Thoughts captured with ChatGPT

So, I am starting a new project this week and am currently thinking about how to form a cult following or a very engaged community. One thing that dawned on me is that, in a permissionless world, something unexpected—at least for me—might be the most valuable thing: the right to participate, contribute, engage, and be there.

I am an old-school sneakerhead; we're talking Niketalk times, with some really awesome holy grails in deadstock. As I walked through Paris today in some very limited kicks, I was thinking a lot about experiences from the old days.

In those times, it felt like there were a lot more limited, coveted releases that came with two pairs: the regular one and the “invite-only,” the friends and family one, both limited, but one really out of reach. One of my grails is a friends and family pair, but the more I think about it, I have sinned with that. I bought it years later from StockX from a reseller. I was not worthy at that time to get that privilege. I did not have the reputation to get them; I was not cool or important enough, and if someone asked how I got them, the story would be very lame: bought it for top dollars.

This made me think, in high fashion or luxury, it's quite common that the most exclusive things are not really able to be purchased by a common buyer, no matter how wealthy they might be. You need to build up the credibility to buy a specific Porsche, Ferrari, Hermes Birkin Bag, or a Rolex model. It's a privilege earned, not just bought into, although it's a gray area and I simplify a bit. Of course, you could go around all of that and buy it from the secondary market, but it would not really give the reputation needed to get the new thing either. The right to purchase has to be earned.

Now that I am thinking about community forming, etc., I am thinking more and more about this notion. Is the reason you were allowed to purchase, participate, contribute, mint, claim maybe worth a lot more than the purchase, participation, contribution, etc., itself, especially as we venture further into on-chain reputation, with all your activity openly verifiable by anyone? Doing the thing is one thing, having the permission to do the thing, is a status symbol?

Reputation is on-chain, hard-earned, and could be lost as easily. So, it made me wonder if the true status signal of the future is not just owning something, because in a permissionless market, anyone can potentially get their hands on anything, but getting the right from a community, project, etc., to do that very thing.

If everyone can participate, mint, contribute, whatever, in a permissionless way, having the explicit permission to do the very thing is the thing. What a tongue twister and sentence. Purchasing access to a community, a thing, a token-gated space just with sheer wealth is not the flex you think, especially if the truth is openly available, verifiable, and immutable on-chain.

This made me think about some of the things I explored in the Lens Protocol ecosystem. In some form, paid collectibles are the most valuable trust signal there is, and it's also a fascinating thing to get rewarded by your most loyal community. But it does make me think, if being on the whitelist and earning the right to collect would not be the bigger draw, than if anyone could. Yes, a “whitelisted” member could just purchase to sell later on, but again with on-chain, your rug is immutable. Good luck with future consideration. Free content, free to mint if you deem worthy, the right to mint, as the ultimate flex.

This is nothing new for sure; from organizing festivals in the past, I remember that going backstage was for so many people a magical thing, to the degree of asking to pay for access. But again, buying access to free snacks and drinks is not the same as being invited by the artists themselves. And there is a ton of other things in the same realm, purchasing yourself into a university is not the same as getting a scholarship, etc. On-chain purchase power may directly correlate with reputation weight 1 to 1.

So, in open permissionless markets, the right for anyone to participate is a superpower and an enabler to bring more people into a community, but the request to do so based on your on-chain activity is a real status symbol. The opportunity and tyranny of a permissionless world mean that explicit permission is the flex we want.

Thoughts captured with ChatGPT

So, I am starting a new project this week and am currently thinking about how to form a cult following or a very engaged community. One thing that dawned on me is that, in a permissionless world, something unexpected—at least for me—might be the most valuable thing: the right to participate, contribute, engage, and be there.

I am an old-school sneakerhead; we're talking Niketalk times, with some really awesome holy grails in deadstock. As I walked through Paris today in some very limited kicks, I was thinking a lot about experiences from the old days.

In those times, it felt like there were a lot more limited, coveted releases that came with two pairs: the regular one and the “invite-only,” the friends and family one, both limited, but one really out of reach. One of my grails is a friends and family pair, but the more I think about it, I have sinned with that. I bought it years later from StockX from a reseller. I was not worthy at that time to get that privilege. I did not have the reputation to get them; I was not cool or important enough, and if someone asked how I got them, the story would be very lame: bought it for top dollars.

This made me think, in high fashion or luxury, it's quite common that the most exclusive things are not really able to be purchased by a common buyer, no matter how wealthy they might be. You need to build up the credibility to buy a specific Porsche, Ferrari, Hermes Birkin Bag, or a Rolex model. It's a privilege earned, not just bought into, although it's a gray area and I simplify a bit. Of course, you could go around all of that and buy it from the secondary market, but it would not really give the reputation needed to get the new thing either. The right to purchase has to be earned.

Now that I am thinking about community forming, etc., I am thinking more and more about this notion. Is the reason you were allowed to purchase, participate, contribute, mint, claim maybe worth a lot more than the purchase, participation, contribution, etc., itself, especially as we venture further into on-chain reputation, with all your activity openly verifiable by anyone? Doing the thing is one thing, having the permission to do the thing, is a status symbol?

Reputation is on-chain, hard-earned, and could be lost as easily. So, it made me wonder if the true status signal of the future is not just owning something, because in a permissionless market, anyone can potentially get their hands on anything, but getting the right from a community, project, etc., to do that very thing.

If everyone can participate, mint, contribute, whatever, in a permissionless way, having the explicit permission to do the very thing is the thing. What a tongue twister and sentence. Purchasing access to a community, a thing, a token-gated space just with sheer wealth is not the flex you think, especially if the truth is openly available, verifiable, and immutable on-chain.

This made me think about some of the things I explored in the Lens Protocol ecosystem. In some form, paid collectibles are the most valuable trust signal there is, and it's also a fascinating thing to get rewarded by your most loyal community. But it does make me think, if being on the whitelist and earning the right to collect would not be the bigger draw, than if anyone could. Yes, a “whitelisted” member could just purchase to sell later on, but again with on-chain, your rug is immutable. Good luck with future consideration. Free content, free to mint if you deem worthy, the right to mint, as the ultimate flex.

This is nothing new for sure; from organizing festivals in the past, I remember that going backstage was for so many people a magical thing, to the degree of asking to pay for access. But again, buying access to free snacks and drinks is not the same as being invited by the artists themselves. And there is a ton of other things in the same realm, purchasing yourself into a university is not the same as getting a scholarship, etc. On-chain purchase power may directly correlate with reputation weight 1 to 1.

So, in open permissionless markets, the right for anyone to participate is a superpower and an enabler to bring more people into a community, but the request to do so based on your on-chain activity is a real status symbol. The opportunity and tyranny of a permissionless world mean that explicit permission is the flex we want.