In order to orient myself in the world of blockchains I felt I needed a rudimentary latticework to make sense of the multiplicity that is blockchains and its actors.

So when I came across Venkatesh’s image it seemed like a perfect point-of-departure. The image is comprised of a set of metaphors introduced by VGR in the Summer of Protocols forum.

By wrapping my head around these eight metaphors I have hopefully managed to create a solid foundation for myself from which I can decipher current narratives and possible futures of blockchain.

Here’s the image:

Or, the read-write-own metaphor.
You know, the Chris Dixon one and, I guess, the most recognizable?

This concept represents a shift towards democratizing ownership on the internet, allowing individuals to not only read and write but also own a stake in the networks they participate in.

A future where decentralized and distributed digital ledgers records transactions across a network of computer and maintained by multiple participants (nodes) in the network, ensuring redundancy and resilience against single points of failure where each transaction is verified and confirmed through consensus mechanisms. The ledger serves as a comprehensive record of all transactions, providing transparency, security, and accountability to participants in the network.

Self-custody culture
Hand-in-hand with read-write-own is the practice of self-custody.

Individuals take direct control and responsibility for safeguarding their digital assets.

Instead of relying on third-party custodians like exchanges or financial institutions to hold their assets, individuals choose to manage their private keys and store their assets in personal wallets or hardware devices.

Of course this approach aligns perfectly with the ethos of decentralization and empowers users to maintain full control over their funds, reducing reliance on centralized intermediaries and mitigating risks associated with third-party custody.

Within this model we find infrastructure such as payment rails.

Payment rails refers to the infrastructure or systems that facilitate the transfer of money or value between parties. The underlying framework that enables transactions to occur.

In the context of blockchains, payment rails are the underlying protocols that enable the transfer of digital assets and execution of transactions.

These blockchains provide decentralized, immutable, and transparent systems for peer-to-peer transfers and smart contract execution.

By recording transactions on distributed ledgers without intermediaries, blockchain payment rails offer advantages like enhanced security, trust, and cross-border capabilities.

And of course, enable financial innovation and inclusion through features like micro-transactions and programmable money.

In the post on the Summer of Protocols forum @vgr also mentions that the concept of hardness, as proposed by Josh Starks, plays a role here as well.

In the context of payment rails, "hardness" refers to the security and reliability of the underlying infrastructure and encompasses attributes like the immutability of transaction records, resilience to attacks, and decentralization.

Essentially, hardness ensures that payment rails are robust, resistant to tampering, and able to withstand disruptions, whether they're based on traditional banking systems or blockchain networks.

This metaphor is also pretty well known and describes a decentralized computing platform which allows developers to build and deploy decentralized applications on its blockchain, effectively creating a global, decentralized computer that executes smart contracts and processes transactions.

In order for something to be a world computer it needs Turing completeness, implying that the system has the ability to perform arbitrary computations, given enough time and memory.

Bitcoin's scripting language, called Script, is intentionally limited and not Turing complete. While Script allows for basic conditions and operations within Bitcoin transactions, it lacks the ability to perform arbitrary computations.

My understanding is that it was designed this way to ensure security and prevent certain types of attacks

Ethereum on the other hand, does have a Turing-complete scripting language. This allows for the creation of smart contracts that can execute arbitrary code, making Ethereum a platform for decentralized applications.

I don’t know how much this really has anything to do with sumpturary. To me it´s just culture.

Sumptuary Markers: Sumptuary markers typically refer to outward signs or symbols of wealth, status, or authenticity.

"WAGMI", Having a low fid, we are so early" etc

The authenticity or value of something is judged based on external characteristics or indicators, rather than intrinsic qualities.

This connection is also quite obvious. Anarcho-capitalism and Bitcoin shares principles of decentralization and individual sovereignty.

An anarcho-capitalist view Bitcoin as a tool for achieving greater economic freedom and autonomy from government control. An escape route out of traditional financial systems subject to government manipulation, inflation, and censorship.

Bitcoin aligns with the principles of free-market economics espoused by anarcho-capitalists. Its limited supply, decentralized nature, and ability to facilitate transactions without third-party interference resonate with the idea of voluntary exchange and non-coercive interaction.

So for an anarcho-capitalist Bitcoin is an enabler and a practical application of their philosophy, providing a means to promote individual freedom, privacy, and economic independence outside the clutches of centralized government. Indeed all digital currencies are enablers but Bitcoin is undoubtedly its poster-child.

