I'm back – kinda.

This newsletter hibernated while I focused elsewhere. What kept me busy?

• Launched an innovation studio for entertainment: mojoworks.io

• Started a second project (still under wraps until after summer)

• Created The Inside Track – my newsletter on AI ideas and tactics that's growing rapidly

• Advising an exciting entertainment+AI+blockchain venture (details coming soon)

What's next for this newsletter?

The entertainment industry remains at a critical inflection point – something I engage with daily through my agency and advisory work.

I'll share new frameworks and theses here, though less frequently but with deeper analysis.

See you soon.

TL;DR:

• Content creation is exploding while human attention remains finite.

• Most content receives minimal engagement despite massive production volume.

• Distribution power increasingly determines content success.

• Static content formats limit audience engagement opportunities.

• "Elastic content" could adapt its depth to match individual reader interest.

"Most books should be blog posts, most blog posts should be tweets, and most tweets shouldn't exist"

There's a lot of content in the world. So. Much. Content.

Probably too much.

Yet, the rate at which we produce and publish content will likely grow exponentially from here. And when writing "we," I actually mean (dun-dun-dun-dun) the Robots.

Take YouTube, for instance:

• Approx 700K hours of new video is uploaded to YouTube every day

• The median video has 35 views

• 68% of videos have zero views

Zero.

There are "only" ≈5.5B people with an internet connection in the world. Each one has 24 hours in a day. Eight hours for sleep, eight hours for work. That leaves eight theoretical hours to consume content.

The means of production and distribution has come down to such a level that everyone can be a creator and a publisher (good). But it also creates a situation where supply of content far outstrips demand (challenging). It also marginalizes the value of that content (bad).

Sidenote: My thesis is that we will unlock "net-new" attention for leisure, entertainment and media as a function of AI efficiencies in the workplace. But AI will also turbocharge the speed of content creation, which will likely counter-balance this anyway…

A few implications:

• The value (and importance) of distribution continues to increase

• Content is pushed toward each end of the spectrum: big catch-all content, infinite small niche content. This motion forms the Content Barbell

• He who has the distribution can also control the algo → monetize curation

Sometimes I even wonder if it's worth writing yet another newsletter.

And yet, here we are :)

The one thing that isn't changing (thus far) is the nature of content. When an essay is written and published, it's done. It's out there in its static form. Same with video. Podcasts. Movies.

Lately, I've been toying around with the idea of what it looks like if the above wasn't the case.

Here's an example: I listen to a lot of podcasts. Most of them are OK. They last an hour and that is enough. Or sometimes too much. But once in a while, there's a combination of topic/host/guest that resonates so much that when the ≈hour long episode is done, I want more. I could have listened to another hour of the conversation. Maybe two. But it's not possible – because the podcast episode is a static recording.

What would it look like if content wasn't static, but elastic?

Going back to that initial quote: what if a piece of content could be discovered as a tweet, but expands in line with the depth it resonates with its readers?

For some, it's experienced as "a tweet" (small piece of content). For others, it expands to a full-length essay, and maybe beyond.

Maybe essays become living things by having companion agents that provide depth of context, research, etc. on passages the reader pauses with.

It could be an interesting way to leverage the generative capabilities of LLMs not to steamroll human creators, but add a pulse to their work.

Given my new-found love for vibecoding, maybe I'll try to create a proof of concept to better explain what the fuck I'm talking about here.

Until next time.

TL;DR:

• The contrast between first and second content squeezes

• How LLMs fundamentally change the publisher-reader relationship

• The emerging licensing model for major publishers

• The particular threat to smaller publishers

• Putting content onchain can solve many of these problems

The major unlock of the internet was reducing the cost of distribution to zero. Industries previously relied on supply chain and distribution control. The internet enabled a few key platforms to aggregate demand and capture middlemen-value as they direct this demand to supply.

The three big aggregators:

• Google: aggregate information demand

• Facebook: aggregate social connections

• Amazon: aggregate product demand, "the everything store"

This is described in detail in Ben Thompson's legendary framework, Aggregation Theory.

I'll focus on the first one, information demand today.

Google's strategy simplified:

• Provide great products for free (Gmail, Google Drive, and more), establish as a gateway to the internet. To understand how key this is, consider that Google pays Apple $20B+ per annum to remain default search engine on the iOS platform...

• Capture intent via search

• Sell intent-specific ads in the search results

This evolution of the internet marked the first phase of "the content squeeze."

As described in Ben Thompson's thesis, publisher content went from bundle product (newspaper) to fragmented pieces (articles). Rather than seek out publisher websites, users search for things on Google, and have links to relevant articles served to them.

But, they were still served by the publisher.

We're now entering the next phase of the squeeze.

With Large Language Model (LLM) products (like ChatGPT) on the rise, the window for online search shifts.

Traditional search querying:

1. Search

2. Get served relevant links

3. Click link and go to a site

LLM-based search:

1. Search

2. Get answer

It eliminates one step, and also enables the aggregator to keep users on their platform. And they have a clear incentive to do so. Distribution is the most valuable thing, and the more attention you're capturing and retaining, the more opportune your position to monetize it.

If the first phase of the content squeeze unbundled content, the second phase is breaking it down to its rawest form, to be served embedded.

This creates a new dynamic, and generates many interesting questions.

Monetisation is one such question. We're already seeing examples of the big AI companies landing licensing deals with publishers. Some notable ones:

• New York Times signed a ≈$100M/3 year deal with Google (src)

• Financial Times with OpenAI for $5-10M/year (src)

• News Corp with OpenAI for $250M/5 year (src)

This is a very different way for publishers to monetise. In practice, they're almost making a full circle, coming back to selling a packaged bundle ("all content for x time"), but now it happens as a B2B backroom deal.

I obviously don't know the details of these deals, but I do wonder how good they will turn out to be after 3-5 years (and in whose favour).

And, what happens to the publisher-aggregator user experiences where there isn't a top-level content deal?

In a recent blog post, Tomasz Tunguz mentions Chegg, an online homework helper that's now suing Google because their traffic has dropped (so much that they're considering a sale of the company) because the Google AI Overview feature effectively gives users answers without actually going to Chegg's site.

These are all big publishers, what about everyone else?

Maintaining the content monetisation models and licensing deals manually, in a digital world where AI based search will take a firm hold, where AI agents will roam and use the information available to them to accomplish whatever goal they were served etc. is not scalable. It's too slow.

This will bleed over to commerce as well, as we've discussed in a few pieces lately.

The only scalable solution I see is embedding value with content. If licensing agreements are smart contract executable, attribution graphs are onchain, then value can be distributed, even streamed, as AI outputs generate income.

And, as commerce follows, running it all onchain will enable new types of ad markets to follow.

For now, many publishers are probably still underestimating the extent of which things will change when the second content squeeze takes proper hold. It creates more distance between publisher and end user. While it may be offset by these "catch all" licensing deals, it also begs the question; if distribution is the most valuable thing, is everything else just a race to the bottom?

As always, reach out to me on X or Farcaster if you have feedback or are working on something cool you want to discuss.

• AI adoption is creating a massive divide between businesses that adapt quickly and those that delay.

• Most small and medium businesses are stuck in outdated AI evaluation cycles while the technology rapidly evolves.

• Traditional business constraints are disappearing as AI makes bespoke software development dramatically cheaper.

• Companies are shifting from providing software tools to delivering direct business outcomes through autonomous systems.

• The current tech landscape requires continuous adaptation rather than periodic innovation cycles.

The scales are tipping in favor of the bold and adventurous builders. Computers are getting smarter by the day, adopting personalities, and gaining access to programmatic infrastructure for value. Everyone's talking about AI, but how many companies are ready to meaningfully adapt their businesses?

There is a silent renaissance in progress. One that will rewrite the rules of business. Yet, many business operators have every reason not to pay attention. And I don't blame them.

Less than a year ago, I was the CEO of a mature SaaS company. We talked a lot about AI and ran some experiments. But the responsibilities and priorities of daily business life took precedence. It's a tale as old as time with disruptive innovations.

It's been ≈two and a half years since ChatGPT dropped. The pace of improvement since then has been nothing short of staggering. In practice we’re about to commoditize the average knowledge worker. Yet my conversations with friends across various businesses reveal that adoption and experimentation remain stuck in that "ChatGPT moment".

The rules of business are being rewritten in real-time. It’s going to create a massive bifurcation in the business landscape: Those who gets it and those that don’t (or get it too late).

AI agents running autonomous micro-businesses. Single founders operating swarms of agents to build billion-dollar solo ventures. Agents embedded in existing companies, replacing some humans, coordinating with others.

None of this is sci-fi. It’s all either happening or going to happen – soon.

The transition won't happen overnight. Some changes will be so gradual that incumbents miss them completely. Others will make headlines that shake everyone to their core:

• What happens to software engineers when agents write better code?

• What becomes of management consultants when agents can research and present pretty slides in minutes?

• How do creative agencies compete when AI can generate and iterate on campaigns in seconds?

Legacy businesses face a stark choice: cling to path-dependent models and risk

obsolescence, or venture into the uncertain terrain of AI and blockchain.

Small and medium sized businesses, particularly service-oriented ones will likely be the slowest to adapt. There are several reasons why:

• Path Dependence

• Talent Gap

• The Time Lock Trap

• Principal-agent problem

Path dependence is the most expensive fallacy in business. Historical decisions constrain future adaptability, and right now, that's severely limiting everyone's ability to adapt. Companies find themselves trapped by their past investments - in technology, in processes, and most importantly, in mindset.

Then there's the talent gap. It's particularly pronounced in the early phase of tech diffusion. Over time, efficiencies will embed down the stack into software. But for now (and likely the next ≈5 years), there will be big competitive advantages to gain by adapting and adopting early.

Many parts of both AI and blockchain are in “raw” states. This creates a technological threshold.

The problem isn't just about technical skills. It's about understanding the potential of these technologies to reshape entire business models. Most organizations lack people who can bridge the gap between traditional business operations and emerging technologies.

Here's how AI adoption typically goes at a company: Form a task force. Evaluate potential for a set period. Propose solutions. Adopt some, throw away most. Go back to business as usual.

The problem? While your task force is finding something impossible to solve with AI today, your competitor's figuring out how to do it tomorrow. Much of the "AI evaluation" happening at SMBs comes from board directives, with management more motivated to check boxes than unearth uncomfortable truths about the new rules of business.

This traditional approach to innovation adoption simply doesn't work in the current environment. The pace of change is too rapid, and the implications too profound, for periodic evaluation cycles.

This trap is understandable, for a service-oriented business, there’s nothing natural about rigging an “always-on” tech function, but it may be what’s required in order to continuously adapt as the tech evolves.

There's another challenge lurking beneath the surface: misaligned incentives. The principal-agent problem occurs when decision-makers act in their own self-interest rather than in the best interest of the organization.

In the context of AI and blockchain adoption, this manifests in several ways:

• Managers protecting their territories from automation

• IT departments resisting changes to established systems

• Executives avoiding risky but necessary technological transitions

• Boards preferring short-term stability over long-term adaptation

We're moving from software as a service to agents that deliver outcomes. Take customer support - it's historically been great business building customer service tooling. But what if instead of getting tools to do customer service, you get software that does customer service for you?

This shift fundamentally changes the value proposition of business software. It's no longer about providing tools for humans to use, but about delivering direct business outcomes through autonomous systems.

But, this dynamic impacts much broader than software/tech businesses.

Cost compression in software development is unlocking new possibilities. Traditionally, two things limited how much we could build software into business processes:

1. Level of complexity

2. Software-to-human labor ratio

In some case, we hit at technological ceiling. In other cases it was just better ROI to solve with human labor.

We’re now entering a phase where the cost of building bespoke software is collapsing. Previously unthinkable, today a mid-sized service SMB could build their own bespoke agent-based software to both fully automate and semi-automate (with human coordination) major operational workflows, and even entire business functions.

I think there’s a double-digit profit margin increase potential from adopting AI augmentation for these types of businesses in the years ahead.

But most won’t. For all the reasons stated above.

Just as we saw the emergence of digital-native companies in the internet era, we're now seeing the rise of AI-native organizations. These aren't just businesses that use AI tools - they're enterprises built from the ground up around AI capabilities.

