Note: This article expands on the concepts developed in the Notes on Lit3 series.

Literature has always been divided into two broad categories: fiction and non-fiction. This distinction predates the printing press, extends through the digital age, and continues into Web3. Yet the specific characteristics that define each category—their purposes, their relationships with truth, their evolution over time—create dramatically different affordances when integrated with blockchain infrastructure.

The four Lit3 frameworks (Token, Governance, Ledger, Permanence) are technically applicable to both fiction and non-fiction. You can tokenize a novel or a biography, archive fantasy chapters or historical essays, preserve a poem or a scientific paper. But the value proposition of each framework shifts depending on whether you're working with invented narratives or factual accounts.

Understanding these differences is essential for creators deciding which frameworks serve their work and for readers evaluating what guarantees matter for different literary forms.

Before examining Web3 implications, we must establish what distinguishes these categories in traditional publishing.

Core Characteristic: Fiction creates imaginary worlds, characters, and events. The author is not bound by factual accuracy.

Reader Expectations:

• Coherence over accuracy: A fantasy novel set in a world with magic doesn't need to obey physics, but it must obey its own internal rules.

• Emotional truth: Fiction is judged by whether it captures authentic human experiences, not whether events literally happened.

• Creative license: Readers accept that the author invented everything and can change anything (within the established narrative logic).

Examples: Novels, short stories, poetry (in most cases), plays, screenplays, epic poems.

Evolution Over Time: Fiction evolves through artistic vision. An author might write sequels that contradict earlier books (retcons), reimagine characters, or even rewrite previous volumes. These changes are controversial but accepted as creative prerogative.

Core Characteristic: Non-fiction documents actual events, ideas, people, and phenomena. The author is constrained by factual accuracy.

Reader Expectations:

• Accuracy over coherence: If reality is messy or contradictory, the non-fiction work should reflect that, not smooth it over.

• Verifiable claims: Assertions about facts, dates, statistics, or quotes should be checkable against sources.

• Accountability: Errors damage credibility. An author who misrepresents facts faces reputational harm.

Examples: History books, biographies, memoirs, journalism, essays, scientific papers, technical documentation, philosophy.

Evolution Over Time: Non-fiction evolves through new evidence. A historian publishes revised editions when new documents emerge. A scientist updates findings when experiments yield different results. These changes are expected and strengthen credibility when properly documented.

Some forms blur the boundary:

• Historical fiction invents characters and dialogue but sets them in documented historical contexts.

• Memoirs recount true experiences but reconstruct dialogue and compress timelines, introducing subjective interpretation.

• Creative non-fiction uses literary techniques (scene-setting, narrative arc) while maintaining factual accuracy.

• Autofiction deliberately blurs the line between memoir and fiction, often leaving readers uncertain what's real.

These hybrid forms inherit characteristics from both categories and, as we'll see, require nuanced framework application in Lit3.

Note for series readers: If you've read the previous articles in this series, you're already familiar with how the Token, Governance, Ledger, and Permanence frameworks apply to fictional works. The following section provides a comprehensive overview for readers new to Lit3, but you may wish to skip directly to Framework Affordances for Non-Fiction to see how these same frameworks serve different purposes when applied to factual content.

How do the four Lit3 frameworks interact with fictional narratives?

Application: Tokenizing fiction creates collectible literary artifacts—limited edition chapters, character-focused short stories, or complete novels as unique digital objects.

Value Proposition:

• Scarcity for imaginary content: Fiction tokens derive value from cultural significance, artistic quality, and community enthusiasm rather than informational utility.

• Community identity: Owning a token from a beloved fictional universe signals belonging to a fan community.

• Support for creators: Tokens provide direct economic relationships between authors and readers, bypassing traditional publishing gatekeepers.

Example: A science fiction author releases each chapter of a serialized novel as a limited-edition NFT. Collectors who own the complete set gain access to exclusive bonus content—deleted scenes, author commentary, or a companion novella exploring side characters.

Consideration: Fiction tokens are inherently speculative. Their value depends entirely on the story's cultural resonance, not objective utility. This makes them perfect for fan communities but potentially volatile as investments.