Network states and its connection to blockchains is another important protagonist in the anarcho-capitalism utopia narrative.

The main idea of network states being to decentralize power among participants, exists digitally, allow voluntary membership, offer fluid participation, rely on emergent governance, and demonstrate resilience.

In contrast, nation-states centralize power, have territorial borders, often mandate citizenship, maintain rigid membership, rely on established governance, and may be less adaptable.

This metaphor originates from the sci-fi book by Cixin Xin where the author talks about a dangerous place called the "dark forest" where being seen means being killed by predators. In this place, revealing someone else's location means putting them in danger.

Yancey Strickler co-opted this metaphor in an essay where he describes internet as becoming a dark forest. In response to the ads, the tracking, the trolling, the hype, and other predatory behaviors, we’re retreating to our dark forests of the internet, and away from the mainstream.

Ethereum could then also be seen as a dark forest where onchain traders are constantly vulnerable to getting exploited by front-running bots, those bots in turn are vulnerable to getting counter-exploited by other bots, etc. This is also true in other ways: smart contracts regularly get hacked, users' wallets regularly get hacked, centralized exchanges fail even more spectacularly, etc.

On the Ethereum network, the predators are like "arbitrage bots." They watch for new transactions and try to make money from them.

The apex predator in the dark forest of blockchains is the generalized frontrunner. These bots can copy any profitable transaction and replace addresses to steal money.

Apparently it’s not an easy to fix problem. The function we need to use can be used by anyone. If I try to use it, it's like telling everyone there's free money. If these bots are around, they'll copy my move and take the money before I can.

According to this metaphor that VGR puts forth, zK proof and KZG ceremonies could be seen as examples of blockchains as ritual magic.

zK proof is the most obvious example of ritual magic. A secret writing method used to prove the truth of something without revealing the entire process of achieving it.

If that is not ritual magic, I don’t know what is.

Here´s more:

With the Merge behind us, we are now in the next phase in Ethereum’s ambitious roadmap. While the Merge focused on transitioning to the Proof of Stake consensus mechanism, the next step, termed “the Surge,” is focusing on scalability and lowering gas fees. 

The key upgrade for Ethereum scalability is proto-danksharding. Technically known as the EIP-4844, proto-danksharding will increase the amount of data that each Ethereum block can carry by nearly 10 times. This will, in turn, reduce the cost of using rollups and eventually, lower gas fees. 

If you have been following the progress on EIP-4844, you would have come across calls to contribute to a mysterious process called the KZG ceremony.

(from the Consensys blog)

The KZG ceremony call upon participants to “add your randomness” to “summon [the] powers..of a powerful spirit Dankshard”.

To produce the required randomness for the KZG ceremony, a team collaboratively creates the number via a multi-step process. In the ongoing KZG ceremony, participants are prompted to input a secret, likened to "a fragment of yourself" - a series of random characters, not the precise text. Subsequently, participants are instructed to trace elements of a mandala design using their cursor, as the interface records their distinctive path.

So we are talking about a kind of magic…

Magic as a branch of applied computation.

Computers and equations are just as useful, and perhaps more potent, than classic spell books, pentagrams, and sigils for the purpose of influencing ancient powers and opening gates to other dimensions. Or in this case really large numbers.

Or perhaps… Chtulu /|\(;,;)/|\

Enshrining is another concept that sounds like it has magical dimensions to it. It can be likened to magic due to its transformative ability to establish fundamental rules and principles within the technology's core. Like a wizard shaping reality, enshrining crafts a framework that governs blockchain behavior, imbuing it with coherence and reliability.

This process also carries a sense of mystique, akin to ancient knowledge, as it shapes the foundation of the digital realm.

How about minting?

Minting is another operation with magical qualities. Minting transforms digital code into valuable assets, seemingly created out of thin air. Like a spell, it uses cryptographic processes to conjure assets into existence. The decentralized nature of blockchain adds to this mystique, enabling asset creation and transfer without a central authority.

This metaphor is inevitable. Taking into account that we are talking about trades with a market cap of 2.3 trillion dollars (https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/), speculation is the one thing everybody involved in blockchain, in some form or another, engage in. Whether diligently buying Bitcoin or farming points in order to be able to claim in the next €DEGEN airdrop.