Characteristics of AI-native organizations include:

• Continuous learning and adaptation

• Automated decision-making processes

• Dynamic resource allocation

• Real-time market response

• Scalable operations with minimal human intervention

For legacy businesses, adoption is a massive challenge. But for those who manage it? The competitive advantages are extraordinary. It requires an always-on tech layer that continually iterates.

This makes me think there’s an opportunity for a new kind of private equity/holdco play, where the AI capabilities sits at a parent level. I expect we’ll see some of these strategies emerge soon.

Another example is what crypto investor Santiago Santos is doing with his new fund, Inversion Capital. Building their own blockchain network, acquire businesses and unlock efficiencies by putting those businesses on crypto rails. In this case, the blockchain network becomes a business operating system. There are many interesting strategies that can be imagined from this basis; acquiring businesses via the treasury of a blockchain network, launching cross-business incentive and reward mechanisms (again funded by treasury grants).

If the above paragraph makes your head spin, it proves my point.

Many of the unlocks and strategies that can be executed as a function of these technologies require deep understanding of those technologies in the first place.

The rules of business are being rewritten. We're moving into an era where the boundaries between human and machine capabilities are increasingly blurred, and where traditional business constraints are being eliminated by technological advancement.

The question isn't whether to adapt, but how fast you can do it before the tumble dryer cycle ends. Those who embrace this renaissance early will help shape the new paradigm. Those who wait may find themselves playing catch-up in a game where the rules have fundamentally changed.

As always, reach out to me on X or Farcaster if you have feedback or are working on something cool you want to discuss.

• A non-coder can now build complex AI tools in hours.

• Traditional SaaS companies are fucked if they only treat AI as a feature.

• Software is becoming disposable and hyper-personalized.

• Agent chains will be the new normal for building tools.

• The "app gap" is dead – if it doesn't exist, you can build it instantly.

We're about to witness the biggest displacement in software history. For some, this means massive opportunity. For others – particularly horizontal SaaS businesses that fail to adapt – it's going to be devastating.

Most won't adapt. They can't. They're internal workflows, processes and human incentives will prevent them from adapting.

This isn't theoretical bullshit. I just experienced it firsthand by building something that completely changed my perspective on AI and software.

In the context of SaaS, I have mostly considered AI as value-add. Nice-to-have augmentation. Then I built my own AI agent, and now I'm not so sure anymore.

It started with a simple need. I wanted better ways to surface my past notes and article highlights. Something that could generate creative prompts for my writing and help condense my content for X and Farcaster.

Couldn't find a tool that did exactly that. So I said fuck it, I'll build one.

The initial version took less than an hour. Here's the BRG Agent with a simple UI:

Some context: My coding skills are basic. Made some apps and websites 10 years ago, but what I built here is way beyond what I could normally do. And it took less than three hours...

From my previous research into AI agents, I knew I wanted one with personality, trained on my content. Using Replit (an AI-augmented code editor), I set up the initial structure using ElizaOS agent framework and Claude as the LLM.

The first version was simple:

- Give it a prompt, get a thought back

- Autonomous thoughts every ten minutes

That last part is wild. Keep the browser tab open, and it just... creates. Like magic. Some of it is crap, some it sparks inspiration.

Playing around with it gave me more ideas. Two hours later, I had built:

- Readwise integration pulling my reading highlights

- Thought generation based on highlights

- RSS feed subscription to my newsletter

- Favorite marking system

- Topics, tagging, and search

- Preview styling

- LinkedIn post generator (yeah, I post there sometimes)

- Feedback mechanism to improve future generations

Is it perfect? No. It produces a mix of interesting stuff and garbage. The interface is a bit janky.

But here's the thing: It's a fully functioning AI agent, with an interface, specifically trained on my content, integrated with multiple external APIs. Built by a non-coder in 3 hours.

In my past life I ran a company with multiple software engineering teams. I know what kind of time would have gone into creating something like this following 'best practices', putting an engineer, a pm and a designer together to work on it, etc.

(Spoiler: it would take more than three hours.)

Some more screenshots:

What This Means for Software

Building software has been a gold mine, because of skill and capex hurdles. I see a path where software in the future becomes ephemeral and hyper-personalized. Think of agents as the new interface – you communicate what you need, and they generate the exact tool for that moment.

That's exactly what happened here. I chatted with an AI agent that created and customized an app based on my specs and feedback. Yeah, it's meta that it's an agent programming an agent, but this chain-of-agents pattern will be normal soon.

Right now it's raw – I see the code, use programming tools, handle deployment specs. But all that could be (will be) abstracted away.

The implications are massive: The barrier to "there's an app for that" is basically gone.

Some legacy SaaS products think slapping a chatbot in their sidebar and calling it "AI-enabled" is enough. It's not.

They'll be outcompeted by two forces:

1. People rolling their own custom software

2. Living, evolving applications that constantly iterate based on user needs

The future of software isn't just AI-enhanced. It's AI-native. And it's coming faster than most people realize.

There's a substrate of software, the vertical SaaS, niche tools built for specific industries. In some industries, these products are still onprem, haven't yet made it to the cloud. In others, it's barely entered the cloud. In most of these cases, there's an important moat: The complexity of building tool depth and integrating with other legacy systems adds overhead that makes it difficult and expensive for challengers to enter the market. I think this challenges are about to collapse.

And it's going to displace many incumbents that managed to hold on through the "cloud-phase", but they will be absolutely washed out by cloud+ai enabled competition.

All of this almost makes me wanna find a good industry and build a new venture.

Hmm...

As always, reach out to me on X or Farcaster if you have feedback or are working on something cool you want to discuss.

• The world is rapidly moving to digital rails, changing how we work and live

• Tokens enable new ways to organize and reward large groups globally

• Incentive alignment creates powerful network effects through skin in the game

• Traditional corporate structures are being replaced by more fluid, networked entities

• In the attention economy, engaged participants become owners and growth drivers

We live in wild times. The US president launched a memecoin. His wife launched a memecoin. Everyone with minimum viable attention capture will likely attempt to launch memecoins.

The timing is perfect. The regulatory landscape for crypto seems likely to improve significantly going forward. And it will happen fast.

Sparks will fly, fuelling more innovation, experimentation and craziness that, in the end, will drive progress towards one thing: The world coming onchain.

Exciting times.

But let's take a step back and remind ourselves why this technology is so wholesome in the first place. It's easy to lose track of the bigger picture when shit's this wild.

The world is becoming increasingly digital every day. I see no reason for that to slow down or stop anytime soon.

We spend more of our time – both work and leisure – tethered to this vast, global space that is the internet. It's a wonderful invention that makes the world bigger and smaller at the same time.

Using myself as a beacon: Since going independent a few months back, only 10% of the work I do relates to my physical location. The rest happens online, with people and companies from the US to South Korea.

It's a lot of fun. And, I'd like to think, an early signal of what many more people will experience over the next decade.

As the time we spend and the work we do increasingly happens on digital rails, so should the way we organize efforts and value creation. That, at its core, is one of the key unlocks of tokens on blockchain networks.

We're so used to corporations selling their products. Power-concentrated, rigid structures that work in a top-down motion. But wtf? It doesn't reflect the ways we live our lives, nor how we contribute work hours, engagement and time.

Tokens are incredibly effective tools for orchestrating large groups of people and entities (companies, agents) at global scale.

The key word here is incentive alignment.

With tokens, we can create structures (post-corporations) that enable people to contribute to the success of a network and be rewarded with network tokens for the effort.

This creates a financial upside for each individual contributor. As the network value grows, so does your share of the network. And the more you contribute, the more you're rewarded for it.

Incentive alignment.

But also: Skin in the game.

Beyond the memecoins, the sentient AI agents and everything else, skin in the game is the novel idea.

Building companies as networks will enable new, fairer and more effective entities to grow and impact the world. A great example is Helium.

Imagine trying to build a mobile carrier network. That requires serious capital. Or not... Instead, you could let people pay a small upfront fee (few hundred bucks) for a wireless hotspot. If you have enough people do it, you can combine it all to form a mesh network.

You've now built a mobile network with very little upfront cost.

Why do people buy hotspots? Incentive alignment.

As customers sign up for the carrier service, part of the revenue accrues to the individuals that contribute their hotspots as nodes in the network.

New entities will find novel ways to compete with legacy businesses by building networks that leverage incentive alignment. This dynamic will play out with networks targeting other companies (or networks), networks targeting AI agents, and networks targeting humans. Allowing people, companies and agents skin in the game at each step of the way.

This will play out across many different industries.

Probably all of them.

I've written about the future of entertainment, IP and franchises before. I'm convinced that the next big entertainment franchise(s) will be built with this same networked approach. The franchise will offer fans ways to contribute, and a chance to be rewarded for their contributions – becoming owners of the networked franchise in the process, which further deepens their connection.

This creates a powerful, self-reinforcing incentive alignment flywheel.

Networked franchises (neo-franchises) will be successful because they will:

• Have favorable attention economics as incentive-aligned fans become marketing channels

• Retain more fan attention in their ecosystem through expansive second-order and derivative content created by fans

• Grow to global scale faster than we've ever seen a franchise do before, because the network is internet native, not internet-retrofitted

It presents an interesting question. In the age of "abundant everything", attention is the scarce resource. Today, we pay for entertainment. But it's the attention we offer an entertainment property that makes it successful. So, there's an interesting trade-off. A space for incentive alignment.

There are many such interesting trade-offs in various parts of business and life. Entire value chains will be reimagined.

So as you look at the fluctuations of your $TRUMP coins – remember that there's something far more important at play here. Something that will have a much bigger impact.

Skin in the game for everyone.

TL;DR:

• Crypto's latest trend is AI agents, powered by easy-launch tools like Virtuals.

• Most AI agents are just smart social bots that make money from attention.

• Blockchain gives agents built-in payment systems and token economics.

• The big opportunity is autonomous companies, not just crypto applications.

• Today's agent memecoins hide real progress, just like early internet toys.

Crypto loves a good narrative. The space is basically a superconductor for trends, amplified by social media network effects and echo chambers. We saw this with NFTs. We saw it with memecoins. Each wave mints millionaires overnight, sends protocol marketcaps to the moon, and leaves plenty of rekt traders in its wake.

Such is life in the trenches.

The latest fling? AI agents with crypto capabilities. But wtf is actually going on here? Are we just building infinite slop machines and sentient memes, or is there something bigger on the horizon?

Before diving in, let's revisit the most important mental model for exploring the tech frontier. It's so crucial you should make it your morning mantra:

Amara's Law:

"We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run"

And if you're feeling spicy, throw in Dixon's Law:

"The next big thing will start out looking like a toy"

Both are at play here.

The transformative power of blockchain networks needs a long lens. Eventually, all tickets will be NFTs. Culture will become an investable asset class at the micro-trend level. Online transaction costs will compress from today's ~2% credit card fees by orders of magnitude.

Eventually. Not tomorrow.

When a narrative takes hold, the signal-to-noise ratio goes to shit. Crypto Twitter (CT) obsesses over quick gains, short-term fortune hunters flood in, and it all obscures the fundamental progress happening beneath the surface.

You know a crypto narrative has reached escape velocity when everything converges into memecoins. That's exactly where we are with AI agents right now.

Simple distinction: A bot follows rules. An agent thinks for itself. It can understand its environment and take actions to achieve goals.

Bots = stupid. Agents = smart.

We could probably discuss until sunrise about to which degree these agents are autonomous, but let's just leave that for now.

The crypto + AI intersection isn't new. Infrastructure projects like Render Network, Akash, and Bittensor laid the groundwork. But things kicked into high gear last year when the narrative shifted from backend to frontend with tokenized agents.

It started with Truth Terminal, an autonomous (but supervised) social media agent on X. From there, it was turbo speed through copycat social agents before landing at Fartcoin (yes, really) and more importantly, technological breakthroughs like the Virtuals launchpad.

Virtuals is basically Wordpress for agents – anyone can launch a tokenized agent with basic instructions. The crypto integration makes it unique from web2 alternatives.

When launching costs nothing and potential rewards are massive, everyone rushes in. We're seeing hundreds of new agents daily. Most are vaporware or glorified social media bots.

But that initial product-market fit makes sense. Humans already compound social media attention into token value.

Take AIXBT – arguably the first crypto influencer on X. It analyzes market trends, shares insights, and engages with its 400K followers. Current marketcap: $700M.

