“I was making enough on streams to get by, but selling my music directly to my community has made me more money, this quarter, than all of last year.”

Fighting The Streamer Economy

While this isn’t a direct quote, it follows a trend. The way creators are going to distribute to their fans is changing. But, why and (maybe more importantly) how is this happening?

On Spotify, to make $6000, a song would need to get 1.5 million streams. For up and coming artists, that’s a really big number and can takes months of promotion to even get there.

With consumers wanting to support and have a better connection with their favorite artists, they’re looking for other platforms to do so. In some sense, we want to go back to buying records. But this time, digitally.

Sound.xyz, a platform that enables artists to sell their songs as NFTs, has sold out every song they’ve posted on their site. And, every song has sold out within a few minutes. Most under 60 seconds.

Last week, I was lucky enough to be a part of this process.

The Sound Experience

After my morning coffee, I saw that one of my favorite artists was dropping a song on Sound. Of course, as a massive fan-boy, I stopped everything I was doing in anticipation of the release.

After watching the countdown clock for something like 8 hours… I hopped on the release party’s twitter space, and got to hear the song publicly for the first time.

After the public debut, it was available for purchase. It, like the all of the Sound releases before, sold out in less than 60 seconds. The track made over $6 Thousand in 60 seconds.

Fortunately, I was in early enough, and purchased the 21st of 25 editions of Jutes’ Over U.

https://twitter.com/soundxyz_/status/1489360529982373888?s=20&t=X0zAEjynPK-kLOzodzH8cw

The Aftermath

I spent around $350 (including gas) for the NFT. Once I told my IRL friends about it, they thought I was crazy. Why would you ever spend that much money on one song?

Buying this NFT means I have an asset to prove I supported the artist. It acts as the personal memento that’s infinitely better than any instagram story I’ve ever shared. It also allows me to be a part of a community that has similarly supported artists through buying their NFTs.

I’ve been a fan of Jutes since finishing my senior year in college, 2017. But, I had nothing to prove I was a fan… just my word and memory.

I bumped Cocaine Cinderella back in the day, had Start Over on repeat when I was getting over my past… Vibed with Here We Go Again when my substance abuse caused problems with my partner, friends and family…

You get the picture. By owning this NFT, I get to wear my support on my digital sleeve and be like “yeah, I’m a f*cking fan.”

It’s odd, and some can call it selfish, but it’s a feeling that I think more people are going to experience. I know more fans are going to buy music NFTs as they move further into the mainstream.

People want to have a direct relationship with their favorite artists. That’s why they go to concerts, buy merch, etc. But, labels and streaming services have disrupted the way we’ve been able to interact with artists’ music.

Sound is one of the leading platforms that solves this problem. They believe that artists should be able to make a living solely of the music they create.

“The one metric that matters at Sound is how many artists make a full-time living off their music alone.”

Hot off a recent seed round from a16z, they’re new onboarding artists every week. Artists collectively have earned nearly $500,000 since its recent inception.

With this momentum not letting up any time soon, the value of the Sound ecosystem will explode. Artists will be attracted to truly earning a living based on their art, fans will experience ownership for the first time, and even more people will be onboarded into Web3.

Are brand agencies in trouble?

Decentralizing Brand

What if there was a world where designers, engineers, copywriters, and strategists were able to instantly join an agency and start working on a project that interested them?

And what if the customers this agency supported were also owners and stakeholders in the organization?

Democratizing branding is an interesting proposition. Plenty of protocols are decentralizing social organizations and financial protocols, but few are taking on brand strategy, marketing, and video/audio projects.

FLOC* is leading the way in Brand3, the decentralized brand agency model. They’re a group of builders, designers and strategy pros redefining the way technical projects think about their brand strategy.

Normally a project would contract with a company for branding work, the work would be completed as requested, and the relationship finalized. Sure, there’s some customer relations in place. But, it’s a traditional B2B transaction that leaves much to be desired.

A New Business Relationship

Simply browsing through FLOC*’s different service offerings shows how they’re changing the industry.

By purchasing the agency’s “Motion Package” you already see the difference in approach. You’re getting:

1. Video service package

2. An NFT receipt

3. 30 $BIRRA Governance Tokens

FLOC*'s Video Service Package

But What Does This Mean?