This mental model of the blockchain is undeniably true, even though currency speculation is nothing new, see the following list which mixes old and new scams:

• David Smith's Forex Ponzi Scheme (2008): David Smith's Olint Corporation promised high returns through forex trading but operated as a Ponzi scheme, using new investors' funds to pay returns to earlier ones.

• The Ufun Group Ponzi Scheme (2015): The Ufun Group, a Malaysian MLM company, deceived investors with promises of high returns from forex trading. However, it operated as a Ponzi scheme, using new investments to pay returns to existing members.

• PlusToken (2018-2019): PlusToken, a cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme, targeted Asian investors with promises of high returns. It amassed billions in cryptocurrencies but abruptly stopped withdrawals in 2019, suspected of an exit scam. Investigations revealed it defrauded investors of over $2 billion.

• OneCoin (2014-2016): OneCoin, promoted as a legitimate cryptocurrency, turned out to be a massive Ponzi scheme. Founded by Ruja Ignatova, it promised substantial returns but had no real blockchain or cryptocurrency. Ignatova disappeared in 2017, and OneCoin collapsed, defrauding investors of billions.

• John Law's Mississippi Scheme (1719-1720) in France illustrates currency speculation scams. Law promoted the Mississippi Company, offering exclusive trading privileges in Louisiana. Investors eagerly bought shares, anticipating profits. However, the speculative frenzy caused a bubble that eventually burst, leading to a financial crisis and the company's collapse.

That being said there are several things that make crypto seem more susceptible to scams than scams with fiat currencies, among them:

1. Regulatory Gaps: Cryptocurrency markets lack robust regulation.

2. Anonymity: Cryptocurrency transactions can be conducted anonymously.

3. Rug pulls: Once cryptocurrency transactions are confirmed, they cannot be reversed, providing scammers with an opportunity to disappear with funds without recourse for victims.

4. Global accessibility: Cryptocurrency markets operate globally, offering scammers a broad pool of potential victims from diverse geographic locations.

So the mental model of blockchains as Ponzi will persist as memecoins, speculative activities, rug pulls, scams and hype divert our attention from the innovative projects emerging from blockchain technology.

These eight metaphors presented by vgr are, at least to me, excellent lenses that help me navigate the world of blockchains. Hopefully I'll revisit this post and add/amend.

What other metaphors to you see?

In order to orient myself in the world of blockchains I felt I needed a rudimentary latticework to make sense of the multiplicity that is blockchains and its actors.

So when I came across Venkatesh’s image it seemed like a perfect point-of-departure. The image is comprised of a set of metaphors introduced by VGR in the Summer of Protocols forum.

By wrapping my head around these eight metaphors I have hopefully managed to create a solid foundation for myself from which I can decipher current narratives and possible futures of blockchain.

Here’s the image:

Or, the read-write-own metaphor.
You know, the Chris Dixon one and, I guess, the most recognizable?

This concept represents a shift towards democratizing ownership on the internet, allowing individuals to not only read and write but also own a stake in the networks they participate in.

A future where decentralized and distributed digital ledgers records transactions across a network of computer and maintained by multiple participants (nodes) in the network, ensuring redundancy and resilience against single points of failure where each transaction is verified and confirmed through consensus mechanisms. The ledger serves as a comprehensive record of all transactions, providing transparency, security, and accountability to participants in the network.

Self-custody culture
Hand-in-hand with read-write-own is the practice of self-custody.

Individuals take direct control and responsibility for safeguarding their digital assets.

Instead of relying on third-party custodians like exchanges or financial institutions to hold their assets, individuals choose to manage their private keys and store their assets in personal wallets or hardware devices.

Of course this approach aligns perfectly with the ethos of decentralization and empowers users to maintain full control over their funds, reducing reliance on centralized intermediaries and mitigating risks associated with third-party custody.

Within this model we find infrastructure such as payment rails.

Payment rails refers to the infrastructure or systems that facilitate the transfer of money or value between parties. The underlying framework that enables transactions to occur.

In the context of blockchains, payment rails are the underlying protocols that enable the transfer of digital assets and execution of transactions.

These blockchains provide decentralized, immutable, and transparent systems for peer-to-peer transfers and smart contract execution.

By recording transactions on distributed ledgers without intermediaries, blockchain payment rails offer advantages like enhanced security, trust, and cross-border capabilities.

And of course, enable financial innovation and inclusion through features like micro-transactions and programmable money.

In the post on the Summer of Protocols forum @vgr also mentions that the concept of hardness, as proposed by Josh Starks, plays a role here as well.