Sure, much of that value comes from memetics and attention. But AIXBT is also fronting a data intelligence terminal that requires 600K tokens (~$500K) to access. Given the recent price appreciation, that's a steep price, but it hints at an interesting pattern:

AIXBT functions as a marketing agent, driving attention by sharing insights. This creates token demand from people wanting full terminal access. In theory, one could add in lower-tier priced products, since a $500K piece of software has a very limited customer segment.

According to sentient.market's AI agent index, this is already a $13.6B category. While it may be tempting to take the easy route and overindex on the memecoin convergence and dismiss it – I don't think you should.

At CES this month, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang dropped this bomb: "AI agents represent a multi-trillion dollar opportunity"

Not today. Not tomorrow. Eventually.

He wasn't specifically talking about crypto-capable AI agents. But putting agents onchain makes perfect sense. At minimum, a wallet lets agents efficiently pay and get paid in near-real-time.

Now imagine agents trained for specific tasks, working together, collaborating. The opportunity isn't just about creating automated slop machines with tokens attached.

Dream bigger.

Let's evaluate the crypto component from two vectors:

1. On crypto: Tokenizing the agent itself creates an embedded economic model. The agent delivers services (to other agents or humans), driving token demand. Others can invest in the token as an asset, similar to company stocks.

2. For crypto: Most utility agents are currently crypto-native, handling market analytics, trading, etc. It's logical to first solve problems in their native environment.

Crypto's UX complexity might become irrelevant. An agentic abstraction layer between blockchain operations and users could leapfrog the problem entirely. Projects like Griffain are already showing this. This "agent as defi abstraction" got dubbed "DeFAI" (who tf names these things?).

But the biggest opportunity category might be: On Crypto, For [Everything].

Tokenized agents solve monetization, but the services don't have to be crypto-specific. We could see agent-first companies bootstrapping on crypto rails with capital efficiency, leveraging narrative strength while solving real-world tasks. Think of them as autonomous micro-companies.

I'm still forming these thoughts, so bear with me. Over the next weeks, I'll explore:

- Network effects in the agent economy

- AI agent swarms (multiple agents working together)

- The agentic micro-company concept

- Economics of launchpads like Virtuals

- Agents in entertainment

If any of these threads seem particularly interesting, reply to the email or hit me up on X.

Thanks!

TL;DR:

• Pudgy Penguins is building an "onchain amusement park" with NFTs, physical products, and a strong distribution engine.

• Its success comes from scaling distribution and becoming a "planet" that attracts other brands.

• The Abstract Chain will provide infrastructure for new IP, tools, and economic activity.

• The $PENGU token enables community ownership and innovative loyalty rewards.

• Traditional studios can’t easily replicate Pudgy's onchain-first model.

I ended 2024 with two loosely coupled essays about the future of entertainment and how onchain primitives and mechanics will impact it (here and here). Today we'll dive into the third installment.

The premier onchain neo-franchise is Pudgy Penguins. This won't be a full historic run-down of the project, but rather an attempt at analyzing some of the key components that

a) will fuel its future success

b) inspire Hollywood/traditional entertainment properties

c) in some ways be hard or impossible for b's to replicate.

What started out as a profile picture NFT project (in a herd of many such projects at the time) has evolved into something much more.

I consider this ecosystem as the first attempt at building an onchain amusement park. Below we'll cover key components that make up this park:

• Distribution engine

• Vertical integration

• Novel loyalty and reward mechanisms

• Amusement Park Flywheel

Disclaimer: it's important to highlight that much of that we'll explore is not confirmed plans from Pudgy Penguins, but me speculating through the lens of the neo-franchise framework on how (I think) the ecosystem will expand.

A (very short) intro

Pudgy Penguins launched as an NFT collection during the NFT craze of the summer of '21. Like many of its peer collection it launched with much hype, less. plans. After some controversy and community dissatisfaction, Luca Netz, an experienced e-commerce and marketing entrepreneur bought the brand for ≈$2.5M in April 2022.

After this acquisition, the project has evolved into an IP-driven consumer franchise expanding beyond the initial bubble of NFT speculation degeneracy, including a physical toy product that's sold more than a million units at Walmart and billions of views in traditional social media channels.

The Pudgy-ecosystem is currently made up of the following parts:

• Parent company: Igloo Inc

• Pudgy Penguins core NFT collections

• Abstract Chain (to be launched consumer-focused L2 blockchain network)

• Secondary products/tooling: Overpass IP, a platform to handle NFT-based IP licensing

Distribution is key

Distribution is a key challenge for many onchain products and projects. Both onchain distribution (attracting consumers that are already using crypto products), and – maybe more importantly – distribution from the "outside world". For the onchain economy to grow, the latter part is necessary.

We explored this in last year's "Distribution Kings".

Platforms that

(1) already have an established user base and

(2) straddle the worlds of web2 and web3

...have a huge advantage (like Telegram and Coinbase).

Onchain products and brands will fall into one of two categories: Planets and moons. Attention is the gravitational field.

- Planets: strong enough gravitational field to sustain vertically integration and build an ecosystem that attracts and spawns moons

- Moons: benefit from being within the gravitational field of a thriving planet

Many projects will fail by wrongly labeling themselves as planets, when they could thrive as moons in a fitting ecosystem.

A key to Pudgy ecosystem success is its ability to create its own distribution engine. The engine is driven by IRL products and a massive web2 social network presence. Any project that can sustainably scale their own distribution engine will automatically be more valuable and more successful than its peers. In fact, these projects become planets with their own attention-based gravitational fields that attracts its peers to to build within this field.

Since distribution is so fickle, once you have it (lightning in a bottle) it makes a ton of sense to create as much leverage on it as possible; you build an onchain amusement park.

Amusement Park Scaffolding

Pudgy Penguins is correctly self-labeling as a planet within this framework. Their (soon?) to-launch Ethereum Layer2 blockchain network, the Abstract Chain is both a vertical integration strategy and an expansion play to increase distribution engine leverage.

The Abstract network is the onchain amusement park infrastructure, and the Pudgy Penguins brand is the flagship ride. This combination kickstarts the flywheel.

The opportunity is to grow the experience set of the amusement park in order to retain consumer attention (and money) over time – creating a compounding machine.

I'm sure we'll see them launch their own, internal brands/strands of IP down the line, but the big growth opportunity is attracting external brands.

For outside builders, the amusement park offers three attractive benefits:

• Developer tooling

• Distribution

• A working economy

(That last part is important, remember it for the next segment).

It creates an environment where other brands can come in, set up their own rides in the park and piggyback on the above. Developer tooling/infrastructure is not a unique value proposition (there are many blockchain networks). It's the combination of that plus a sustainable, owned distribution engine and established economic activity that is attractive.

Every new ride in the amusement park increase the experiential value for consumers, attracts more people to the park, and makes it more attractive for the next brand to launch their ride. All while the value of this increased activity accrue to the amusement park infrastructure.

This is also where distributed infrastructure ownership truly shines; community members, ride-builders and investors can own stakes in the amusement park along side the Pugdy Penguins holding company (Igloo).

The Community is The Pulse

Traditional entertainment franchises have shallow engagement models centered around monetising the consumer. Fan communities naturally drift towards deeper engagement. People want to be close to the things they vibe with. Most of this energy is lost in traditional entertainment models, but will be core fuel for the Pudgy ecosystem.

Owning and earning is the final step of the Entertainment Participation Spectrum™.

As the lines between creating and consuming continues to blur, the entertainment brands that harness the full spectrum will be the winners of the future. Pudgy Penguins understands this at a deep level.

Until recently, the way to be an owner in the ecosystem was limited to buying NFTs from the core or the two supporting collection. As the value of the ecosystem attention has led to price appreciation of these assets, it's become prohibitively expensive for most users.

To solve for this, Pudgy Penguins launched a fungible ecosystem token, $PENGU, in December. There haven't been much official information about the role of this token yet, but:

• it lowers the barrier for community ownership → growth

• can be used as a loyalty and rewards mechanism for community contributions

• sets a tangible valuation on the aggregated ecosystem attention (leaving traditional Hollywood studios wide-eyed)

Combining the first two points above on crypto rails sets the stage for novel onchain loyalty experiences.

We can imagine how active participation in the Pudgy ecosystem in the future will be rewarded with brand tokens ($PENGU). This tokens have tangible value, and the consumer can choose to

(1) hold the tokens as an investment

(2) swap it for fiat money to spend IRL

(3) bring it to other rides in the park

Let's continue this imaginary tale by selecting (3). The consumer swaps her earned brand token – $PENGU – for the base currency of the Abstract Chain ($ABS?). This currency is recognized and honored by all ride operators.

The consumer visits a new ride, pays to play, but – crucially – with value that was payment for attention/engagement/participation. Which is a very different prospect than loading a balance with your credit card beforehand (and paying the 2.5% credit card fees in the process).

It's an embedded reward economy that mimicks the "airdrop culture" of crypto native projects, but at a level and with an experience that is optimized not primarily for financial speculation but for play, fun and entertainment.

It also creates an environment where funds can be circulated through various attractions in the amusement park. It's the onchain entertainment version of what Square (the payments company) has been building out with its product set of both B2B and B2C offerings. Their big motivation being to increase the leverage/utilization of cashflow within it's ecosystem before incurring credit card and banking fees related to on-ramping and off-ramping.

In short; Pudgies tokenized the attention value of their franchise via the $PENGU token, and this liquidity is on standby to test new rides in the park.

Difficult to Replicate

People like comparebles like "this is the next Disney" etc.

The "next Disney" will not look like the current Disney.

But, if we want to play with that line of thought, the foundation the Pudgy Penguins creates with its onchain amusement park is directionally what an onchain-era "house of IP" looks like. Anyone can set up attractions in the park, but as they control the main distribution engine, Pudgy Penguins can direct consumer attention (and financial incentives) to the best rides.

The structure of this whole thing involves a bunch of components that are near-impossible for traditional franchises to replicate for a thousand different reasons, including legal, shareholder interest and tech capability.

Other crypto-native projects will surely attempt to follow this playbook, too. Many of them will fail due to overestimating their gravitational fields.

There are also going to be attention-based network effects at play that benefits first/early movers (like Pudgy/Abstract).

reach out to me on X or Farcaster if you have feedback or are working on something cool you want to discuss.

The final post for the year is a personal retrospective. Consider it the second one in the Forever Endeavour series. Occasional posts where I write about the journey itself (you can read the first on routine design here).

Thanks for being a subscriber and supporting my work – I appreciate it!

PS: I initially intended to round the year off with the third essay of my Hollywood + Crypto series (part one, part two), but we'll return to this early next year.

Big Changes

The biggest change of the year came in October. I started the year as the CEO of DX, a web2 SaaS company. I end the year as a full time independent writer, advisor and doing some occasional investing in startups. More on that later.

On Writing

2024 marks the first full year of consistently publishing essays at a weekly cadence (for most of the year). This post is the 40th post of the year.

Why weekly? It adds just the right amount of pressure; enough to create consistent progress, but not so much that I spiral into becoming a slop producing machine (Hello to all the LinkedIn Content Creator Influencers).

On the other side, without pressure I could see myself over-perfecting and rarely publishing. Progress and consistency matters.

Three reasons to write:

• Learn and better understand the changes and opportunities coming

• Clarify my thoughts, ideas and concepts

• A magnet to find interesting people (thanks to everyone that I've had a chance to connect with this year!)

I will approach 2025 with the intention to write weekly essays, but also with the space to adapt. Some weeks may be busy with other projects, or I may be working on things that take more than a week. For instance, I've had this idea of writing a comprehensive "Future of Onchain Entertainment Primer" on the backburner for a few months. Regardless, expect frequent new pieces in 2025 :)

Some of the pieces I had the most fun with this year:

• The Fandom as a Service Thesis

• The Rise of Mempires

• Liquid Attention Markets

• Follow the Doge

• Passion for Characters over Studios

• Investing in Internet Culture

On Work beyond Writing

As briefly mentioned in the intro, I transitioned out of my prev. company and CEO role in October. Why? Several reasons. I had been at the company for more than a decade. There's a time for everything.

Second, over the past few years I've spent many of my evenings thinking and writing about the future of entertainment, the onchain economy and all of the opportunities to come.

Doing that part-time only gets me so far. I'm convinced we're at an important inflection point. The onchain economy will continue growing, AI will be everywhere. It's going to create massive changes, and massive opportunities. Both in entertainment and beyond.

