In a world of data obfuscation, onchain life is on pace to not only mimic, but further complicate things. Think of FTX. Think of Luna. Think of 3AC. These are clear examples of what Chase Chapman called information asymmetry.

Here’s an article she wrote on the need for interfaces that bring clarity to the nuances of onchain activity:

https://www.metropolis.space/research/accountability-in-an-onchain-world

It led me into thinking about the obfuscation of cultural activity. The same way that lack of understanding puts one at a disadvantage in information arenas, I could argue the same dynamic plays in cultural spaces that lead to economic markets.

Let’s recall the progression of our online ‘communal squares’. First we had computers that could not socialize with each other. Then we had forums, message boards, email, and the early chat rooms. A chapter of abundant communication, where you would hop on chat roulette just to talk to strangers.

After these cycles we hit the early days of social media. MySpace and Tumblr hallmarked an era of curation and crafting of online personalities. And now we arrive at our current tech stack, with TikTok being the latest to join the cycle.

In this ever exponentiating path, we have become dependents toward the actual dependent. This reality has influenced data on romantic relationships, friendships, social gatherings, spiritual/religious institution, mental health, attention spans, social tragedy, political radicalism, and consumerism on the whole. It is something we should heavily inspect before we scale an even greater culture on top of blockchains.

I wrote a series on memes where I dove into what exactly ‘communication’ is trying to solve; whether that be through words, symbols, aesthetics, or a combination.

https://mirror.xyz/lght.eth/jmGEONCfdrqoXMmz9biKDSpnveYRI8B7IxPUpWFowXc

For this essay, let’s work inside the framework that communication is the means of transferring data from one mind to another. You have some idea, thought, emotion, intuition, instinct, or sense arise in your own being. You then need to figure out how to help me understand what it is and what ‘that’ means.

We all carry and process infinite amounts of data and communication is the way we upload, download, delete it*, store* it, etc.

When you consider our current cycle of social technology, you see how the internet has allowed billions of people to communicate data ceaselessly. This has rapidly increased the things we create, discuss, and consume. A needed innovation for humanity, but it would be in bad faith to ignore the costs of these developments.

At present, in the west, this has created cultural asymmetry. Within that broad term we have commercial asymmetry, information asymmetry, and capital asymmetry. Data is being created at untenable speeds. This data provides incredible value. Yet, how ‘fair’ (in a C+ grade of moral purity) are the returns for the producers of said value.

• Spotify killed unit sales for musicians

• Streamers don’t share viewer data (hence the strike) & killed theatre sales

• Uber doesn’t own a car

• Airbnb doesn’t own a home

• Corporations use social trends as free ad campaigns

  • use legitimate social causes for sales campaigns

  • and use ‘awareness’ for leveraging independent creator audiences

Rather than getting into a moral judgement, I am interested in the commercial conversation. The aforementioned points are brought up as proof of the cultural, and therefore economic, value this data brings to a legitimate market.

In a recent conversation I gained insight on the relationship between creative/cultural data and cryptographic tech. In the offchain world, even if online, cultural data is on a limited time window. Onchain is where it can become ‘timeless’.

One could make a case that the asymmetries at play, in large part, are due to the resource distribution of the various players. If we abstain from casting moral pejoratives on corporations, we can see that compared to an independent and under funded creator, the former is the only party able to activate on the latent commercial, informational, and cultural value at scale… even if they didn’t create the data.

‘Hype’ and ‘trends’ are like waves in the ocean. You can only ride them if you are already in the water. Creators make data. If it pops, they are usually not in a position of leverage. However, a corporation like McDonalds is.

Repeat this truth enough, and allow the corporate copying machine to replicate itself, you end up with a Bud Light situation, or the Gucci shirt, or Balenciaga’s campaign, or that child pageant show on Netflix, or Twitter mobs, de-platforming, or a country divided on one ticket issues they genuinely don’t care about.

You end up with scenarios that look like out of touch conglomerates, acting like they are members of your friend group, so that they can sell you on things that they themselves aren’t even convinced you want. The domino effect of such relationships lead to cultural asymmetry.

If a significant portion of the cultural asymmetry is due to resources and timescales, then crypto may help us solve some of this. The ability to turn creative data into a timeless asset, owned and operated by the founder’s wallet, provides a market function for the independent creator.

It still involves time and effort expenditure, yet the ‘timelessness’ of the asset brings an ability to develop one’s resources without being caught in the hype/trend surf.

We go from a market where consumers create data, and its value assessment is obfuscated by the bigger fish; to a market where the consumer creates and owns the data, allowing them significant leverage in potential value assessments.

Earlier I mentioned the need to inspect our current data-to-market dynamics. And if you recall the past crypto bull markets you will see attempts at replicating these patterns.

The old way is the old way. And history doesn’t repeat itself… but people do. The next cycle of social technology, if truly decentralized, provides a foundation unlike anything we’ve had prior. It does not guarantee we escape an even greater replication of our current messiness however. One where the consumer creates cultural value that is then distorted and sold back to them at a higher premium.