Application: Reader voting influences plot direction, character fates, world-building decisions, or thematic focus in ongoing fictional works.

Value Proposition:

• Collaborative storytelling: Fiction governance transforms readers into co-authors, creating unprecedented engagement.

• Living narratives: Stories evolve based on community preferences, making each reading experience historically unique.

• Ownership through influence: Token holders don't just own a static text; they own the right to shape its future.

Example: A fantasy serial implements milestone governance. At the end of each story arc, token holders vote on major decisions:

• Which character becomes the protagonist's ally?

• Which kingdom does the hero visit next?

• Does the ancient artifact get destroyed or preserved?

The author writes the next arc incorporating the winning choices, creating a genuinely collaborative narrative.

Consideration: Governance in fiction requires careful boundary-setting. The author must define what's votable (major plot branches) versus what remains under creative control (prose style, pacing, character voice). Too much governance creates design-by-committee chaos; too little feels like performative participation.

The Retcon Problem: Fiction governance creates a unique challenge—voters might later regret their choices. If readers vote to kill a beloved character, can they reverse that decision later?

Application: Recording narrative events, character states, world-building details, and plot developments on-chain to establish immutable fictional continuity.

Value Proposition:

• Anti-retcon guarantee: Readers invest emotionally in fictional worlds. The Ledger Framework prevents authors from retroactively changing established canon, protecting that investment.

• Franchise consistency: For long-running series or shared universes (especially with multiple authors), the ledger ensures continuity across works.

• Transparent history: Readers can trace how the story evolved, especially valuable for governance-integrated narratives where community decisions shape plot.

Example: A superhero universe with multiple authors uses the Lit3 Ledger to archive canonical character states after each published story. When Character A defeats Villain B and seizes their weapon in one novel, that outcome is ledger-archived. Future authors in the universe must respect that canon—Character A has that weapon, Villain B is defeated. No author can retroactively declare "that never happened."

Consideration: The Ledger Framework's value in fiction depends on the story's scope. A standalone novel may not need canonical protection. But serialized works, expanded universes, and community-governed narratives benefit immensely.

The Flexibility Paradox: Some authors intentionally preserve creative flexibility, leaving details vague or contradictory. The Ledger Framework trades that flexibility for reader trust. Authors must decide whether canonical certainty serves their creative vision.

Application: Cryptographic hashing, decentralized storage, and license declaration ensure the fictional text endures unaltered.

Value Proposition:

• Cultural preservation: Fiction that resonates across generations deserves protection from loss or corruption. The Permanence Framework guarantees future readers can access the authentic text.

• Canonical editions: In an age of director's cuts and revised editions, the Permanence Framework creates a definitive version readers can verify.

• Resistance to censorship: Controversial or politically sensitive fiction can be preserved even if centralized platforms remove it.

Example: A dystopian novelist publishes a work exploring authoritarian surveillance. The text is stored on Arweave with its canonical hash recorded on-chain. Years later, if pressure mounts to alter or remove the book from centralized platforms, the decentralized copy remains accessible and verifiable. Readers can always access the original.

Consideration: Fiction's permanence is primarily about preservation, not verification. Unlike non-fiction (where verifying quotes or data is essential), fiction readers rarely need to prove a specific passage exists. The Permanence Framework's value is long-term cultural safeguarding rather than immediate utility.

The Evolution Tension: Some authors revise their fiction over time—improving prose, fixing inconsistencies, or reconsidering creative choices. The Permanence Framework doesn't prevent this (you can archive multiple editions), but it does make those changes transparent. Each version's hash is distinct, creating a permanent record of the work's evolution.

The same frameworks serve different purposes when applied to factual content.

Application: Tokenizing non-fiction creates gated access to informational content—research papers, investigative journalism, technical documentation, or educational materials.

Value Proposition:

• Direct creator support: Readers pay creators directly for valuable information, circumventing advertising or subscription models.

• Credential signaling: Owning tokens from respected researchers or journalists can signal intellectual engagement or professional affiliation.

