even minting/buying them? That's weird AF, very politically and morally insensitive, and just plain fucking wrong.

Black culture has always historically been repackaged for profit, with only the best part of being Black highlighted, commercialised, and appropriated and the worst experiences being subjects of jokes and racially motivated agendas.

Particularly in the Solana community, there have been a couple of projects like this. One project is a derivative of Solsteads and a member of their community described it as, "Like Solsteads, but with elements of crackheads and poverty". When you break it down to historical and cultural context, the word "thug" has been used to demonise and criminalise Black men in society. Adding "crackheads" into that narrative, and you have the racial and social framing of the crack epidemic in the United States. It's not a hidden secret that this largely affected inner city neighbourhoods and African American families.

Additionally, the NFT traits of another NFT project includes gold chain necklaces, Michael Jordan's iconic #23 jersey, grillz, and guns. Their lore also includes the gang members being in "ghettos". 😵‍💫  When I spoke about it in the TCEC's DAO Alpha chat, there was a healthy discussion referencing the importance of diversity in the space and why having these type of perspectives are needed👇🏽:

To what extent will we continue to view non-fungible art as superficial and aesthetic mediums instead of vivid reflections of our humanities? NFT art can be so much more– and they should be.

A part of the cry for decentralisation is a willingness to be responsible for ourselves and each other. Think DAOS, but DMOs instead (decentralised moral organisations) 🤔 whereby good actors in the space make collective decisions to flag offensive and harmful projects once they're on our radar. There is also a huge call for education.

The reality is that secondary markets such as OpenSea and Magic Eden will be going against the principles of autonomy and decentralisation if they were to vet every project, especially when most projects' artworks aren't revealed until mint. It's truly a crux. So inevitably, a lot of the policing and educating falls down on us, the users.

Getting bro'd to death in Discord chats

I think I've been called every epithet relating to a man in Discord chats. 😂 "Bro...ser...king..." are used interchangeably so often within communities that I get surprisingly happy when a fren corrects anon on my gender. It's the feeling of being recognised that makes a difference as a woman in this space.

My experiences in web3 as a woman of colour has been great since I've been blessed enough to make deeper connections with anon frens on Discords and with big brain crypto heads on Twitter. I also made sure that when anons referred to me as "ser" or "bro" on Discord,  I corrected them. This has never been an issue and 99% of people respect it. A huge advantage to my experience can also be attributed to the fact I'm doxxed. But what about the women who aren't? How can we make sure that they have the same welcoming experience that I've had?*

This can sometimes feel like an uphill battle (*queue 'Running Up that Hill' by Kate Bush* 🎶) with projects that have artwork plauged with hypersexualised traits, which then incentivises you "to breed [your NFTs] with other notorious apes". This cannot possibly be considered as respectable towards women. The name of the project in question also perpetuates a stereotype that only women can be gold diggers and their only job is to be mothers (the website specifically outlines a tagline of "enjoy your family life and be set for good"). 🤡 Many of these not-so-subtle attributes play a large role in what makes web3 an unsafe environment for women to flourish in.

How can all women be valued in a space that pinkwashes our identities and diminish us to old-fashioned rhetorics? When we say WAGMI, does it actually include ALL of us or just the Bros?

As a community rallying towards getting more female founders in tech and generally having more women in crypto, we can't count on solidarity for marginalised women when as bystanders we don't intervene with positive solutions. Women-empowering NFT projects, however, have done a great job to be more inclusive for every woman. Here are some of them.

They observe the plights that women (especially Black and women of colour) experience in the digital world. They come together to provide actionable solutions that break down the barriers and stigma that prevent them from being financially empowered. In simple terms, these women-led projects do a great job at onboarding women safely and welcomingly. We need more of these type of projects with genuine intentions towards education, empowerment through resources, mentorship, and sisterhood.

*******When tackling the question of racism, prejudice, and bias in web3, it's important to underline the topic of intersectionality. White women are marginalised in the space because it's such a male-dominated culture. Black and Brown women have an even harder time because they receive both racism and sexism.

A lot of what I mentioned highlights the unsafe aspects of web3. But I should make a very strong point that this is not the overwhelming experience users have when entering the space. There is some grace to be given since we are still early. The culture will still evolve. More products and services will be built tailored towards marginalised communities too.