In the context of payment rails, "hardness" refers to the security and reliability of the underlying infrastructure and encompasses attributes like the immutability of transaction records, resilience to attacks, and decentralization.

Essentially, hardness ensures that payment rails are robust, resistant to tampering, and able to withstand disruptions, whether they're based on traditional banking systems or blockchain networks.

This metaphor is also pretty well known and describes a decentralized computing platform which allows developers to build and deploy decentralized applications on its blockchain, effectively creating a global, decentralized computer that executes smart contracts and processes transactions.

In order for something to be a world computer it needs Turing completeness, implying that the system has the ability to perform arbitrary computations, given enough time and memory.

Bitcoin's scripting language, called Script, is intentionally limited and not Turing complete. While Script allows for basic conditions and operations within Bitcoin transactions, it lacks the ability to perform arbitrary computations.

My understanding is that it was designed this way to ensure security and prevent certain types of attacks

Ethereum on the other hand, does have a Turing-complete scripting language. This allows for the creation of smart contracts that can execute arbitrary code, making Ethereum a platform for decentralized applications.

I don’t know how much this really has anything to do with sumpturary. To me it´s just culture.

Sumptuary Markers: Sumptuary markers typically refer to outward signs or symbols of wealth, status, or authenticity.

"WAGMI", Having a low fid, we are so early" etc

The authenticity or value of something is judged based on external characteristics or indicators, rather than intrinsic qualities.

This connection is also quite obvious. Anarcho-capitalism and Bitcoin shares principles of decentralization and individual sovereignty.

An anarcho-capitalist view Bitcoin as a tool for achieving greater economic freedom and autonomy from government control. An escape route out of traditional financial systems subject to government manipulation, inflation, and censorship.

Bitcoin aligns with the principles of free-market economics espoused by anarcho-capitalists. Its limited supply, decentralized nature, and ability to facilitate transactions without third-party interference resonate with the idea of voluntary exchange and non-coercive interaction.

So for an anarcho-capitalist Bitcoin is an enabler and a practical application of their philosophy, providing a means to promote individual freedom, privacy, and economic independence outside the clutches of centralized government. Indeed all digital currencies are enablers but Bitcoin is undoubtedly its poster-child.

Network states and its connection to blockchains is another important protagonist in the anarcho-capitalism utopia narrative.

The main idea of network states being to decentralize power among participants, exists digitally, allow voluntary membership, offer fluid participation, rely on emergent governance, and demonstrate resilience.

In contrast, nation-states centralize power, have territorial borders, often mandate citizenship, maintain rigid membership, rely on established governance, and may be less adaptable.

This metaphor originates from the sci-fi book by Cixin Xin where the author talks about a dangerous place called the "dark forest" where being seen means being killed by predators. In this place, revealing someone else's location means putting them in danger.

Yancey Strickler co-opted this metaphor in an essay where he describes internet as becoming a dark forest. In response to the ads, the tracking, the trolling, the hype, and other predatory behaviors, we’re retreating to our dark forests of the internet, and away from the mainstream.

Ethereum could then also be seen as a dark forest where onchain traders are constantly vulnerable to getting exploited by front-running bots, those bots in turn are vulnerable to getting counter-exploited by other bots, etc. This is also true in other ways: smart contracts regularly get hacked, users' wallets regularly get hacked, centralized exchanges fail even more spectacularly, etc.

On the Ethereum network, the predators are like "arbitrage bots." They watch for new transactions and try to make money from them.

The apex predator in the dark forest of blockchains is the generalized frontrunner. These bots can copy any profitable transaction and replace addresses to steal money.

Apparently it’s not an easy to fix problem. The function we need to use can be used by anyone. If I try to use it, it's like telling everyone there's free money. If these bots are around, they'll copy my move and take the money before I can.

According to this metaphor that VGR puts forth, zK proof and KZG ceremonies could be seen as examples of blockchains as ritual magic.

zK proof is the most obvious example of ritual magic. A secret writing method used to prove the truth of something without revealing the entire process of achieving it.

If that is not ritual magic, I don’t know what is.

Here´s more:

With the Merge behind us, we are now in the next phase in Ethereum’s ambitious roadmap. While the Merge focused on transitioning to the Proof of Stake consensus mechanism, the next step, termed “the Surge,” is focusing on scalability and lowering gas fees. 