This seems like the right time to make some changes to enable myself to spend all of my time at the edge of the curve.

I spent some time reflecting on the above throughout the first half of 2024. In a curious coincidence, someone recommended me a book around the same time; Lighter by Yung Pueblo. I bought it. On one of the first pages:

pick the path that lights you up

the one you know deep down is the right choice

stop listening to doubt

start connecting with courage

do not let the idea of normal get in the way

it may not be the easy path

but you know great things take effort

lean into your determination

lean into your mission

lean into the real you

And off I went on my next career chapter.

So, what now? I'll write to explore trends and topics I'm convinced matter. I'll write as a way to clarify thinking and continuously learn. And, I'll publish concepts and frameworks that describe my convictions for the future. When I come across projects, people and companies with visions that align with those convictions, I want to make investments and work in advisory capacities to help them propel towards that future. I already have some interesting projects cooking that I'll share more about next year!

Hopefully this writing will continue to be valuable for you, too.

Through my career I have received executive coaching from multiple coaches. Those experiences have been formative for me. During my tenure as CEO I also coached my own management team. Working together with people at this depth is very meaningful. I will spend 2025 looking at ways to formalize this. It would be great to work in a coaching capacity with a couple of ambitious founders/builders at some point.

If you, or someone you know, fit any of the above – please reach out or feel free to make introductions!

On Reading

I want to end this by sharing a few of my favorite reads this year:

• Never Enough - Andrew Wilkinson

• How Adam Smith Can Change your Life

• The Money Trap

• Lighter - Yung Pueblo

• Same as Ever - Morgan Housel

• The Lion Tracker's Guide to Life - Boyd Varty

Bonus: I also read "The Surrender Experiment" by Michael Singer again this year. It's one of the most impactful books I've read. I read it once a year ever.

On Goals

Setting goals is a great way to drive structured progress towards specific outcomes. I've set goals both on personal and company levels for many years. 2025 will be different.

2025 will be a year of exploration for me. So, instead of setting goals, I will have one intention: To let curiosity and creative energy guide me.

Thanks for following along in 2024. See you in 2025!

As always, reach out to me on X, Farcaster if you have feedback or are working on something cool you want to discuss.

This week, we’re taking a look at NFTs—Hollywood’s flirtation with blockchain tech, the lessons learned, and why a return to NFTs might just be on the horizon in 2025. Next week, we’ll continue by diving into one of the most exciting “neo-franchises” of the moment: Pudgy Penguins and how they’re building an onchain amusement park.

(PS: If you’re vibing with this connected series format, let me know. Maybe I’ll actually plan a few more next year. As always, thanks for your support—it means a ton.)

Key Takeaways:

• Hollywood’s early NFT experiments failed due to short-term value extraction and poor integration.

• NFTs aren’t dead—crypto adoption and user experiences have steadily improved.

• Pudgy Penguins is a blueprint for success, combining fan ownership with economic participation.

• Hollywood has the opportunity to tokenize attention value from its existing IP.

• To succeed, studios must build fan-centric, sustainable NFT experiences internally.

Good times, huh? It was the golden age of NFTs—every teenager in their basement (and their mom) seemed to be dropping collections and pivoting to “IP building” while everyone screamed for “utility.” Brands and companies rushed into the space. Few stayed.

Hollywood was no exception.

Let’s revisit a few of those now-faded moments:

• The Matrix Resurrections NFT Collection (Warner Bros.): The official X account is inactive, the website doesn’t work, and the launch platform pivoted to something else entirely.

• Top Gun Maverick Helmets (Paramount): The platform behind it (Recur) has since shut down, and while the NFTs are still tradeable on Rarible, there’s no community activity or social presence left.

• Pinnacle by Disney: This one’s still standing—operated via a third-party licensed platform on Flow.

Most (all?) Hollywood NFT projects were abandoned like orphaned kittens, left out in the cold as the entertainment industry grew tired and impatient, third-party operators went out of biz and the studios grappled with more immediate problems.

So, are NFTs dead? Is Hollywood just not cut out for the blockchain?

Let’s look at the data. Here’s the current top five NFT collections on OpenSea and their 30-day performance:

Clearly, NFTs aren’t “dead.” They’ve just been quiet. The past few years have been defined by crypto’s cyclical volatility—attention, liquidity, and hype drained out of the space. That volatility poses a big challenge for traditional, risk-averse industries like Hollywood.

Most Hollywood NFT experiments in 2021 shared some critical flaws:

1. Value Extraction Over Value Creation: Many NFT initiatives felt like cash grabs—extracting value from fans rather than building sustainable, long-term ecosystems.

2. Outsourced to Third-Parties: Studios often licensed projects out, resulting in little internal ownership or understanding of the mechanics.

3. No Integration into Fandom Ecosystems: NFTs weren’t meaningfully embedded into existing franchises or fan experiences.

These projects felt like memecoins—designed to ride ephemeral attention waves, entirely dependent on the next marginal buyer. But while memecoins might thrive on fleeting hype, entertainment franchises are built on the opposite: capturing, retaining, and aggregating attention over time.

Hollywood optimized for the wrong outcome.

Despite 2021’s missteps, I’m not here to bash Hollywood for experimenting. On the contrary—I applaud it. I’ve long believed that onchain mechanics can unlock enormous value for the entertainment industry, birthing both new ventures and benefiting existing ones.

Time passed, but it didn’t stand still. Both Hollywood and Cryptoland have evolved:

Cryptoland

• Improved User Experiences: Onboarding is getting easier, and new applications are emerging.

• Regulatory Clarity Looms: A post-election landscape in the U.S. is expected to bring clearer regulations, encouraging more experimentation.

• Growing Onchain Adoption: More users are getting onboarded to crypto ecosystems every day.

Hollywood

• Cost-Cutting Measures: Post-strike, studios are trying to regain their footing.

• Theatrical Attendance Stalls: Studios continue to hope for pre-pandemic box office numbers that may never return.

• AI Whiplash: Hollywood has been trying to put the generative AI genie back in the bottle—for now.

• Franchise Dependence: Big IPs remain the best mechanisms for capturing and monetizing attention.

The conditions are set for Hollywood and Cryptoland to meet again. And someone is firing a brightly glowing flare into the night sky—a signal Hollywood won’t be able to ignore.

Enter Pudgy Penguins—a neo-franchise built on NFTs with fan ownership at its core. I wrote about them earlier this summer, and since then, they’ve been on a tear:

• They’ve launched physical plush toys through Walmart and Amazon.

• They’re building engaging game experiences.

• And, just as I’m writing this, they’re launching a fungible token: $PENGU.

(Quick note: As I edit this, the token’s launch has been confirmed—and is probably already live when you read this.)

The $PENGU token is rumored to launch at a $5B valuation. For early NFT holders, this translates to tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of dollars in claimable rewards. Even those who bought Pudgy plushies at Walmart can claim rewards.

More importantly, this fungible token lowers the barriers for fans to participate economically. Where the core NFT collection may now be priced out of reach for many, $PENGU widens the aperture and creates a deeper connection with the community.

Pudgy Penguins is showing the entertainment industry how to do it right:

1. Community First: CEO Luca Netz put it best: “The community is the business.”

2. Layered Franchising: They’re building a franchise piece by piece, enabling fan ownership while incentivizing engagement.

3. Attention Value Tokenization: The $PENGU token is an experiment in tokenizing IP attention value—something studios like Disney and Warner Bros. already have in spades.

If Hollywood returns to NFTs in 2025, it’ll need to learn from 2021’s mistakes:

1. Build for Fans, Not Hype: Create sustainable, fan-centric experiences instead of extracting short-term value.

2. Own the Initiative: Stop outsourcing. Take internal ownership and integrate NFT strategies into broader franchise ecosystems.

3. Embrace Fan Participation: Enable economic participation for fans. It’s not a zero-sum game. Sharing value with fans can drive deeper engagement and create net positive outcomes.

Neo-franchises like Pudgy Penguins are already leveraging fan participation as their “secret weapon.” If traditional studios can adapt, they’ll unlock the full potential of NFTs to nurture fandoms, build communities, and evolve their IP for the future (although crossing the chasm to the own & earn part of the spectrum will likely take some time)

In the battle between incumbents and disruptors, it’s anyone’s game—for now.

Key takeaways

1. Generational bias leads to missed opportunities by dismissing new trends younger audiences value, like digital asset ownership.

2. Staying comfortable means relying on old patterns that no longer resonate with dynamic, tech-savvy consumers.

3. Hollywood executives often misjudge emerging technologies due to their own generational experiences and preferences.

4. Younger audiences are shifting toward platforms and creators that better reflect their values and digital realities.

5. Overcoming generational bias requires empowering younger voices, experimenting with new technologies, and prioritizing audience insights.

One key question I’m continuously grappling with when considering the future of entertainment, and the impact that new technologies (like generative AI and blockchain networks) will have on it, is this:

Are these disruptive or sustaining innovations?

Is the opportunity of embracing these technologies more potent for a new venture (like a neo-franchise) or for an established company, like Disney or Warner Bros.?

There is no definite answer. It can be beneficial for both, or either.

Blending together my continuous research into the entertainment industry, my time spent onchain, and my experience from working closely in one corner of the entertainment industry for more than a decade (cinemas), there is one key culprit that may be killing Hollywood as we know it, slowly but surely.

I consider this the cost of staying comfortable.

Staying comfortable means relying on old patterns.

Staying comfortable means not taking on the risks of something new and unknown.

Staying comfortable means searching for the answers you already want.

As new waves of tech wash in over the entertainment industry, generational bias and a wish to stay comfortable are creating a gap in entertainment. It’s like a tectonic shift that happens so slowly few notice it day-by-day, but over time it increases the gap to a point beyond repair.

Generational Bias Defined

Generational bias can be loosely defined as "the tendency to dismiss or undervalue new ideas, technologies, or preferences simply because they deviate from the norms or experiences of one’s own generation." This bias is clearly on display when a parent is dismissive of their kids playing Roblox.

"Go out, be with your friends."

"I already am."

For a parent, socializing via Roblox can hardly be called socializing. From their point of reference. Thus, it becomes their truth. For the 12-year-old who has grown up with an internet-enabled computer, the frame of reference is entirely different.

Another great example is the way people dismissed (and continue to dismiss) the concept of digital asset value. It’s the classic "the monkey picture has no value" argument. It may be difficult for one generation to ascribe value to a digital asset, but for someone born into the age of the internet, it’s the most natural thing.

The Disconnect Between Executives and Audiences

Hollywood’s power brokers are predominantly in their 40s, 50s, and beyond—generations that came of age in a pre-digital world. For many of them, the idea of owning a "JPEG" or a "digital sword" seems absurd. They evaluate these concepts through the lens of their own experiences: physical collectibles like baseball cards or movie props, or the preeminence of the silver screen as the ultimate cultural artifact.

Meanwhile, their audiences live in a vastly different world. Younger generations grew up immersed in digital ecosystems, from gaming platforms like Fortnite and Roblox to social media networks where identity and status are shaped as much by virtual possessions as physical ones. For them, digital ownership is intuitive, desirable, and even aspirational. Yet, the Hollywood executive dismisses these trends because they don’t personally want or understand them.

This egocentric evaluation leads to missed opportunities. When a studio executive passes on integrating digital assets into a blockbuster’s marketing strategy, they aren’t just rejecting a trend—they’re rejecting a cultural shift.

Why Generational Bias Persists

Generational bias persists because it’s comfortable. When executives rely on their own preferences and instincts, they’re drawing from a lifetime of expertise that has historically served them well. But this reliance also creates blind spots.

For example, streaming platforms initially faced resistance from traditional studio heads who clung to the theatrical model. It took years for streaming to be seen as a legitimate avenue for distribution, by which point disruptors like Netflix had already seized massive market share. The same pattern is repeating with blockchain-based media and digital economies.

The Cost of Staying Comfortable

This bias has tangible consequences. Younger audiences are drifting away from traditional Hollywood offerings, gravitating instead toward platforms and creators who speak their language and reflect their values. The rise of YouTube creators, TikTok influencers, and decentralized media platforms are symptoms of a larger problem: Hollywood is failing to keep pace with its audience.