• Access control: Token-gating allows creators to monetize specialized knowledge while maintaining open access to foundational work.

Example: An investigative journalist publishes a long-form report on corporate malfeasance. The main article is freely accessible, but deep-dive supplementary documents (financial analysis, source interviews, legal records) are token-gated. Readers who purchase the token gain access to the complete investigative archive.

Consideration: Token-gating non-fiction creates equity concerns. Should crucial information be paywalled? Creators must balance economic sustainability with public-interest considerations. Many non-fiction tokenization models use tiered access—basic information free, advanced analysis gated—to navigate this tension.

Application: Token holders vote on research priorities, fact-checking decisions, editorial focus, or resource allocation for investigative projects.

Value Proposition:

• Decentralized fact-checking: Instead of trusting a single editorial authority, communities collectively verify claims or prioritize investigations.

• Transparent research agendas: Readers who fund research through token purchases can influence what gets investigated, aligning incentives between creators and audiences.

• Accountability mechanisms: If a non-fiction author makes errors, token holders can vote on corrections, retractions, or additional research to address gaps.

Example: A collaborative journalism project uses governance tokens to let readers vote on which story leads to investigate. Each month, the editorial team presents three potential investigations. Token holders vote; the winning story gets funded and published. After publication, token holders can propose follow-up questions or request deeper dives into specific aspects.

Consideration: Governance in non-fiction faces the "truth isn't democratic" problem. Scientific facts, historical events, and logical arguments aren't determined by voting. Effective non-fiction governance separates what to research (votable) from what is true (determined by evidence). Token holders influence priorities and focus, not conclusions.

The Expert-Community Balance: Non-fiction governance works best when token holders are invested, informed community members rather than casual readers. A medical research project governed by token-holding physicians differs dramatically from one governed by general audiences.

Application: Recording publication dates, authorship claims, source citations, and version histories on-chain to establish provenance and prevent historical revisionism.

Value Proposition:

• Anti-plagiarism protection: Authors can prove they published ideas first, establishing intellectual priority.

• Correction transparency: When non-fiction works are updated to reflect new evidence, the Ledger Framework creates an audit trail showing what changed and why.

• Source verification: Recording citation metadata on-chain makes it harder to fabricate references or misattribute quotes.

Example: A historian publishes a revisionist interpretation of a historical event, challenging the dominant narrative. The work is ledger-archived with its publication date, authorship, and version hash. Years later, when mainstream academia adopts similar views, the historian can prove their intellectual priority—the ledger shows they published this interpretation first, influencing the field's evolution.

Consideration: The Ledger Framework is exponentially more valuable for non-fiction than fiction because attribution and accuracy matter more. Fictional narratives benefit from canonical protection, but non-fiction requires it. Misattributed quotes, fabricated data, or backdated publications can destroy credibility in ways that don't apply to invented stories.

The Living Document Problem: Non-fiction often needs updating as new evidence emerges. The Ledger Framework enables this through version tracking—each revision is a new ledger entry linked to the previous version. Readers can see the work's evolution while accessing the current, most accurate edition.

Application: Cryptographic hashing, decentralized storage, and license declaration ensure factual content remains accessible and verifiable in perpetuity.

Value Proposition:

• Historical record integrity: Future researchers need access to original sources. The Permanence Framework guarantees primary documents, historical accounts, and scientific findings remain available.

• Censorship resistance: Governments, corporations, or platforms can't suppress inconvenient truths if the content is decentralized and cryptographically verified.

• Verification at scale: Researchers can hash quoted passages from non-fiction works to confirm they're citing the authentic text, not altered copies.

Example: A whistleblower publishes leaked documents exposing government surveillance programs. The documents are stored on Arweave, their canonical hashes recorded on-chain. Even if every centralized news site is forced to remove the documents, they remain accessible and verifiable through the Permanence Framework. Journalists can cite them knowing readers can independently verify the content.