One interesting thing to consider is the level of anonymity and cultures outside of the US. Everyone on Discord and Twitter are conditioned to interact with cartoon pfps that it takes away the human aspect of accounts and users. This is probably why generic terms like ser happens. It should also be noted that a decent majority of insensitive projects created by people are outside the US, who may not be culturally aware or educated about the underlying tones and history of racism and/or misogyny.

But, just because the crypto space relishes in anonymity, doesn't mean it should be exempt from the requirements of ensuring things are done right and done safely. Although projects with racial undertones and communities with sexist overtones are not in the majority, they still exist. As long as they do, they create a perception that blockchain technology is the perfect environment for nourishing bad actors with nefarious intentions, ultimately cultivating a breeding ground for bad seeds that grow into terrible trees. No one wants that. 🙅🏽‍♀️ Web3 natives, builders, consumers, and project teams, should all be striving towards a Garden of Eden type of vibe! 🌬️🌿

There's still so much work to be done within our web3 communities. But those who genuinely believe we're here to stay need to think about the factors that will contribute towards the longevity of blockchain's existence. One of the ways we can start to BUIDL a safe space that's inclusive of everyone is by addressing the dangers that threaten our experiences in web3.

Project leaders, managers, community builders, moderators, and users must not get too caught up in producing and consuming that they become bystanders to negative narratives being pushed by bad actors. We, the good actors, shouldn't deflect from accountability and leave the work that needs to be done for other people. The work starts with us. So, we have to step up.

The suggestions for change following my observations aren't supposed to be a panecean. I know factually that bad actors will always exist. I'm not recommending people to track down user6969 just to expose them for being a bad actor. It can be as easy as not making an assumption that the anon you're talking to on Discord is a man. There are other creative ways, too. I've advised projects like SunGens to incorporate the same features Crypto Coral Tribe uses by allowing users to click on Discord names and seeing their gender on there (people are free to opt or not). Flagging offensive projects, asking teams about their intentions, questioning artists' about their work, etc. is a great way to start or facilitate healthy, constructive discussions. It should all be part of our DYOR anyway.

Whilst bad actors will always exist, it's just a question of how we can help lessen them in our spaces. There are productive steps we can take towards being more mindful of our moral obligations towards each other. We can choose to devote ourselves to support projects, platforms, and individuals who are dedicating their time and work towards building a safer, decentralised web3 world. The more lucrative this space looks, the more people will want to be a part of it. That's the aim, right? #ToTheMoon 🚀🌙

It's easy to always talk about the wins in crypto, the 10x flips with NFTs, how our bags are holding up, and it's so much more fun talking about how great communities are when our Twitter timelines are filled with good vibes *puff puff pass*

But as woman of colour in a space that thrives off anonymity and a 'Crypto Bro Culture', there are so many harmful aspects about web3 that I've noticed following years of learning and unlearning prejudice, biases, microaggressions, and what it means to be an ally for the Black community as well as my own. These are rarely discussed topics, but I know they're essential for developing crypto culture.

Most people are too busy thinking of web3 mass adoption, and I don't blame them. When you're bullish about this space, it's hard not to want to share it with others. But this Wild, Wild, West is not without faults and we need to directly address them. The more we prolong meaningful discussions like these, the harder it will be for us to cross the chasm.

Here's the ugly truth: more shitty people will be given power in a decentralised world. Or they feel so anonymous– perhaps even invincible–  that they believe they can avoid accountability altogether.

Here's what that ugly looks like:

Often, as users, we're too busy consuming and advocating for the blockchain tech revolution that we forget the underlying principles that help us thrive as humans beyond our screens such as empathy, self-actualisation, cultural awareness, respect, and moral goodness. These are important. Because who we are outside of the Metaverse translates into who we become in Discord chats, Twitter spaces, Town Halls, etc. Who and how we are IRL converts to what and why we produce and consume such art.

This reminds me of a segment from Toni Morrison's book, 'Mouth Full of Blood: Essays, Speeches and Meditations', where she talks about Art Advocacy and what it means to be an artist and how "a good deal of the art of the future can be aborted by carelessness, whimsy, and disdain among art providers and consumers".