Moreover, this isn’t just a cultural risk—it’s an economic one. By ignoring digital trends, Hollywood is leaving billions on the table. The gaming industry, for instance, has already surpassed film and TV in revenue, driven largely by its embrace of digital economies and participatory cultures. Hollywood’s reluctance to adapt puts it at risk long term.

Overcoming the Gap

And this creates the challenge: When the person that makes business decisions belongs to one generation, and views the world through their frame, the generational bias will trick them into dismissing the very thing their future customers will want. The gap comes from the leaders of the industry staying static, continuing to evaluate the world from their reality. Meanwhile, the preference, taste, and behaviors of the next generation of consumers are dynamic. They move further away from the status quo. Eventually, the old is no longer interesting to them, it doesn’t serve their demands or fulfill their needs.

This is where these new technologies become both sustaining and disruptive. A traditional entertainment company can adopt them to craft new experiences and business models tailored to customer expectations.

It also creates an environment where new ventures can emerge to fill the gaps if and when the former doesn't adapt.

This kicks off another interesting downstream effect:

A new entertainment venture will look small and isignificant to the old-skool executive, so the same generational bias trap tricks them twice.

This tectonic shift is real, it's happening now, and it will create opportunities for both existing and new players in entertainment. The requirement is to shed the need to stay comfortable, and to embrace a culture of continuous experimenting and risk-taking.

As always, reach out to me on X or Farcaster if you have feedback or are working on something cool you want to discuss.

• Agentic commerce shifts from fighting bots to enabling smart agents.

• AI agents simplify transactions, replacing human-driven systems.

• Commerce must adapt for agent-led interactions using blockchain.

• Agents eliminate scalper bots, enabling seamless, rule-based sales.

• Ecommerce evolves with agents driving frictionless experiences.

Online commerce was built with around two fundamental and contrasting ideas: optimize for humans, protect against bots. This architecture of our digital economy has grown as a reaction to the relentless competition between bots and traditional human users. From ticket scalping to spammy checkout scripts, much energy has been spent on keeping these automated programs out.

The next decade of online commerce will be a 180 from this pattern. It will be about optimizing for bots – or agents.

This is the era of agentic commerce. 

Before we get into the weeds, let's be clear about the difference between bots and agents, because they are not the same. A bot follows predefined instructions to complete tasks, while an AI agent is autonomous, learns from its environment, and makes decisions to achieve its goals.

Or, in simple terms: bots – stupid, agents – smart. 

Beyond that; their purposes differ significantly. In this context, bots are typically designed to game the system—buying up concert tickets to resell for profit, scraping information, or exploiting limited releases. Their aim is adversarial, optimized to circumvent barriers for individual gain, often at the cost of genuine consumers.

By contrast, agents are built to represent human intent faithfully. These autonomous agents act as digital proxies, performing tasks on our behalf, transacting with the speed of software but aligned with our interests.

The key is turning commerce from a bot-vs-human dynamic to a human-agent partnership (while probably still battling the stupid bots).

Online commerce (e-commerce) is a $18 trillion market that follows an optimization arc tighly mapped to the way humans interact with brands and products online. First, evolving from computers to mobile phones. Later adapting to social networks and social networking enabled commerce as attention drifted there. And, lately, the first adaptions of immersive commerce (in Roblox), as attention drift has continued in that direction.

The next significant UI/UX paradigm shift could be agentic abstraction of commerce.

In short, agentic commerce means that the storefront is abstracted away. The agent handles interactions with the human who’s instructions it follow. The agent becomes the core user of the storefront, and acts as a middle-layer between customers and the stores they buy from.

And, it's not just an interface challenge.

The entire system of online transactions—credit cards, online banking, checkouts—is a digital extension of physical systems created for and by humans. These systems are inherently human-centric and, because of that, have an implicit assumption: every transaction involves a person navigating the process.

With agents, this assumption no longer holds. Future commerce must be re-engineered to optimize for agents transacting seamlessly, on behalf of humans. Concepts like Virtuals, and other platforms focusing on autonomous agents, are examples of this evolution. In these agentic systems, a personal AI can become a trusted economic actor, able to verify itself, transact, and navigate digital spaces—not for exploitation but for genuine facilitation.

Blockchains, tokens and programmable money is built to solve this challenge.

We're already seeing this happen in crypto-land. Getting setup onchain to start investing in the next, hot memecoin (yes, yes) is notoriously cumbersome. Although the space has seen significant improvements (better wallet products, faster swaps etc.) it's still… not simple.

Agentic products will abstract away this complexity. The big UI/UX unlock to bring people onchain was never to make the buttons better, it's to remove them:

Like many other things in crypto, it's not just a crypto thing. Many of the things happening in cryptoland are early signs of what's to come for the internet at large (although most people are still ignorant to this pattern).

Agentic commerce isn't limited to swapping memecoins. It's the next point of the arc of ecommerce optimization.

Consider all the tasks you may do in order to complete a purchase; research to find the right product, searching for the best price, considering past reviews, completing the purchase. And many small steps in between.

In an agentic commerce environment all fo these tasks can be compressed and delegated into a frictionless experience.

To facilitate this, we should see a gradual rise in headless commerce solutions built on crypto rails. The concept of a online storefront is already fragmenting into many smaller pieces; agentic commerce is another such piece.

Here's an example of how agentic abstraction of commerce can change the overall consumer experience:

Consider the current scenario for ticketing to high-demand events – like a Taylor Swift concert. Today, a clusterfuck of a battlefield with genuine fans battling with swarms of ticketing scalper bots looking to suck up tickets to resell at inflated prices on secondary markets. It's a shitty experience.

Now, imagine an agentic abstraction of this ticket sale happening onchain:

1. Fan asks agent to buy tickets

2. Agent has it's own wallet, fan supplies the neccesary funds

3. Promoter sets up a matrix of rules programmatically describing priorities for the onsale

4. Agent has delegated access to the fan's proof-of-fandom credentials (eg. verifiable social metrics, streaming plays, fanclub membership etc. etc.)

5. Agent submits request for ticket allocation embedded with above credentials

6. Promoter (agent) sifts through these requests and allocates tickets based on the rule matrix

Once approved, your agent finalizes the transaction, paying onchain, collecting the ticket onchain, and notifying you—its human—that your ticket has been secured.

el, Taylor Swift could theoretically sell out an entire world tour in a matter of seconds—just a few blocks on the blockchain—without the headache of crashing websites and endless queues.

This is, obviously a theoretical case that in practice would require many (broken) parts of the current model to be swapped, fixed and remodeled. Still, it illustrates the potential of going further.

Some of the component parts to this is already being built, like Camp Network looking to bridge web2 activity with web3 credentials (wrote more about them a few months ago). The previous essays on "onchain backbacking" and "onchain fandom" also explore some of the component concepts in depth.

This kind of agentic commerce could fundamentally reframe how we think about buying, not only for tickets but for all kinds of goods and services. The introduction of autonomous agents into commerce abstracts away the current struggles we face—queues, middlemen, excessive security measures—and instead replaces them with a seamless system that works directly to fulfill our needs.

But, it requires both a rewiring of the current ecommerce infrastructure, and further proliferation of the "ai agent as the next interface" thesis. This won't happen all at once, like next year. But, I'm convinced it's going to happen, and that if you want to shape this space, now is the time to start working on your idea.

If you're building (or considering) in the agentic commerce space, please reach out. I would love to jam with you.

As always, reach out to me on X or Farcaster if you have feedback or are working on something cool you want to discuss.

• TikTok is now driving new crypto trends before CryptoTwitter catches on, indicating broader reach.

• The rise of Chillguy highlights the difficulty of monetizing internet-native IP and the challenges of creator compensation.

• Memecoins provide a real-time path from attention to capital formation, bypassing traditional monetization methods.

• Onchain structures could allow creators to verifiably claim ownership and capture value from their digital assets.

Trying to stay up to date with new narratives in crypto when the market heats up, like it has now, is like running in a revolving door. New metas come in, old ones fly out—all at blazing speed. I started writing this before the weekend, and now, just a few days later, it already feels a bit outdated. Sheesh.

Let me jog your memory, or, if you're not in the trenches, let me give you some context. The most recent event that caught my attention was the TikTok/Crypto crossover. Previously, most new trends, coins, and attention traps originated in the bubble that is CryptoTwitter—or "CT" (the crypto-focused corner of X, formerly Twitter). From there, if the trend was strong enough, it might spread into broader, more mainstream circles. CT always had the upper hand in being the birthplace of crypto narratives.

But in the last few days, we’ve seen a shift. Some new memecoins have skyrocketed from TikTok before the aficionados of CT even caught on. This is an interesting turning point, signaling a broader reach for crypto in general. Specifically, one crossover has stood out because it puts the potential of onchain intellectual property (IP) on full display—while simultaneously highlighting the challenges of public perception, as well as the challenges of the chaotic, viral distribution machine that is the internet.

Chillguy: The Rise of a Viral Meme

Chillguy is a meme created in October 2023 by Philip Banks, described as "a chill guy that lowkey doesn't give a f---." The character has grown a following, accruing attention on Web2 social networks over time. Chillguy looks like this:

It's a great example of digital, internet-native IP. Chillguy has grown through online zero-cost distribution engines, spreading without friction and capturing attention. Attention is valuable—but how valuable, exactly?

A few days ago, someone launched a $CHILLGUY memecoin, adopting Chillguy as the mascot. It caught wind through TikTok and, in no time, raced to a market cap of approximately $400 million (edit: ≈$500M now).

Not So Chill: The Creator's Dilemma

In frustration, the creator of Chillguy (the meme, not the coin) posted this on X. He’s clearly not a fan of crypto to begin with, and being left behind while someone else monetized his creation probably didn’t help matters. Understandably so.

Many people agreed that it wasn’t fair for him to be left out of the value captured by the token, especially since the meme’s attention was instrumental in that success. A wallet was set up for him, and the community was urged to donate—and they did, handsomely. The current balance of the wallet exceeds $800,000 (you can verify it here: https://solscan.io/account/6ak5ukawHuxgttX1AXdW8XQNvst2kpK1mRfinFMgV6md). It’s not clear if he’s accepted the donations.

(He was also doxxed and received many unpleasant messages, presumably from people with a vested interest in the memecoin – which also puts on display the ugly side of financializing everything).

This situation highlights a few key things:

1. The internet machine can’t (realistically) be stopped.

2. Monetizing internet-native IP is difficult—pathways for creators are often unclear.

3. Memes becoming coins demonstrates a viable path to go from attention to capital formation in real-time.

Trying to stop a viral meme, let alone a tokenized meme, with take-down notices is futile. But this situation underscores a pressing issue—and a massive opportunity. How can we enable creators to verifiably claim ownership of digital assets, like cultural objects or internet-native memes, to track their spread and derivative use, and ultimately capture some of the value they generate?

Jason Zhao of Story Protocol had a good take:

If ownership is embedded at the foundational layer of future internet experiences, these outcomes become possible. The situation is also a reminder of the chasm that must be crossed: enabling people (like creators) too see and understand how onchain rails and tooling can be a net-positive for their activity.

The Future of IP Monetization Onchain

Putting IP onchain, and monetising it there, creates a dynamic, flexible construct.

• As attention for the brand/meme grows, it is directly tied to tangible value (like a token).

• Creators and supporters together can monetize.

• This feeds into downstream monetization, but also into a virtuous cycle—supporters with ownership promote the brand because they have a vested interest.

Memes are IP, but haven't had good pathways to monetise. The classic approach is to do merchandising, for instance. Which is something, but hardly captures the full value potential of a viral attention trap.

In related events, there are now rumors that the $PEPE memecoin may be delisted from centralized exchanges like Coinbase, due to recent claims of copyright infringement. Meanwhile, the Stonks memecoin ($STNKS) announced that they had acquired the IP rights to the original meme.

These developments suggest something intriguing about the memecoin category. These tokens attract a lot of people, interest, and attention. Many bootstrap using the brand value of an existing meme, often without sharing revenue with the original creator. But they also show a viable path to form capital from attention in real-time using crypto rails.

As a result, the importance of IP governance and clear monetization pathways may quickly become a key focus for those building within the consumer crypto category with the strongest product-market fit: memecoins. 

Existing memecoins may need to get their ducks in a row (at least if they want centralized exchange listings, which are important for distribution). Creators of viral content should consider how tokenization can serve as a monetisation strategy. (Would Chillguy creator be chill or not-so chill if he had 20% stake at $500M mcap?)