Consideration: The Permanence Framework's value for non-fiction is immediate and practical, not just long-term preservation. Fiction readers rarely need to verify a passage's authenticity, but non-fiction readers frequently do. A researcher citing a statistic from a paper, a journalist quoting a source document, or a student referencing a historical text all benefit from cryptographic verification.

The Correction Paradox: Permanent non-fiction creates tension when errors are discovered. How do you correct a "permanent" text? The solution: versioned permanence. The original remains immutably archived (with a clear "superseded" marker), while the corrected version gets its own permanent hash. This preserves the historical record (mistakes included) while ensuring readers access accurate information.

What about literary forms that blend fiction and non-fiction?

Framework Balance:

• Token & Permanence: Treat like fiction—collectible value, long-term preservation.

• Ledger: Potentially valuable for franchise consistency if it's a series, less so for standalone novels.

• Governance: Can work for reader input on invented plot elements, but historical facts remain author-controlled.

Key Consideration: Historical fiction is accountable to history even while inventing characters. The Permanence Framework could include companion documentation separating "what's real" from "what's invented," giving readers transparency.

Framework Balance:

• Token: Treat like creative non-fiction—personal experience has intrinsic value.

• Permanence: High value—memoirs are historical documents of personal experience.

• Ledger: Useful for version tracking if the author updates their recollection or perspective over time.

• Governance: Generally inappropriate—voting on someone's lived experience is ethically fraught.

Key Consideration: Memoirs occupy an uncomfortable middle ground—they're subjective accounts of objective events. The Permanence Framework can preserve the author's perspective while acknowledging it's not an objective historical record.

Framework Balance:

• All frameworks apply: Works that present fictional narratives based on real events (like historical novels drawn from investigative journalism) benefit from both fiction and non-fiction framework affordances.

• Ledger: Critical for documenting which elements are factual versus invented.

• Permanence: Essential for preserving both the narrative and the underlying factual record.

Key Consideration: These works require dual framework implementation—treating factual elements like non-fiction (source verification, correction transparency) and narrative elements like fiction (creative license, canonical consistency).

The theoretical distinctions between fiction and non-fiction in Lit3 become clearer when examining creators actively working in each space:

Fig exemplifies Web3-native fiction. The serialized novel follows a hoarded daughter thrust on a journey through the wilds to unravel her mother's past and arbitrate a path of forgiveness or revenge. Each chapter was published biweekly with handsome cover art, minted as collectibles on an ERC1155 contract. Keridwen demonstrates how the Token Framework can support serialized storytelling while building a community around an evolving narrative.

Leonor Toledo, an Argentine writer and communicator, publishes Web3 reporting and essays that blend philosophical inquiry with emotional depth. Their work explores "the invisible through words, Web3, and the energy," demonstrating how non-fiction in the Lit3 space can document the cultural and technical shifts happening in real-time while maintaining the personal voice and literary craft of traditional essayistic writing.

Both creators show that Lit3 isn't a theoretical future—it's happening now, with distinct approaches emerging for invented narratives and documented reality.

The four Lit3 frameworks are tools, not mandates. Their value shifts dramatically depending on whether you're preserving invented worlds or documented reality, building fan communities or establishing factual credibility, enabling collaborative storytelling or protecting intellectual priority.

Fiction and non-fiction have always served different human needs—one explores what could be, the other documents what is. Web3 doesn't erase that distinction; it amplifies it. The same infrastructure that lets readers co-create fantasy epics also lets researchers collaboratively verify historical records. The same technology that preserves beloved novels also protects whistleblower documents from censorship.

Understanding these differences empowers creators to choose frameworks that genuinely serve their work rather than adopting them because they're onchain. A standalone literary novel might need only the Permanence Framework. An investigative journalism project might need Permanence and Ledger but not Governance. A serialized fantasy epic might eventually use all four.

The Lit3 ecosystem is large enough for both imaginative narratives and factual accounts, collaborative storytelling and rigorous research, cultural artifacts and historical records. The frameworks adapt to serve whatever form literature takes.

Fiction and non-fiction. Imagination and documentation. Both find their place in the permanent, verifiable, community-owned future of literature.