The key upgrade for Ethereum scalability is proto-danksharding. Technically known as the EIP-4844, proto-danksharding will increase the amount of data that each Ethereum block can carry by nearly 10 times. This will, in turn, reduce the cost of using rollups and eventually, lower gas fees. 

If you have been following the progress on EIP-4844, you would have come across calls to contribute to a mysterious process called the KZG ceremony.

(from the Consensys blog)

The KZG ceremony call upon participants to “add your randomness” to “summon [the] powers..of a powerful spirit Dankshard”.

To produce the required randomness for the KZG ceremony, a team collaboratively creates the number via a multi-step process. In the ongoing KZG ceremony, participants are prompted to input a secret, likened to "a fragment of yourself" - a series of random characters, not the precise text. Subsequently, participants are instructed to trace elements of a mandala design using their cursor, as the interface records their distinctive path.

So we are talking about a kind of magic…

Magic as a branch of applied computation.

Computers and equations are just as useful, and perhaps more potent, than classic spell books, pentagrams, and sigils for the purpose of influencing ancient powers and opening gates to other dimensions. Or in this case really large numbers.

Or perhaps… Chtulu /|\(;,;)/|\

Enshrining is another concept that sounds like it has magical dimensions to it. It can be likened to magic due to its transformative ability to establish fundamental rules and principles within the technology's core. Like a wizard shaping reality, enshrining crafts a framework that governs blockchain behavior, imbuing it with coherence and reliability.

This process also carries a sense of mystique, akin to ancient knowledge, as it shapes the foundation of the digital realm.

How about minting?

Minting is another operation with magical qualities. Minting transforms digital code into valuable assets, seemingly created out of thin air. Like a spell, it uses cryptographic processes to conjure assets into existence. The decentralized nature of blockchain adds to this mystique, enabling asset creation and transfer without a central authority.

This metaphor is inevitable. Taking into account that we are talking about trades with a market cap of 2.3 trillion dollars (https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/), speculation is the one thing everybody involved in blockchain, in some form or another, engage in. Whether diligently buying Bitcoin or farming points in order to be able to claim in the next €DEGEN airdrop.

This mental model of the blockchain is undeniably true, even though currency speculation is nothing new, see the following list which mixes old and new scams:

• David Smith's Forex Ponzi Scheme (2008): David Smith's Olint Corporation promised high returns through forex trading but operated as a Ponzi scheme, using new investors' funds to pay returns to earlier ones.

• The Ufun Group Ponzi Scheme (2015): The Ufun Group, a Malaysian MLM company, deceived investors with promises of high returns from forex trading. However, it operated as a Ponzi scheme, using new investments to pay returns to existing members.

• PlusToken (2018-2019): PlusToken, a cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme, targeted Asian investors with promises of high returns. It amassed billions in cryptocurrencies but abruptly stopped withdrawals in 2019, suspected of an exit scam. Investigations revealed it defrauded investors of over $2 billion.

• OneCoin (2014-2016): OneCoin, promoted as a legitimate cryptocurrency, turned out to be a massive Ponzi scheme. Founded by Ruja Ignatova, it promised substantial returns but had no real blockchain or cryptocurrency. Ignatova disappeared in 2017, and OneCoin collapsed, defrauding investors of billions.

• John Law's Mississippi Scheme (1719-1720) in France illustrates currency speculation scams. Law promoted the Mississippi Company, offering exclusive trading privileges in Louisiana. Investors eagerly bought shares, anticipating profits. However, the speculative frenzy caused a bubble that eventually burst, leading to a financial crisis and the company's collapse.

That being said there are several things that make crypto seem more susceptible to scams than scams with fiat currencies, among them:

1. Regulatory Gaps: Cryptocurrency markets lack robust regulation.

2. Anonymity: Cryptocurrency transactions can be conducted anonymously.

3. Rug pulls: Once cryptocurrency transactions are confirmed, they cannot be reversed, providing scammers with an opportunity to disappear with funds without recourse for victims.

4. Global accessibility: Cryptocurrency markets operate globally, offering scammers a broad pool of potential victims from diverse geographic locations.

So the mental model of blockchains as Ponzi will persist as memecoins, speculative activities, rug pulls, scams and hype divert our attention from the innovative projects emerging from blockchain technology.

These eight metaphors presented by vgr are, at least to me, excellent lenses that help me navigate the world of blockchains. Hopefully I'll revisit this post and add/amend.

What other metaphors to you see?