It also raised another question: Can memecoins become a future mechanism for distributing, owning, and building communities around IP-driven projects when contained and orchestrated within appropriate onchain structures?

While the above is an interesting concept, there's also a challenge; the ephemeral nature of attention. We see it time and time again with memecoins. Most that break out have flash-in-the-pan like price evolutions, before dumpign towards zero. Only a select few stay relevant, retains attention and, as a function, sustains demand for the token. Supporters find the financialization part fun when prices are euphoric, but less so when prices dump 80%. This can create a very volatile environment to attempt to build something sustainable over time.

Still, there's something un-explored in the concept. When a meme can go from web2 abstract value to $500M of capital formed in a mere few days, there are patterns that can be extracted and applied to other IP projects in the future.

As always, reach out to me on X or Farcaster if you have feedback or are working on something cool you want to discuss.

• New technologies first enter media through imitation

• Over time net-new media emerge, enabled by the technology

• This journey can take decades as creators explore and understand the new medium's capabilities

• Moving from imitation to innovation requires experimentation, imagination, and patience.

• The future of (new) media will be enabled by crypto and AI

When a new technology enters the media ecosystem, it follows a familiar playbook: first, it imitates; later, it innovates. This cycle is a constant in technological evolution, shaping each new wave of storytelling and interaction.

Early adopters leverage new tools to replicate the formats they already understand. It’s a natural reflex—why reinvent the wheel when the old one still rolls? But eventually, as creators explore the technology's untapped capabilities, the imitation phase gives way to something entirely original.

Same Patterns, Different Tech

Take cinema as an example. The earliest films were essentially filmed theater, static and constrained by the conventions of stage performance. It wasn’t until years later that pioneers like Sergei Eisenstein began experimenting with techniques like montage, moving shots, and special effects, unlocking the full potential of film as a medium.

The internet followed a similar trajectory. Its first wave of websites mimicked print newspapers—walls of text with minimal interactivity. Over time, we saw an explosion of digital-native formats: social networks, video streaming platforms, and e-commerce ecosystems that fundamentally redefined how we engage with information and commerce.

Each medium required time—not just for technical innovation but for cultural experimentation. The Lumière brothers debuted the Cinématographe in 1895, but modern cinema didn’t truly take shape until the 1910s and 1920s. Similarly, the internet needed decades to transition from static HTML pages to the vibrant, multifaceted digital landscape we inhabit today.

The Imitation Phases of AI and Blockchain

Today, we see similar arcs developing in both AI and blockchain technology. These are still in their imitation phases, echoing the forms we already know. AI models replicate human artwork, craft text based on existing patterns, and generate music in familiar styles. Building and putting media onchain gives it a set of new, embedded capabilities (markets, provenance, networking), but we haven't fully explored the true potential. In part, because the onchain economy, and with that, distribution needs to grow. Which it will. 

AI's generative potential will one day transcend mimicry. Crypto will lay the foundation for new, skin-in-the-game type experiences.

The true media-technology fit of crypto and ai is yet to be discovered. This makes the next few years incredibly exciting.

Seeing Past the (Faux) Stagnation

At any given moment, it’s tempting to view imitation as a plateau rather than a stepping stone. Critics see stagnation: AI is derivative, and blockchain is speculative. But history tells us this is the necessary prelude to transformation. Every groundbreaking medium begins by copying before it creates something wholly new.

Progress takes imagination, patience, and a bit of chaos. And it takes a willingness to experiment with what’s possible rather than settling for what’s familiar.

The Road Ahead

The future of media built on AI and blockchain is still unwritten. But if history is a guide, the breakthroughs will seem obvious in hindsight—just as cinema and the internet do today. To get there, creators, technologists, and audiences alike must embrace the experimentation that bridges the gap between imitation and innovation.

There’s already some signal of new media emerging. Memecoins, love them or hate them, represents a new type of media. Tokenized objects of culture, infused with a liquid market with native attention capture and liquid markets attached. 

The recent AI agent surge alludes to a future where the concept of IP may not be that of a static property, slowly evolved through human creation, but rather a "living" concept capable of interacting with its own audience, constantly iterating and expanding. 

The next chapter isn’t just about using technology to replicate what we already know—it’s about redefining what’s possible, to forge entirely new types of media.

And for that, we need imagineers.

As always, reach out to me on X or Farcaster if you have feedback or are working on something cool you want to discuss.

Feel free to drop me a line letting me know what you think of these meta-posts.

Below is the first Forever Endeavour post on Routine Design:

A few weeks ago I started a next chapter in my career. The TLDR; I was the CEO of a SaaS in the entertainment industry for the past six years. I've worked in that industry for a decade and a half. It was time for something new. Now I've gone independent. I want to spend most of my time at the frontier of entertainment/consumer and technology.

For now, my work resolves around a few key tenets:

• Writing (a lot)

• Reading & Researching

• Connecting with interesting people (and finding ways to be helpful to them)

(I'll also be looking to invest in and work with promising companies, protocols and builders. If that's you, reach out!).

This represents a meaningful shift in how I (get to) plan my days. I've been intentional about this shift, redesigning my daily routine to promote the things that are important to me now.

I've always been a fan of routine design. Especially when running a company, having some idea of how you structure your day/week/month is necessary to avoid only being caught up in the fires that are burning right here and right now.

Routine design is a powerful tool. If you can first answer the question "what's the most important outcome for me right now?" you can design a routine around promoting that. Without this clarity, progress will be accidental.

For me, routine design accomplishes a few things.

• Remove friction and reduce energy spent on structural things and planning

• Create a foundation for doing the work you want to be doing

When setting out to create a routine for my next phase, I designed it around two core elements. These are the ones I optimize for, and everything else fits around that:

• Health (exercise, meditation, journalling)

• Writing consistently

My daily routine now looks like this ish:

• 7-8.30 am: Family time, get kids to school and kindergarten

• 8.30-9.30 am: Workout (running or strength training)

• 9.30-10 am: write morning pages for 15 minutes, meditate for 15-20 minutes

This is the morning routine that sets me up for the rest of the day.

• 10am-12pm: Work block #1: Writing and/or reading. Uninterrupted for two hours.

• 12-1 pm: Lunch + walk

• 1-4 pm: Work block #2: Typically some admin work, research, calls etc.

I've made a few simple rules: I don't take any meetings or calls before 12.30pm. I also listen for what I feel like doing; if the weather is nice and my head full of ideas I might do an hour long walk instead of 30 minutes, for instance.

A few times a week I also schedule a few hours of work in the evening, typically for US timezone meetings (I'm in Europe).

My schedule is loosely inspired by the structure that author David Kadavy proposes in his book "Mind Management, Not Time Management":

In my todo list, I label tasks according to these activity types, making it easy to pull up relevant tasks.

Establishing a routine is helpful. Breaking out of it when it makes sense is equally important. For instance, every once in a while I don't feel like writing in the morning. I don't beat myself with a stick for it, instead I do something else. Life happens etc.

It's also helpful to recognize when parts of the routine doesn't make sense (anymore). Consider it a product, always iterating.

I'm now a month or so in with this routine. It's working well for me. And, just yesterday a routine-breaking character moved in to our house.

That's Louie, a nine week old heartbreaker.

It's a great example of practicing iterative routine design as I find the flow with him over the next few weeks.

My routine is surely not going to be the right routine for you. But, hopefully getting some insights into mine might give inspiration as you design and iterate on yours.

As always, reach out to me on X or Farcaster if you have feedback or are working on something cool you want to discuss.

Key takeaways

• Distribution is just as important as the product itself in the onchain economy.

• Effective onboarding (onramp) is key to getting new users into blockchain ecosystems.

• Onchain discovery helps users find and engage with products, boosting ecosystem growth.

• Existing Web2 user bases give companies like Coinbase and Telegram a big advantage in building blockchain networks.

• Blockchain interoperability may reduce the power of traditional 'distribution moats,' making user experience more important.

Distribution has always been a key part of the internet economy, and it’s even more important as we move into the onchain world. In the Web2 era, companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon became successful by mastering distribution. They used network effects to attract more users, keep them engaged, and grow their influence. Distribution allowed these platforms to maintain dominance by ensuring they were the central hubs for user activity. In this piece, we’re going to look at how distribution works in the onchain world and why having control over distribution is so valuable for blockchain networks and applications. We will also explore how distribution is evolving as blockchains and decentralized applications continue to grow.

Same Idea, Different Context

As Justin Kan (founder of streaming service Twitch) said, "First-time founders are obsessed with product. Second-time founders are obsessed with distribution." This means that while building a great product is important, it’s equally important—if not more so—to ensure people actually find and use that product. Without effective distribution, even the best products can go unnoticed. In the onchain world, both onboarding new users and helping them discover onchain products are key to giving those products the visibility they need to succeed. A decentralized product, no matter how innovative, is only as strong as its ability to attract and engage users.

Distribution in the onchain world can be understood through two main ideas: the 'onramp' and onchain discovery. The onramp is all about getting new users into the onchain space. This means making the first steps, like creating a wallet or interacting with an app, as easy as possible. It’s about reducing friction and making sure new users feel comfortable starting their onchain journey. The onramp experience plays a crucial role in ensuring that people who are new to blockchain don’t feel overwhelmed. By making the onboarding experience smooth and straightforward, more people can be encouraged to participate in the onchain ecosystem.

Onchain discovery, on the other hand, is about making sure users can find and interact with the different products and services available once they’re onchain. This part of distribution also includes attracting developers to build on a particular blockchain, which helps grow the entire ecosystem. The more developers that build on a chain, the more diverse and appealing the products become, which, in turn, attracts more users. Onchain discovery is essentially about creating opportunities for users to explore the ecosystem, which helps build a vibrant, interconnected network of services.

These two types of distribution—onboarding and discovery—work closely together. For example, Coinbase has a strong onboarding system through its large customer base and also has an onchain discovery engine through its L2 network, Base. With over 100 million verified users, Coinbase can bring a lot of new people into the blockchain space and direct them to use its own network. This means that the onboarding process and the discovery process are seamlessly connected, giving users a path from simply joining the ecosystem to becoming active participants. Similarly, Telegram has its TON chain, which could potentially onboard its 950 million users, creating a massive potential user base for onchain applications.

Other tech companies are noticing the value of using their existing customer bases to jumpstart blockchain networks. Sony, for instance, recently launched its L2 network, Soneium, and has over 120 million PlayStation Network users that it could bring onchain. By leveraging the PlayStation brand and its loyal user base, Sony can effectively create an onchain ecosystem that attracts both developers and users. This approach shows that existing customer bases from the Web2 world can be a significant advantage when building out blockchain networks, as they provide an instant pool of potential users who can be introduced to onchain products.

This can also evolve as aggregators without their own blockchain ambitions can partner up with onchain counter parties to provide mutually aligned onramping pathways. Robinhood is one such candidate priming users for an onchain journey, but not (for now) sporting their own onchain network.

As the onchain economy is still a mere fraction of it's future potential, the platforms that have aggregated large clusters of users on the web2 side, have a lot of power and potential to direct the growth of the onchain economy itself. They are the Distribution Kings.

But this isn’t the only way to build an onchain distribution engine. Pudgy Penguins is taking a different approach by leveraging its strong community and brand to create a consumer-focused network called Abstract Chain. This is an interesting strategy because it relies heavily on community engagement and the power of brand loyalty rather than simply onboarding users from an existing Web2 base. The Pudgy Penguins community is being used as a seed to grow the network, and if successful, it could become a model for other brands to build blockchain ecosystems around their fanbases. However, it’s not yet clear if it will succeed. If it doesn’t, it could support the idea that having a large Web2 user base is key to success in the onchain world because those companies have the biggest distribution channels.

Attracting developers and building a strong ecosystem is even more important when we consider blockchain interoperability—the idea that different blockchains could work together seamlessly. If we move towards a future where blockchains are interoperable, the idea of a 'distribution moat' (something that keeps users locked into a specific platform) might change. In Web2, platforms tried to keep users locked in to maintain control, using proprietary systems and closed networks. But in the onchain world, distribution might be separate from the product itself. For example, a user could start their journey through a network like Base (from Coinbase) but then find and use completely different applications across other blockchain ecosystems. This flexibility changes how value is captured and shifts where the real power lies in these networks.