Business Dynamics

We understand the business dynamic around a traditional video service package. You need a video done for marketing, a provider creates it, and then you pay for it when the project is complete.

The first major difference we notice? The NFT receipt. Not only is it on-chain proof that your partnership has begun. In an odd sense, it’s commemorating your business relationship.

And while some may shrug at this, it shouldn’t be overlooked. In a B2B business world where Starbucks gift cards were appreciated by buyers for a decade… You don’t think a killer NFT is a better reward mechanism?

Ownership Dynamics

When looking past the service and transaction receipt, something much more valuable follows. Rewarding customers governance tokens, for purchasing a service package, creates a true partnership.

How is Brand3 more partner-centric?

I mean, how painful is it when your agency shifts its business model and you completely disagree with it? Sometimes it results in a lower level of service. Even worse, it results in a contract termination and unwanted change management for you, the buyer.

In the DAO-to-Business model, “customers” benefit from the transparency model DAOs bring. They’re aware of potential changes the organization may introduce, hires they propose, and any other number of business operations.

Your business relationship becomes the true partnership sales teams have you pitched for decades. Because of the $BIRRA governance tokens, where you’re a customer, you’re now an owner. And, you can be assured that your voice will be heard around decisions that might affect the future of the agency. And, ultimately, your partnership.

This is mutually inclusive. The Web3 ethos benefits the agency. Its transparency ensures better customer retention and relationships, resulting in lower churn and new referrals. Referrals drive customer acquisition, increasing ARR and more opportunities for DAOs’ customer relationship models to drive revenue.

Not A “Let’s Blockchain it” Case

Web3 enthusiasts can be guilty of trying to do things on-chain just because “blockchain”.

But, looking at how FLOC* truly rewards customers through ownership, shows they’ve looked at this deeper. They’re creating a customer success strategy that creates a mutually beneficial partnership. When FLOC* wins, customers win.

The crazy thing? We’re not even considering the DAOs ability to scale its work force. DAOs’ social coordination ethos enable orgs like FLOC* to easily source global talent to support its growth.

It remains to be seen, but in a world where many want to DAOify traditional models, Brand3 looks like it has a chance.

A chance to F**C* it up :)

I’ve written before that if we agree that others in the world exist, then their lives are just as valuable as those who we see on a daily basis. We agree that those who we see suffer, through digital means, are not non-player characters in our own simulation.

I do believe helping these people is a moral obligation. Just as many people I know believe tithing to a religious institute is a moral obligation. However, my beliefs do not matter. My religious friends’ beliefs do not matter.

Preaching is a means to the end

When you tell someone what you believe, you’re sharing your ideas with them. When telling someone why they should believe what you believe, you’re preaching.

People do not want to be preached to. Looking at the religious example; people do want to adhere to a god that is going to send them to hell if they do not obey to his commands.

They want to have a relationship with a god that is going to love them unconditionally and spiritually guide them through life’s obstacles.

When looking at these two statements, both are backed by scripture. They are both “true” if you believe a monotheistic religious text. But, they tell two completely different stories.

Financially successful religious organizations in the US have done a tremendous job of telling their story. Better yet, none of the information they present is based on facts. Their strategies have transformed believers to donors. All purely based on faith.

Installing belief in social causes

To clarify, I’m not belittling religious organizations. I’m praising them. And I wish this messaging was more prevalent in social cause areas.

Presenting people with an opportunity to do good, to be a part of something, is an incredibly powerful tool. Making the experience about a person’s impact on the world shows a path towards purpose.

And purpose will always trump obligation. It has in religion. It will in the coming technological revolutions.

Would you rather do good because you’re a lucky beneficiary of capitalism, or because you have the resources to have a positive impact on the world?

Both may be true, but I imagine one will resonate more than the other.

Remember, orgs have the ability to present their story in any way they like. Why not present it in a way that attracts everyone?

The revolutionaries will be there

Criticizing capitalism, western ideals, and free market economies is a something I’ve seen in some social impact circles. It is not an official position, or is it one that everyone involved in these areas agrees with.