Note: This article expands on the concepts developed in the Notes on Lit3 series.

Literature has always been divided into two broad categories: fiction and non-fiction. This distinction predates the printing press, extends through the digital age, and continues into Web3. Yet the specific characteristics that define each category—their purposes, their relationships with truth, their evolution over time—create dramatically different affordances when integrated with blockchain infrastructure.

The four Lit3 frameworks (Token, Governance, Ledger, Permanence) are technically applicable to both fiction and non-fiction. You can tokenize a novel or a biography, archive fantasy chapters or historical essays, preserve a poem or a scientific paper. But the value proposition of each framework shifts depending on whether you're working with invented narratives or factual accounts.

Understanding these differences is essential for creators deciding which frameworks serve their work and for readers evaluating what guarantees matter for different literary forms.

Before examining Web3 implications, we must establish what distinguishes these categories in traditional publishing.

Core Characteristic: Fiction creates imaginary worlds, characters, and events. The author is not bound by factual accuracy.

Reader Expectations:

• Coherence over accuracy: A fantasy novel set in a world with magic doesn't need to obey physics, but it must obey its own internal rules.

• Emotional truth: Fiction is judged by whether it captures authentic human experiences, not whether events literally happened.

• Creative license: Readers accept that the author invented everything and can change anything (within the established narrative logic).

Examples: Novels, short stories, poetry (in most cases), plays, screenplays, epic poems.

Evolution Over Time: Fiction evolves through artistic vision. An author might write sequels that contradict earlier books (retcons), reimagine characters, or even rewrite previous volumes. These changes are controversial but accepted as creative prerogative.

Core Characteristic: Non-fiction documents actual events, ideas, people, and phenomena. The author is constrained by factual accuracy.

Reader Expectations:

• Accuracy over coherence: If reality is messy or contradictory, the non-fiction work should reflect that, not smooth it over.

• Verifiable claims: Assertions about facts, dates, statistics, or quotes should be checkable against sources.

• Accountability: Errors damage credibility. An author who misrepresents facts faces reputational harm.

Examples: History books, biographies, memoirs, journalism, essays, scientific papers, technical documentation, philosophy.

Evolution Over Time: Non-fiction evolves through new evidence. A historian publishes revised editions when new documents emerge. A scientist updates findings when experiments yield different results. These changes are expected and strengthen credibility when properly documented.

Some forms blur the boundary:

• Historical fiction invents characters and dialogue but sets them in documented historical contexts.

• Memoirs recount true experiences but reconstruct dialogue and compress timelines, introducing subjective interpretation.

• Creative non-fiction uses literary techniques (scene-setting, narrative arc) while maintaining factual accuracy.

• Autofiction deliberately blurs the line between memoir and fiction, often leaving readers uncertain what's real.

These hybrid forms inherit characteristics from both categories and, as we'll see, require nuanced framework application in Lit3.

Note for series readers: If you've read the previous articles in this series, you're already familiar with how the Token, Governance, Ledger, and Permanence frameworks apply to fictional works. The following section provides a comprehensive overview for readers new to Lit3, but you may wish to skip directly to Framework Affordances for Non-Fiction to see how these same frameworks serve different purposes when applied to factual content.

How do the four Lit3 frameworks interact with fictional narratives?

Application: Tokenizing fiction creates collectible literary artifacts—limited edition chapters, character-focused short stories, or complete novels as unique digital objects.

Value Proposition:

• Scarcity for imaginary content: Fiction tokens derive value from cultural significance, artistic quality, and community enthusiasm rather than informational utility.

• Community identity: Owning a token from a beloved fictional universe signals belonging to a fan community.

• Support for creators: Tokens provide direct economic relationships between authors and readers, bypassing traditional publishing gatekeepers.

Example: A science fiction author releases each chapter of a serialized novel as a limited-edition NFT. Collectors who own the complete set gain access to exclusive bonus content—deleted scenes, author commentary, or a companion novella exploring side characters.

Consideration: Fiction tokens are inherently speculative. Their value depends entirely on the story's cultural resonance, not objective utility. This makes them perfect for fan communities but potentially volatile as investments.