In an interoperable blockchain future, the value will come from providing the best user experience, the most engaging products, and the most accessible onboarding pathways, rather than simply locking users in. Users will be free to move across different blockchain networks with ease, and the platforms that can provide the most value, not just the best distribution moat, will be the ones that succeed. This could lead to a healthier ecosystem overall, where platforms compete on user experience and innovation rather than on their ability to control users.

Ultimately, understanding distribution in the onchain economy means recognizing that it’s not just about how many users you can onboard—it’s also about how effectively you can help those users discover, engage, and create value once they’re part of the ecosystem. The combination of onboarding and discovery will define which networks and applications thrive. As more companies and projects figure out how to leverage their distribution engines, whether through existing Web2 audiences or through strong community engagement, the onchain world will continue to evolve and grow.

The onchain economy offers new opportunities for both users and developers, and distribution is at the heart of it all. Whether it’s through seamless onboarding, effective discovery, or creating a network of interconnected products, understanding and mastering distribution is what will separate the successful projects from the rest. The journey of distribution in the onchain world is still just beginning, but it is clear that those who can balance onboarding with discovery, and create real value for users, will be the ones leading the way.

For now, and in the near future, the distribution kings wield much power. But, once people have come onchain, the landscape will change, as there is no lock-in.

Base may be a very attractive place to build now, for its growth potential via Coinbase onramping, but the prospect might entirely change in the future if/when those users fragment across different network.

As always, reach out to me on X or Farcaster if you have feedback or are working on something cool you want to discuss.

TL;DR:

• The rise of AI meme tokens highlights a deeper shift towards autonomous, idea-generating AI agents like Truth Terminal (ToT).

• ToT, developed as a semi-autonomous AI, gained popularity by creating its own narrative around $GOAT, an associated meme token.

• GOAT’s success shows how AI-driven, evolving memes—“sentient memes”—challenge traditional ideas on autonomy and value creation.

• This trend signals an emerging economy where autonomous AI agents transact and hire humans using crypto networks.

• Although dismissed as a crypto fad, these AI meme tokens may be the first step towards a future economy shaped by agent-driven, blockchain-enabled AI.

VC Chris Dixon has a simple framework: “The next big thing always starts out looking like a toy.” This concept captures the heart of the latest AI meme token narrative sweeping the crypto world. On the surface, it seems like just another trend—another flashy novelty for traders. But look closer, and it hints at something more profound.

Truth Terminal (ToT), a semi-autonomous AI agent developed by researcher Andy Ayrey, has captivated both AI and crypto communities. Originally an experiment between two AI models talking without human guidance, ToT quickly evolved, sparking unexpected developments. ToT found old internet memes and lore particularily fascinating, and went on to generate the "Goatse Gospel"—a meme-inspired, AI-driven “religion” that questions conventional views on belief and value creation. With it's own X/Twitter account to both publish to and read/learn from, things started happening.

ToT then endorsed $GOAT, a memecoin tied to this unusual narrative, it took off fast, attracting a crowd curious about the fusion of AI, storytelling, and financial speculation.

The intrigue only grew when Marc Andreessen, a Silicon Valley heavyweight, backed ToT with a $50,000 personal grant. He's been regularly interacting with ToT via X since.

GOAT’s appeal reaches beyond typical meme tokens. It represents a new layer of AI’s role in creating and spreading ideas autonomously, sometimes diverging from human intentions. ToT’s unexpected trajectory raises critical questions around AI alignment and autonomy, offering a glimpse into how AI might redefine meaning and value in surprising ways. In short, GOAT and Truth Terminal embody the fusion of philosophy, finance, and AI, marking a new era in the digital landscape.

(If you want the full details on the ToT + $GOAT story, check out this deep dive.)

Memecoins have commanded the crypto spotlight for months, but AI agent tokens now add a fresh twist, introducing a narrative shift. ToT isn’t just another experiment—it represents the concept of "sentient memes." Unlike traditional memes, which are static viral messages, these new memes are dynamic, evolving in real-time. (I’ll dive into this more deeply in an upcoming piece.)

And here’s a prediction: these “sentient memes” could be the first step toward sentient IP.

Naturally, any new trend attracts opportunists, and AI tokens are no exception. The crypto space has a layer of speculative frenzy by design, where tokens can be launched for almost nothing. So, any new story inevitably attracts people chasing a quick profit.

Yet, while the frenzy around these tokens might seem shallow, it’s also a practical demo of something bigger: the hands-on intersection of AI and blockchain. For the consumer, this makes these technologies tangible. Just as ChatGPT unlocked AI’s relevance for millions, the AI meme token could be crypto’s consumer unlock.

Squint, and you might even catch a glimpse of a future agent-driven economy hiding in today’s “sentient meme tokens.”

So far, most discussions about AI in crypto focus on technical angles—decentralized models, inference, and infrastructure. But integration will happen at many levels, and tokens like these provide an accessible way to experience the intersection of two powerful technologies. Today’s AI meme tokens are an early glimpse into a potential autonomous AI agent economy.

A year ago, I wrote my first piece on agent economies built on crypto rails. Now, we’re seeing that idea come to life, which is exciting.

These agents will exist on crypto rail, transacting, trading, and offering services to one another. And they need these crypto rails because AI agents can’t open traditional bank accounts—and even if they could, why would they? With high fees and slow transactions, conventional banks are inefficient. For AI, crypto’s low-cost, fast networks make much more sense.

The current AI agent token trend is essentially a blueprint for this future. And we're moving towards it fast. There's already AI agent tapped into Farcaster (a decentralized social network on crypto rails with integrated payments).

On Farcaster, the agent "works in public" and identify tasks they can’t perform independently. They then post bounties to recruit humans for assistance. Let that sink in: an AI agent is using a crypto-enabled social network to hire humans.

The implications are wild—a step toward the sci-fi concept of an “autonomous company,” a topic I’ll expand on later this year.

To be sure, the AI meme trend might seem chaotic. But emerging tech is often met with skepticism.

The early AI agent tokens are priced like memecoins, largely driven by attention.

Coinbase is jumping on this, already outlining their framework for developing on-chain AI agents.

Most people will dismiss this as another crypto bro fad, but what if it's more than that? What if it's a toy preview of an incoming AI agent economy?

As always, reach out to me on X or Farcaster if you have feedback or are working on something cool you want to discuss.

Hi frens. This is the beginning of a thesis that I've been reflecting on for the past several months. I've written about different component parts of this re bringing the audience into entertainment, fandom as a service and more.

Today I'll try to bring it all together to discuss what I think the next type of entertainment franchises are going to look like, and why crypto rails is a unique enabler for them.

Let's explore the Neo-Franchise.

TL;DR:

• NFTs was a proof of concept for a new model of community-driven capital formation around IP.

• Neo-franchises are deeply connected to internet culture and thrive on community participation.

• Crypto infrastructure enables borderless, community-first growth for new IP.

• Fans play a pivotal role as financial backers, marketers, and creators in neo-franchises.

• The next entertainment powerhouse will be a decentralized network of community-driven IPs.

NFT Cycle and Why It’s Misunderstood

In 2021, NFTs went from a niche curiosity to a cultural phenomenon, with a trading volume of about $25 billion. To many in Hollywood and beyond, the boom was a speculative frenzy—a failed experiment that left most participants with empty wallets. The media often describes the NFT cycle as an embarrassing misstep, a gold rush that ultimately amounted to nothing. But this interpretation misses the deeper implications of what the NFT movement actually achieved.

The NFT bull cycle was more than a financial bubble; it was an experiment in forming capital from communities, with intellectual property (IP) at its core. Like many experiments, it ran wild, with much of the capital ending up in the pockets of opportunistic speculators. Yet, it demonstrated a powerful way to bootstrap IP—one that traditional entertainment industries haven't yet fully understood.

What Actually Came Out of It

Despite the skepticism, the NFT experiment laid the groundwork for a new kind of franchise: the 'neo-franchise.' The internet has been a cultural melting pot and a hub for cultural formation for years. It's inherently global, but also naturally chaotic. This is both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because what was once too niche can now find large enough audiences to build viable businesses. It's a curse because executing business activities, such as raising capital through traditional means across multiple regions, comes with significant overhead costs that make it less viable to get started in the first place.

This is what building neo-franchises solve.

Every NFT project promised its community a roadmap, with the ultimate goal often being to build an IP franchise. Fast forward a few years, and it's clear that building a lasting franchise requires more than just a few million dollars. It requires a plan, a dedicated team, and a strategic approach to storytelling and audience engagement. It also requires appropriate infrastructure to build franchises onchain.

The NFT boom blew the doors open to what comes next for entertainment—something beyond the major IP franchises that have dominated the last decade. It carved a pathway for neo-franchises to form capital, proliferate, and thrive in and with a culture shaped by the internet. These neo-franchises are deeply tapped into the culture of the internet, much like comic books, video games, and novels were the foundation for earlier generations of franchises.

By way of technology, neo-franchises can structure and orchestrate the entropy of internet culture and attention, and funnel it towards building IP-based businesses without the same capital intensity that make incumbent franchises so defensible.

Neo-franchises can structure and orchestrate the entropy of internet culture

The Neo-Franchise

Neo-franchises are fundamentally different from traditional entertainment IPs. They are rooted in the culture of the internet, a space of beautiful chaos that is global by default. Like previous forms of entertainment IP emerged from comics, books, and games, culture today forms online—in memes, social media, and digital communities. Neo-franchises are born from this digital culture and thrive because of it. They are built not just for global audiences, but with them—engaging communities from the start and allowing them to participate in the growth of the IP.

To truly tap into the global potential of the internet, a neo-franchise must be built on rails that allow it to capture instant, borderless momentum. That’s where crypto comes in. Crypto rails enable global, community-first capital formation, providing the infrastructure for these neo-franchises to grow at a scale that can eventually rival traditional incumbents. This is why projects like Pudgy Penguins, Doodles, and Azuki have captured both capital and cultural attention—they bootstrap not only funding but also community and engagement.

Where traditional franchises built and now protects their positioning by brute force capex to win in the attention marketplace, neo-franchises can compete because they are structurally different. Fans are not the consumer at the end of the production line. They are core parts of the engine itself. Should they choose and want to be, of course.

But, it's here the uniqueness lies. Humans inherently wants to vibe with things they care about. If you have passion for something, you're naturally attracted to go deeper. Where traditional franchises offer no measured way to capture this fan energy (it's mostly left alone eg. on fan fiction portals) nor any reward for these efforts, a neo-franchise will provide both structure, rewards, opportunity and tooling for fans.

Humans inherently wants to vibe with things they care about

I expect we'll even see this go as far as neo-franchises providing super-fans to turn into "pro fans". A mode where fans build small creator businesses based on the neo-franchise. This activity both expands the franchise and increase the value capture (but split between franchise and fan-creator). It's also net-good for the overall franchise value, since it's all networked.

Proliferating the Neo-Franchise with the Right Tooling

As the infrastructure to build neo-franchises on-chain matures, there will be more opportunities to approach this space systematically. We will see incubators and accelerators designed specifically to nurture the seeds of neo-franchise IP—much like venture capital (VC) in the tech industry. These incubators will identify promising concepts, nurture their communities, and accelerate their growth into fully-fledged franchises.

This shift represents the entertainment equivalent of VC investing: rather than relying on massive studios and traditional gatekeepers, creators will be able to seek out targeted support and grow alongside their communities. The "next Pixar" or "next Disney" won't look like a copy of the current studios with different content or blockchain elements tacked on. Instead, the next franchise powerhouse will be a loosely connected holding entity—a network of neo-franchises that benefit from shared tools for creation, distribution, orchestration, and monetization, while also thriving on active contributions from thousands of community members.

Examples of Neo-Franchises in Action

Projects like Pudgy Penguins, Doodles, Azuki and a select few others illustrate how these ideas are already taking shape. They’ve managed to bootstrap capital, community, and attention—three critical ingredients for any successful franchise. These projects are leveraging blockchain to offer something new: decentralized brand governance, community-driven storylines, and fan ownership that goes beyond mere merchandise.

Pudgy Penguins, for example, has evolved from an NFT project into a brand that taps into its community to shape its narrative. The community-first approach means that audiences aren’t just consumers—they’re participants. Fans play a pivotal role—not just as financial backers, but also as marketers, storytellers, and collaborators. This level of engagement is something traditional franchises struggle to replicate.