And, bluntly, I don’t think it really matters if you’re a capitalist, socialist, anarchist, or any other sort of political/economical ideologue.

What does matter is getting people from all backgrounds to support crucial cause areas that immediately help those who are suffering. It also is important to have brilliant minds working on areas that can impact the future of humanity.

The revolutionaries, those who work relentlessly for change, will be there.

But, wouldn’t it be helpful if they had nearly everyone’s support? Even if the support varied person to person?

I like to think a minimum of 10% from everyone is better than a 100% from few.

When I talk to people about crypto, some think it’s private way to store and transfer money. They’re then shocked when I pull up my ENS address on Etherscan, show my few holdings and all of interactions I’ve had associated with that address.

This public infrastructure isn’t solely on Ethereum. It’s with nearly every cryptocurrency. The creator of Bitcoin noted this in the Bitcoin Whitepaper.

“Some linking is still unavoidable with multi-input transactions, which necessarily reveal that their inputs were owned by the same owner. The risk is that if the owner of a key is revealed, linking could reveal other transactions that belonged to the same owner.” - Satoshi Nakamoto

When people learn of this, most shrug and move on. They continue to add funds to their portfolio and hope for large returns. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But, not everyone in the world is as lucky. Some people have to use cryptocurrencies as a means for daily transactions. They use it because their central government has failed them. They use it because their governments are sanctioned by foreign powers, which results in economic collapse, primarily hurting the working and middle classes.

The peer-to-peer money system is a god-send

12 countries are currently living over 20% inflation. The populous see the value of their savings and wages diminish, and they have limited options. That trend can become worse.

An even harsher example is when citizens are victims of sanctions, or worse, war. Palestinian civilians are living through an economic disaster. Outside investment in Gaza has dropped from 11% to 2% in the last 20 years. Wars between Israel and Hamas has resulted in 90% of the areas factories in being shutdown. Unemployment is skyrocketing, and, 1 in every 2 Gazans are living in poverty.

They’re using cryptocurrency to fight back. Gazans are leveraging Bitcoin to transact with their families abroad, and also their daily transactions. Why? P2P solutions like Paypal and Venmo don’t exist in Gaza.

They don’t exist in many parts of the world. People living in these situations will continue to use cryptocurrency to transact with their families abroad, and for their daily interactions. It’s their path towards financial freedom.

But, the risk of a centralized bad actors creating a mechanism to trace cryptocurrency transactions remains. The threats of a modern surveillance state are more real than ever. China, an economic superpower building much of the world’s infrastructure, is using technology to aid its genocide against the Uyghur religious minority.

And while we (the West) look at this as a foreign problem, we need to leverage technologies that prevent it from ever happening. Even if the risk associated, relative to the outcome, is miniscule.

Anonymous cryptocurrency use is an amazing start, but as governments become increasingly aware of cryptocurrencies and their relative blockchains, we’d be naive to think they won’t create surveillance mechanisms attempting to link financial transactions to users. Our sovereignty would be lost.

So we need to ask ourselves. Do we care about privacy?

Zcash, a private blockchain

Zcash is a digital currency that has four different transaction capabilities. Among those capabilities, is a true peer-to-peer private transaction method, and a private way to store funds. From it’s website:

Zcash is 'the 'https of blockchains,' protecting your freedom to save and spend as you like. Zcash was the first project to implement zk-SNARKs, a novel form of zero-knowledge cryptography that gives its users the strongest privacy available in any digital currency.

While Zcash comes with its criticisms, we should remain hopeful that they succeed. Privacy can be a means to greater liberty and personal security. Thus, the need for a cryptographic protocol with privacy at its foundation is apparent.

“If we succeed at fixing the infrastructure, then what we get is that the culture and the norms that we all currently share … survive,” said Zooko Wilcox, founder of the zcash privacy coin. So maybe just “Avoiding the China Scenario” is enough of a win. - Jeff Wisler, Coindesk

Not bullish, but hopeful

I’ve always seen Zcash as an interesting project. I care about privacy, Zooko has always seemed a genuine person in interviews, and the tech has a lot of interesting properties.