Application: Reader voting influences plot direction, character fates, world-building decisions, or thematic focus in ongoing fictional works.

Value Proposition:

• Collaborative storytelling: Fiction governance transforms readers into co-authors, creating unprecedented engagement.

• Living narratives: Stories evolve based on community preferences, making each reading experience historically unique.

• Ownership through influence: Token holders don't just own a static text; they own the right to shape its future.

Example: A fantasy serial implements milestone governance. At the end of each story arc, token holders vote on major decisions:

• Which character becomes the protagonist's ally?

• Which kingdom does the hero visit next?

• Does the ancient artifact get destroyed or preserved?

The author writes the next arc incorporating the winning choices, creating a genuinely collaborative narrative.

Consideration: Governance in fiction requires careful boundary-setting. The author must define what's votable (major plot branches) versus what remains under creative control (prose style, pacing, character voice). Too much governance creates design-by-committee chaos; too little feels like performative participation.

The Retcon Problem: Fiction governance creates a unique challenge—voters might later regret their choices. If readers vote to kill a beloved character, can they reverse that decision later?

Application: Recording narrative events, character states, world-building details, and plot developments on-chain to establish immutable fictional continuity.

Value Proposition:

• Anti-retcon guarantee: Readers invest emotionally in fictional worlds. The Ledger Framework prevents authors from retroactively changing established canon, protecting that investment.

• Franchise consistency: For long-running series or shared universes (especially with multiple authors), the ledger ensures continuity across works.

• Transparent history: Readers can trace how the story evolved, especially valuable for governance-integrated narratives where community decisions shape plot.

Example: A superhero universe with multiple authors uses the Lit3 Ledger to archive canonical character states after each published story. When Character A defeats Villain B and seizes their weapon in one novel, that outcome is ledger-archived. Future authors in the universe must respect that canon—Character A has that weapon, Villain B is defeated. No author can retroactively declare "that never happened."

Consideration: The Ledger Framework's value in fiction depends on the story's scope. A standalone novel may not need canonical protection. But serialized works, expanded universes, and community-governed narratives benefit immensely.

The Flexibility Paradox: Some authors intentionally preserve creative flexibility, leaving details vague or contradictory. The Ledger Framework trades that flexibility for reader trust. Authors must decide whether canonical certainty serves their creative vision.

Application: Cryptographic hashing, decentralized storage, and license declaration ensure the fictional text endures unaltered.

Value Proposition:

• Cultural preservation: Fiction that resonates across generations deserves protection from loss or corruption. The Permanence Framework guarantees future readers can access the authentic text.

• Canonical editions: In an age of director's cuts and revised editions, the Permanence Framework creates a definitive version readers can verify.

• Resistance to censorship: Controversial or politically sensitive fiction can be preserved even if centralized platforms remove it.

Example: A dystopian novelist publishes a work exploring authoritarian surveillance. The text is stored on Arweave with its canonical hash recorded on-chain. Years later, if pressure mounts to alter or remove the book from centralized platforms, the decentralized copy remains accessible and verifiable. Readers can always access the original.

Consideration: Fiction's permanence is primarily about preservation, not verification. Unlike non-fiction (where verifying quotes or data is essential), fiction readers rarely need to prove a specific passage exists. The Permanence Framework's value is long-term cultural safeguarding rather than immediate utility.

The Evolution Tension: Some authors revise their fiction over time—improving prose, fixing inconsistencies, or reconsidering creative choices. The Permanence Framework doesn't prevent this (you can archive multiple editions), but it does make those changes transparent. Each version's hash is distinct, creating a permanent record of the work's evolution.

The same frameworks serve different purposes when applied to factual content.

Application: Tokenizing non-fiction creates gated access to informational content—research papers, investigative journalism, technical documentation, or educational materials.

Value Proposition:

• Direct creator support: Readers pay creators directly for valuable information, circumventing advertising or subscription models.

• Credential signaling: Owning tokens from respected researchers or journalists can signal intellectual engagement or professional affiliation.