"Should [art] examine artists' lives, note the pain in so much of them, and imitate that pain by enfranchising it– even producing it...folded into the equation of the work's value in the marketplace in years and eras to come?" - Toni Morrison

A decentralised web allows for art to be produced by anonymous creators. It also means unidentifiable buyers can freely consume art however they want. This is lit AF and an incredible innovation for our society. But when some NFT traders say they're not just in it for the money, they're in it for the A R T 👀, I get concerned because there's so much more to it than that!

The majority of people know NFTs as digital artwork and JPEG collections so it's easy to look at a piece of art, decide you like the way it looks, buy it, and start shilling it. But there are nuances and factors at play when it comes to creating and consuming NFT art. A lack of cultural awareness in the space, as well as a gap in civic education in our schools means that a lot of harmful intentions get lost in translation and get interpreted as innocent. Trust me– they often aren't.

Floydies, an offensive NFT project co-opting the image of George Floyd, was launched on the OpenSea platform in December last year. It has since been removed. Trayvon Martin, a young Black man murdered in 2012 by a police officer, is now being used by an OpenSea NFT project called Trayvon’s Hoodie Club and it's not entirely clear why. Another example of a harmful project is Lil Baby Ape Club, yet another derivative of BAYC. The art exhibited "skinhead" characteristics and a jam boy ape (a racist term used during slavery in the British Empire). There's even multiple ETH projects selling 'N-word' passes as NFTs. 🤦🏽‍♀️

But if great, beautiful art on a blockchain that stays forever is an underlying reason why we're bullish, why are we not questioning the negative impact bad art can have by being immortalised? Or even worse, why are we being so passive about Black men's death being packaged as non-fungible and allowing anonymous creators to profit from it? Why are people even minting/buying them? That's weird AF, very politically and morally insensitive, and just plain fucking wrong.

Black culture has always historically been repackaged for profit, with only the best part of being Black highlighted, commercialised, and appropriated and the worst experiences being subjects of jokes and racially motivated agendas.

Particularly in the Solana community, there have been a couple of projects like this. One project is a derivative of Solsteads and a member of their community described it as, "Like Solsteads, but with elements of crackheads and poverty". When you break it down to historical and cultural context, the word "thug" has been used to demonise and criminalise Black men in society. Adding "crackheads" into that narrative, and you have the racial and social framing of the crack epidemic in the United States. It's not a hidden secret that this largely affected inner city neighbourhoods and African American families.

Additionally, the NFT traits of another NFT project includes gold chain necklaces, Michael Jordan's iconic #23 jersey, grillz, and guns. Their lore also includes the gang members being in "ghettos". 😵‍💫  When I spoke about it in the TCEC's DAO Alpha chat, there was a healthy discussion referencing the importance of diversity in the space and why having these type of perspectives are needed👇🏽:

To what extent will we continue to view non-fungible art as superficial and aesthetic mediums instead of vivid reflections of our humanities? NFT art can be so much more– and they should be.

A part of the cry for decentralisation is a willingness to be responsible for ourselves and each other. Think DAOS, but DMOs instead (decentralised moral organisations) 🤔 whereby good actors in the space make collective decisions to flag offensive and harmful projects once they're on our radar. There is also a huge call for education.

The reality is that secondary markets such as OpenSea and Magic Eden will be going against the principles of autonomy and decentralisation if they were to vet every project, especially when most projects' artworks aren't revealed until mint. It's truly a crux. So inevitably, a lot of the policing and educating falls down on us, the users.

Getting bro'd to death in Discord chats

I think I've been called every epithet relating to a man in Discord chats. 😂 "Bro...ser...king..." are used interchangeably so often within communities that I get surprisingly happy when a fren corrects anon on my gender. It's the feeling of being recognised that makes a difference as a woman in this space.