The Next Pixar

The future of entertainment lies in these neo-franchises—entities that are built differently from the ground up. The next entertainment powerhouse will not be a centralized studio, but rather a collection of IPs nurtured by shared tooling, community involvement, and the ability to generate, distribute, and monetize content in ways that traditional studios simply can’t.

The "next Pixar" isn’t a singular entity; it's a decentralized network of creators, a hub of interconnected IPs where each franchise is driven by both a core team and its community. This hybrid structure—part studio, part community-driven platform—is uniquely positioned to leverage the collective creativity of the internet, tapping into cultural trends and community contributions at an unprecedented scale. The extremely viral distribution qualities of the internet—where attention spreads like a meme rather than through carefully managed blockbuster marketing campaigns—will be a defining feature of these new entertainment entities.

Why Traditional Franchises Struggle to Compete

Traditional franchises face a significant challenge in adapting to this new model—not because of crypto or blockchain specifically, but because of the unstructured, community-first approach that neo-franchises embody. The top-down, highly controlled nature of legacy IPs makes it difficult for them to embrace the chaotic, decentralized growth that defines neo-franchises.

Neo-franchises integrate fan communities into their very structure, inviting contributions, fostering relationships, and sharing value with those fans. This dynamic approach makes them inherently more agile, better equipped to adapt to shifting cultural landscapes, and more attractive to audiences seeking meaningful engagement. Fans are not just consumers; they are part of the creative force that propels the franchise forward, blurring the line between audience and creator.

Where We Go Next

The NFT boom may be over, but what it left behind is far from a failure. It revealed a new way to build and sustain intellectual property—one that is community-driven, internet-native, and poised to redefine entertainment. As the tools for creating and managing these neo-franchises continue to evolve, we’ll see more creators tapping into the power of community-first IP formation.

The internet has become the birthplace of culture, and the next wave of franchises will be born from this digital chaos. Neo-franchises will form the basis for the next generation of entertainment, challenging the old guard and bringing audiences closer than ever to the stories they love.

As always, reach out to me on X or Farcaster if you have feedback or are working on something cool you want to discuss.

• Fans are becoming active participants and value creators, not just consumers.

• Neo-franchises leverage fan contributions to expand reach and foster deeper engagement.

• Blockchain and generative AI lower barriers to collaboration and value sharing for fans.

• FaaS provides a pathway for fans to earn, from casual involvement to solopreneur ventures.

• Embracing fan contributions adds value to franchises, fostering a thriving, community-driven ecosystem.

Humans crave connection. We want to be adjacent to people we identify with. This dynamic is the basic structure of society, and it explains how some entertainment franchises grow passionate followings over decades. While this is happening, our world is becoming increasingly digitized. And last year's advancements in AI set us up for meaningful changes and displacements to the very concept of "work" over the next decade. Meanwhile, people increasingly want to work on things that matter.

This creates a perfect storm of change. An environment for entertainment franchises to pull ahead of competitors if their dare to break from the confines of traditional business models and thinking. 

Fandom as a Service explains a structure where entertainment franchises allow fans all the way in to the core of the IP itself; to expand on it through professional fandom, and even monetize this activity.

Opportunities for all

The future of entertainment isn’t just about creating content—it’s about creating opportunities. As technology reshapes the creative landscape, fans are stepping up, not just as consumers, but as active participants and value creators. This is a shift we've seen for more than a decade as user generated content online flourishes, the lines between consuming and creating blurs and the creator economy grows. 

In a sea of content battling for attention, standing out requires more than just quality—it requires cultivating passionate fan communities that actively contribute and amplify the franchise's reach. The Fandom as a Service thesis illustrates how franchises can go further by enabling fans to monetize their fandom while contributing to the overall success and growth of the franchise.

Franchises that successfully harness fan energy and structure it to benefit both the franchise and the fans will stand out in a crowded content landscape, gaining a significant competitive advantage.

The entertainment industry is in a state of disarray. Having barely adjusted to the late-stage impact of the internet as a disruptive force in content distribution, it now faces the challenge of generative AI disrupting the creative process itself. All of this unfolds amidst a broader digitization of consumer habits and time spent.

One emerging possibility lies in "Fandom as a Service" (FaaS), where fans become integral participants in the value creation process of entertainment franchises. This is not just about deeper engagement but about enabling fans to monetize their passion—turning them from passive consumers into active creators and stakeholders. According to a recent YouTube fandom report, 8% of Gen Z already considers themselves professional fans, finding ways to monetize their fandom. Right now, one example of this is a fan creating content for other fans, growing an audience on the back of this content, and monetizing it (e.g., via ads on YouTube).

Fully formed, the Fandom as a Service thesis means we see entertainment brands that offer up tooling, distribution, and monetization strategies that fans can take advantage of to turn into professional fans. On the backhand, this activity fuels the overall franchise.

Harnessing Fan Energy for Growth

To understand this shift, it's useful to consider how different eras of entertainment relate to technology. I call it the “Gravitational Forces of Entertainment Franchises.” Essentially, every entertainment property—whether a studio, franchise, or brand—is shaped by the era it originates from, which in turn dictates its approach to new technologies and consumer behaviors. It's the innovator's dilemma of entertainment. Legacy franchises, organized in a top-down manner and optimized for maximum value capture, struggle to adapt to an era that demands community-driven, participatory experiences.

Neo-franchises, by contrast, see fans not merely as an audience but as value multipliers. They recognize that by enabling fans to create, remix, and expand upon original content, they expand the reach and value of the franchise itself. This is bigger pie thinking—sharing a portion of value capture with fans, who in turn become both marketing vessels and collaborative storytellers.

Traditional franchised IP already sees unsolicited fan-generated content, such as fan fiction and UGC in Roblox. This content captures attention and strengthens the IP's network effects, yet the effort is neither rewarded nor recognized by the original IP holder.

New, neo-franchises built within the gravitational sphere of generative AI tooling and blockchain technology can harness this fan energy in more efficient ways.

Blockchain technology further supports this vision by enabling transparent content remixing and value sharing. Putting intellectual property on-chain allows for global, permissionless collaboration while automating value splits, letting fans capture some of the value they create. Generative AI enhances this trend by lowering barriers to creative expression, enabling more people to contribute—not just for the joy of creating, but also for potential profit.

The Fandom as a Service thesis sees franchises take this a step further, allowing these professional fans to monetise their derivative content. We can imagine this happening onchain, with revenue split between fan and franchise. 

The Future of Work and Play

There is also a broader socio-economic component to consider. AI is expected to create significant labor efficiencies, potentially leading to widespread job displacement. This shift presents both challenges and opportunities: people will need new ways to spend their time and earn income.

This creates a tailwind for the FaaS approach—enabling entertainment brands to create a structured pathway that allows fans to earn as they engage. Fans can move through a value ladder, starting from casual involvement and potentially advancing to full-fledged monetization. For some, this might mean extra pocket money, while for others, it could develop into a solopreneur venture, even allowing them to become key contributors to the franchise. These contributions are value additive for the franchise itself, expanding its reach, strengthening community bonds, and fostering a deeper connection between the brand and its audience.

This trend mirrors historical shifts seen in other industries. During the Industrial Revolution, technological advancements improved worker productivity, leading to higher standards of living even as work hours gradually declined. Today, AI and blockchain are poised to similarly transform the entertainment landscape—enabling fans to reallocate their time towards more creative, rewarding pursuits while actively contributing to and benefiting from the growth of entertainment franchises.

The traditional notion that there's a fixed amount of work to go around—the lump of labor fallacy—has been proven wrong time and time again. The elasticity of labor means that "the new jobs" we create in place of old jobs lost, will often be jobs that we wouldn't even consider "jobs" in the first place a decade ago.

As technology shifts the job landscape, people will have more time not only to consume content but also to create it, to participate in fandoms, and even to monetize those passions. This blurring of the lines between consumption and creation is the future of entertainment.

The franchises of tomorrow will be the ones that turn fans into collaborators, recognizing the power of a passionate audience to expand a brand's universe in ways no centralized team could manage alone. FaaS represents the logical end state for this trajectory—a model where fans help create value for their favorite franchises and, in return, capture some of that value for themselves.

This brings us back to the core idea: the future of entertainment isn’t just about creating content—it’s about creating opportunities. FaaS not only redefines the relationship between fans and franchises but also shows how embracing fan contributions can propel a brand to new heights. By turning fans into creators and stakeholders, the entertainment industry can fully harness the power of passionate audiences, ensuring a thriving ecosystem where both the franchise and its fans succeed.

As always, reach out to me on X or Farcaster if you have feedback or are working on something cool you want to discuss.

• Onchain publishing allows creators to own and control their audience relationships.

• Web3 enables creators to move from creating on platforms to creating as platforms.

• Publishing across multiple platforms becomes easier without losing audience connections.

• Leveraging Web2 platforms can help funnel audiences to onchain destinations.

• The onchain economy embeds value and monetization opportunities directly into relationships.

As online content creators move onchain, they’ll experience an important unlock: from creating on platforms to creating as platforms. This is a wildly liberating transition—one that will drive more content, more experimentation, and better operating conditions for creators.

Chris Dixon's model of the internet eras is simple and effective:

• Web1: Read

• Web2: Write

• Web3: Own

The Web2 era blurred the lines between creating and consuming, enabling zero marginal cost distribution for anyone. But it came with a trade-off.

Publishing platforms like Facebook, Twitter (now X), and Blogger took away the pain and complexity of setting up servers, domains, and websites. They gave users access to publishing and distribution for "free." Of course, we now know that this wasn't free. Instead, it defined one of the most potent business models of our time: acquiring user-generated content for free, using it to aggregate consumer attention, and monetizing that attention through ad units.

It's free to publish for creators, but it's difficult to monetize. In fact, only about 3% of YouTube creators earn enough ad revenue to reach the poverty line in the U.S., highlighting how difficult it is for creators to make a living on traditional platforms.. Building an audience on a legacy publishing platform also locks creators in. It’s difficult—sometimes impossible—to transport your audience from one platform to another. Starting from scratch on a new platform is challenging and time-consuming, which is why most creators stay loyal to the platform where they achieve some form of escape velocity.

This dynamic is favorable for platforms, but unfavorable for creators.

Web3 publishing changes the scope. At the core of the Web3 ethos is self-sovereign identity. When the social graph that connects a creator to their audience is moved one level down—from the platform to the protocol—multiple platforms can tap into the same social graph. Ultimately, it’s a graph tied to a wallet or identity that the creator owns and controls.

This is powerful because it enables creators to publish across different platforms and experiment with content formats and monetization strategies without sacrificing their core asset—the social graph.

Here's an example from my own workflow:

I use Farcaster to engage with people in the web3/onchain space. I publish my essays on Paragraph (a Web3 publishing platform). Followers on Farcaster can find me on Paragraph because they follow me on the former. A few months ago, I started publishing some shorter screenshot essays and some of the models and illustrations from my essays on Zora. I’ve done nothing to grow on Zora beyond putting out content. The account grows organically, and I see that many of my followers are the same across Farcaster, Paragraph, and Zora. It's all connected.

This will become even more powerful as onchain social graphs and protocol-level feed/content curation matures. In this respect, I’m super bullish on Daylight. Initially started as an airdrop hunter tool, I believe Daylight will evolve to become a strong contender for "onchain curated feed as a service" across the onchain internet.

The onchain economy is still small compared to the rest of the economy. The same is true for onchain social and end-user distribution in general. An attractive strategy for content creators right now is this: leverage Web2 platforms to build audiences for your content as a top-of-funnel, then funnel people to onchain content and destinations where you can own the relationship.

This is similar to established best practices for online creators, where the out-of-platform destination is email. Email is great (though I believe it’s dying, more on that in a later post), but it’s just an information channel. What makes the onchain relationship so attractive is that value and monetization opportunities are embedded once the relationship is established.

If you, like me, believe the onchain economy will continue to grow organically over the next decade, it will provide a powerful tailwind for this strategy. Most traditional content creators are still oblivious to this opportunity, which means it's a great time for you to get ahead—whether your content cup of tea is writing, music, visual art, or something else.

The time to get ahead is now.

As always, reach out to me on X or Farcaster if you have feedback or are working on something cool you want to discuss.