• Access control: Token-gating allows creators to monetize specialized knowledge while maintaining open access to foundational work.

Example: An investigative journalist publishes a long-form report on corporate malfeasance. The main article is freely accessible, but deep-dive supplementary documents (financial analysis, source interviews, legal records) are token-gated. Readers who purchase the token gain access to the complete investigative archive.

Consideration: Token-gating non-fiction creates equity concerns. Should crucial information be paywalled? Creators must balance economic sustainability with public-interest considerations. Many non-fiction tokenization models use tiered access—basic information free, advanced analysis gated—to navigate this tension.

Application: Token holders vote on research priorities, fact-checking decisions, editorial focus, or resource allocation for investigative projects.

Value Proposition:

• Decentralized fact-checking: Instead of trusting a single editorial authority, communities collectively verify claims or prioritize investigations.

• Transparent research agendas: Readers who fund research through token purchases can influence what gets investigated, aligning incentives between creators and audiences.

• Accountability mechanisms: If a non-fiction author makes errors, token holders can vote on corrections, retractions, or additional research to address gaps.

Example: A collaborative journalism project uses governance tokens to let readers vote on which story leads to investigate. Each month, the editorial team presents three potential investigations. Token holders vote; the winning story gets funded and published. After publication, token holders can propose follow-up questions or request deeper dives into specific aspects.

Consideration: Governance in non-fiction faces the "truth isn't democratic" problem. Scientific facts, historical events, and logical arguments aren't determined by voting. Effective non-fiction governance separates what to research (votable) from what is true (determined by evidence). Token holders influence priorities and focus, not conclusions.

The Expert-Community Balance: Non-fiction governance works best when token holders are invested, informed community members rather than casual readers. A medical research project governed by token-holding physicians differs dramatically from one governed by general audiences.

Application: Recording publication dates, authorship claims, source citations, and version histories on-chain to establish provenance and prevent historical revisionism.

Value Proposition:

• Anti-plagiarism protection: Authors can prove they published ideas first, establishing intellectual priority.

• Correction transparency: When non-fiction works are updated to reflect new evidence, the Ledger Framework creates an audit trail showing what changed and why.

• Source verification: Recording citation metadata on-chain makes it harder to fabricate references or misattribute quotes.

Example: A historian publishes a revisionist interpretation of a historical event, challenging the dominant narrative. The work is ledger-archived with its publication date, authorship, and version hash. Years later, when mainstream academia adopts similar views, the historian can prove their intellectual priority—the ledger shows they published this interpretation first, influencing the field's evolution.

Consideration: The Ledger Framework is exponentially more valuable for non-fiction than fiction because attribution and accuracy matter more. Fictional narratives benefit from canonical protection, but non-fiction requires it. Misattributed quotes, fabricated data, or backdated publications can destroy credibility in ways that don't apply to invented stories.

The Living Document Problem: Non-fiction often needs updating as new evidence emerges. The Ledger Framework enables this through version tracking—each revision is a new ledger entry linked to the previous version. Readers can see the work's evolution while accessing the current, most accurate edition.

Application: Cryptographic hashing, decentralized storage, and license declaration ensure factual content remains accessible and verifiable in perpetuity.

Value Proposition:

• Historical record integrity: Future researchers need access to original sources. The Permanence Framework guarantees primary documents, historical accounts, and scientific findings remain available.

• Censorship resistance: Governments, corporations, or platforms can't suppress inconvenient truths if the content is decentralized and cryptographically verified.

• Verification at scale: Researchers can hash quoted passages from non-fiction works to confirm they're citing the authentic text, not altered copies.

Example: A whistleblower publishes leaked documents exposing government surveillance programs. The documents are stored on Arweave, their canonical hashes recorded on-chain. Even if every centralized news site is forced to remove the documents, they remain accessible and verifiable through the Permanence Framework. Journalists can cite them knowing readers can independently verify the content.