My experiences in web3 as a woman of colour has been great since I've been blessed enough to make deeper connections with anon frens on Discords and with big brain crypto heads on Twitter. I also made sure that when anons referred to me as "ser" or "bro" on Discord,  I corrected them. This has never been an issue and 99% of people respect it. A huge advantage to my experience can also be attributed to the fact I'm doxxed. But what about the women who aren't? How can we make sure that they have the same welcoming experience that I've had?*

This can sometimes feel like an uphill battle (*queue 'Running Up that Hill' by Kate Bush* 🎶) with projects that have artwork plauged with hypersexualised traits, which then incentivises you "to breed [your NFTs] with other notorious apes". This cannot possibly be considered as respectable towards women. The name of the project in question also perpetuates a stereotype that only women can be gold diggers and their only job is to be mothers (the website specifically outlines a tagline of "enjoy your family life and be set for good"). 🤡 Many of these not-so-subtle attributes play a large role in what makes web3 an unsafe environment for women to flourish in.

How can all women be valued in a space that pinkwashes our identities and diminish us to old-fashioned rhetorics? When we say WAGMI, does it actually include ALL of us or just the Bros?

As a community rallying towards getting more female founders in tech and generally having more women in crypto, we can't count on solidarity for marginalised women when as bystanders we don't intervene with positive solutions. Women-empowering NFT projects, however, have done a great job to be more inclusive for every woman. Here are some of them.

They observe the plights that women (especially Black and women of colour) experience in the digital world. They come together to provide actionable solutions that break down the barriers and stigma that prevent them from being financially empowered. In simple terms, these women-led projects do a great job at onboarding women safely and welcomingly. We need more of these type of projects with genuine intentions towards education, empowerment through resources, mentorship, and sisterhood.

*******When tackling the question of racism, prejudice, and bias in web3, it's important to underline the topic of intersectionality. White women are marginalised in the space because it's such a male-dominated culture. Black and Brown women have an even harder time because they receive both racism and sexism.

A lot of what I mentioned highlights the unsafe aspects of web3. But I should make a very strong point that this is not the overwhelming experience users have when entering the space. There is some grace to be given since we are still early. The culture will still evolve. More products and services will be built tailored towards marginalised communities too.

One interesting thing to consider is the level of anonymity and cultures outside of the US. Everyone on Discord and Twitter are conditioned to interact with cartoon pfps that it takes away the human aspect of accounts and users. This is probably why generic terms like ser happens. It should also be noted that a decent majority of insensitive projects created by people are outside the US, who may not be culturally aware or educated about the underlying tones and history of racism and/or misogyny.

But, just because the crypto space relishes in anonymity, doesn't mean it should be exempt from the requirements of ensuring things are done right and done safely. Although projects with racial undertones and communities with sexist overtones are not in the majority, they still exist. As long as they do, they create a perception that blockchain technology is the perfect environment for nourishing bad actors with nefarious intentions, ultimately cultivating a breeding ground for bad seeds that grow into terrible trees. No one wants that. 🙅🏽‍♀️ Web3 natives, builders, consumers, and project teams, should all be striving towards a Garden of Eden type of vibe! 🌬️🌿

There's still so much work to be done within our web3 communities. But those who genuinely believe we're here to stay need to think about the factors that will contribute towards the longevity of blockchain's existence. One of the ways we can start to BUIDL a safe space that's inclusive of everyone is by addressing the dangers that threaten our experiences in web3.

Project leaders, managers, community builders, moderators, and users must not get too caught up in producing and consuming that they become bystanders to negative narratives being pushed by bad actors. We, the good actors, shouldn't deflect from accountability and leave the work that needs to be done for other people. The work starts with us. So, we have to step up.

The suggestions for change following my observations aren't supposed to be a panecean. I know factually that bad actors will always exist. I'm not recommending people to track down user6969 just to expose them for being a bad actor. It can be as easy as not making an assumption that the anon you're talking to on Discord is a man. There are other creative ways, too. I've advised projects like SunGens to incorporate the same features Crypto Coral Tribe uses by allowing users to click on Discord names and seeing their gender on there (people are free to opt or not). Flagging offensive projects, asking teams about their intentions, questioning artists' about their work, etc. is a great way to start or facilitate healthy, constructive discussions. It should all be part of our DYOR anyway.

Whilst bad actors will always exist, it's just a question of how we can help lessen them in our spaces. There are productive steps we can take towards being more mindful of our moral obligations towards each other. We can choose to devote ourselves to support projects, platforms, and individuals who are dedicating their time and work towards building a safer, decentralised web3 world. The more lucrative this space looks, the more people will want to be a part of it. That's the aim, right? #ToTheMoon 🚀🌙