In a world of data obfuscation, onchain life is on pace to not only mimic, but further complicate things. Think of FTX. Think of Luna. Think of 3AC. These are clear examples of what Chase Chapman called information asymmetry.

Here’s an article she wrote on the need for interfaces that bring clarity to the nuances of onchain activity:

https://www.metropolis.space/research/accountability-in-an-onchain-world

It led me into thinking about the obfuscation of cultural activity. The same way that lack of understanding puts one at a disadvantage in information arenas, I could argue the same dynamic plays in cultural spaces that lead to economic markets.

Let’s recall the progression of our online ‘communal squares’. First we had computers that could not socialize with each other. Then we had forums, message boards, email, and the early chat rooms. A chapter of abundant communication, where you would hop on chat roulette just to talk to strangers.

After these cycles we hit the early days of social media. MySpace and Tumblr hallmarked an era of curation and crafting of online personalities. And now we arrive at our current tech stack, with TikTok being the latest to join the cycle.

In this ever exponentiating path, we have become dependents toward the actual dependent. This reality has influenced data on romantic relationships, friendships, social gatherings, spiritual/religious institution, mental health, attention spans, social tragedy, political radicalism, and consumerism on the whole. It is something we should heavily inspect before we scale an even greater culture on top of blockchains.

I wrote a series on memes where I dove into what exactly ‘communication’ is trying to solve; whether that be through words, symbols, aesthetics, or a combination.

https://mirror.xyz/lght.eth/jmGEONCfdrqoXMmz9biKDSpnveYRI8B7IxPUpWFowXc

For this essay, let’s work inside the framework that communication is the means of transferring data from one mind to another. You have some idea, thought, emotion, intuition, instinct, or sense arise in your own being. You then need to figure out how to help me understand what it is and what ‘that’ means.

We all carry and process infinite amounts of data and communication is the way we upload, download, delete it*, store* it, etc.

When you consider our current cycle of social technology, you see how the internet has allowed billions of people to communicate data ceaselessly. This has rapidly increased the things we create, discuss, and consume. A needed innovation for humanity, but it would be in bad faith to ignore the costs of these developments.

At present, in the west, this has created cultural asymmetry. Within that broad term we have commercial asymmetry, information asymmetry, and capital asymmetry. Data is being created at untenable speeds. This data provides incredible value. Yet, how ‘fair’ (in a C+ grade of moral purity) are the returns for the producers of said value.

• Spotify killed unit sales for musicians

• Streamers don’t share viewer data (hence the strike) & killed theatre sales

• Uber doesn’t own a car

• Airbnb doesn’t own a home

• Corporations use social trends as free ad campaigns

  • use legitimate social causes for sales campaigns

  • and use ‘awareness’ for leveraging independent creator audiences

Rather than getting into a moral judgement, I am interested in the commercial conversation. The aforementioned points are brought up as proof of the cultural, and therefore economic, value this data brings to a legitimate market.

In a recent conversation I gained insight on the relationship between creative/cultural data and cryptographic tech. In the offchain world, even if online, cultural data is on a limited time window. Onchain is where it can become ‘timeless’.

One could make a case that the asymmetries at play, in large part, are due to the resource distribution of the various players. If we abstain from casting moral pejoratives on corporations, we can see that compared to an independent and under funded creator, the former is the only party able to activate on the latent commercial, informational, and cultural value at scale… even if they didn’t create the data.

‘Hype’ and ‘trends’ are like waves in the ocean. You can only ride them if you are already in the water. Creators make data. If it pops, they are usually not in a position of leverage. However, a corporation like McDonalds is.

Repeat this truth enough, and allow the corporate copying machine to replicate itself, you end up with a Bud Light situation, or the Gucci shirt, or Balenciaga’s campaign, or that child pageant show on Netflix, or Twitter mobs, de-platforming, or a country divided on one ticket issues they genuinely don’t care about.

You end up with scenarios that look like out of touch conglomerates, acting like they are members of your friend group, so that they can sell you on things that they themselves aren’t even convinced you want. The domino effect of such relationships lead to cultural asymmetry.

If a significant portion of the cultural asymmetry is due to resources and timescales, then crypto may help us solve some of this. The ability to turn creative data into a timeless asset, owned and operated by the founder’s wallet, provides a market function for the independent creator.

It still involves time and effort expenditure, yet the ‘timelessness’ of the asset brings an ability to develop one’s resources without being caught in the hype/trend surf.

We go from a market where consumers create data, and its value assessment is obfuscated by the bigger fish; to a market where the consumer creates and owns the data, allowing them significant leverage in potential value assessments.

Earlier I mentioned the need to inspect our current data-to-market dynamics. And if you recall the past crypto bull markets you will see attempts at replicating these patterns.

The old way is the old way. And history doesn’t repeat itself… but people do. The next cycle of social technology, if truly decentralized, provides a foundation unlike anything we’ve had prior. It does not guarantee we escape an even greater replication of our current messiness however. One where the consumer creates cultural value that is then distorted and sold back to them at a higher premium.