Consideration: The Permanence Framework's value for non-fiction is immediate and practical, not just long-term preservation. Fiction readers rarely need to verify a passage's authenticity, but non-fiction readers frequently do. A researcher citing a statistic from a paper, a journalist quoting a source document, or a student referencing a historical text all benefit from cryptographic verification.

The Correction Paradox: Permanent non-fiction creates tension when errors are discovered. How do you correct a "permanent" text? The solution: versioned permanence. The original remains immutably archived (with a clear "superseded" marker), while the corrected version gets its own permanent hash. This preserves the historical record (mistakes included) while ensuring readers access accurate information.

What about literary forms that blend fiction and non-fiction?

Framework Balance:

• Token & Permanence: Treat like fiction—collectible value, long-term preservation.

• Ledger: Potentially valuable for franchise consistency if it's a series, less so for standalone novels.

• Governance: Can work for reader input on invented plot elements, but historical facts remain author-controlled.

Key Consideration: Historical fiction is accountable to history even while inventing characters. The Permanence Framework could include companion documentation separating "what's real" from "what's invented," giving readers transparency.

Framework Balance:

• Token: Treat like creative non-fiction—personal experience has intrinsic value.

• Permanence: High value—memoirs are historical documents of personal experience.

• Ledger: Useful for version tracking if the author updates their recollection or perspective over time.

• Governance: Generally inappropriate—voting on someone's lived experience is ethically fraught.

Key Consideration: Memoirs occupy an uncomfortable middle ground—they're subjective accounts of objective events. The Permanence Framework can preserve the author's perspective while acknowledging it's not an objective historical record.

Framework Balance:

• All frameworks apply: Works that present fictional narratives based on real events (like historical novels drawn from investigative journalism) benefit from both fiction and non-fiction framework affordances.

• Ledger: Critical for documenting which elements are factual versus invented.

• Permanence: Essential for preserving both the narrative and the underlying factual record.

Key Consideration: These works require dual framework implementation—treating factual elements like non-fiction (source verification, correction transparency) and narrative elements like fiction (creative license, canonical consistency).

The theoretical distinctions between fiction and non-fiction in Lit3 become clearer when examining creators actively working in each space:

Fig exemplifies Web3-native fiction. The serialized novel follows a hoarded daughter thrust on a journey through the wilds to unravel her mother's past and arbitrate a path of forgiveness or revenge. Each chapter was published biweekly with handsome cover art, minted as collectibles on an ERC1155 contract. Keridwen demonstrates how the Token Framework can support serialized storytelling while building a community around an evolving narrative.

Leonor Toledo, an Argentine writer and communicator, publishes Web3 reporting and essays that blend philosophical inquiry with emotional depth. Their work explores "the invisible through words, Web3, and the energy," demonstrating how non-fiction in the Lit3 space can document the cultural and technical shifts happening in real-time while maintaining the personal voice and literary craft of traditional essayistic writing.

Both creators show that Lit3 isn't a theoretical future—it's happening now, with distinct approaches emerging for invented narratives and documented reality.

The four Lit3 frameworks are tools, not mandates. Their value shifts dramatically depending on whether you're preserving invented worlds or documented reality, building fan communities or establishing factual credibility, enabling collaborative storytelling or protecting intellectual priority.

Fiction and non-fiction have always served different human needs—one explores what could be, the other documents what is. Web3 doesn't erase that distinction; it amplifies it. The same infrastructure that lets readers co-create fantasy epics also lets researchers collaboratively verify historical records. The same technology that preserves beloved novels also protects whistleblower documents from censorship.

Understanding these differences empowers creators to choose frameworks that genuinely serve their work rather than adopting them because they're onchain. A standalone literary novel might need only the Permanence Framework. An investigative journalism project might need Permanence and Ledger but not Governance. A serialized fantasy epic might eventually use all four.

The Lit3 ecosystem is large enough for both imaginative narratives and factual accounts, collaborative storytelling and rigorous research, cultural artifacts and historical records. The frameworks adapt to serve whatever form literature takes.

Fiction and non-fiction. Imagination and documentation. Both find their place in the permanent, verifiable, community-owned future of literature.