But, my interest, and hopefulness for the project’s success, was never realized until Zcash’s Grants Committee announced it would be funding a proposal to build a decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol for shielded (private) assets on Zcash.

https://twitter.com/zooko/status/1481332385161437185?s=20&t=KDVV0Y4umI52tVabO5d7gw

This could create a mechanism for users to move cryptocurrencies to a private blockchain. Think Bitcoin, Ether, USDC, DAI, and others assets utilizing the privacy capabilities that the Zcash enables.

Through this mechanism, the other core features of decentralization could be built. DAOs, NFTs and other financial protocols would be able to exist as a part of the Zcash ecosystem.

Hedging against authoritarianism

The result of this? The freedom to use crypto assets on a private blockchain, giving users a more secure path to financial sovereignty. Protecting users against the malicious intent of centralized organizations, thus creating a global peer-to-peer network hedging against authoritarianism.

There are other exciting things on Zcash’s roadmap, like its move from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake. But, the one I’m most hopeful for is a cryptographic weapon against the surveillance state. One that gives us the ability to transact, save, lend, or borrow in a private and sovereign manner.

Much work needs to be done, but I’ll remain a hopeful supporter of shielded assets and the future of Zcash. We should all be.

Castro isn’t thinking about crypto’s investment thesis right now. He probably isn’t even thinking about “crypto” at all.

However, he is thinking about losing his job. Eric Roza fired Castro, and this decision affected everyone involved in CrossFit.

Yes, CrossFit LLC is a company that has to think about its bottom line and making money. More importantly, however, it’s an ideology that many people align with. Right or wrong, Castro’s termination affected a lot of people. And some of those people were pissed.

But, what does crypto have to do with any of this?

More Than Money

It seems like forever, but remember before Greg Glassman was ousted as CEO?

Something very interesting happened.

It started with Games athletes dropping out from the competition unless Glassman resigned. Many affiliates followed suit, distanced themselves from HQ and removed the term “CrossFit” from their names. The community largely supported this move.

A potential takeaway was that CrossFit the community was separate from HQ. This is huge.

This change showed CrossFit can decentralize. The pandemic taught affiliates how to manage their communities online. Online programs proved that you don’t even need to join a box.

Social media empowered a community of Games athletes fighting for Glassman’s resignation.

And no matter your opinion on the eventual outcome, this is amazing. Despite initially losing one of its strongest attributes, CrossFit showed a newfound versatility. It can exist online.

Decentralizing HQ

Community identity crises happen when the top of the org chart makes a call, and misjudges the community’s reaction.

Something made possible by crypto is a truly decentralized organization. One that gives everyone a chance to own a stake and have a say.

A decentralized Crossfit would incentivize community members through financial capital, primarily ownership. It would also build upon CrossFit’s existing social fabric.

Coordination and communication, combined with participation and ownership, could create the engine that redefines what it means to be a part of a fitness community.

But how is this done?

Ownership

You know how Dave and Busters gives you tokens for playing games? You spend money to access games, play them, and then receive tokens for participating. You use these tokens to buy stuff at the end of the night.

Now, imagine CrossFit rewarding you tokens for accomplishing things. Let’s say you get a token for completing the open and 3 tokens for your one year anniversary.

But the biggest difference from these and DnB tokens? These tokens represent your stake in CrossFit. When you receive a token, you now own a part of CrossFit. 

Um, so… what do I do with these tokens? Who decides that?

That’s ultimately determined by the community. Communities typically form before tokens are launched, so the ways you can use them, and the amounts allocated for different actions, are predetermined.

For example, your level of ownership can be determined by participation. So if you’re a member of an affiliate for 10 years, you’ll earn more tokens as a result. More tokens = more ownership.

And with this ownership, the biggest thing you can do is vote.

Social Capital

CrossFit has created an enormous amount of social capital through the years. While this community was established in mostly in-person settings, there has been a shift since Covid. Online programming became more popular, and it’s created global communities of people.

A decentralized CrossFit would leverage an online messaging forum that gives people a chance to interact, coordinate and ultimately vote on the proposals that affect the community.

Real dialogue, and having influence over the community's decisions strengthens your feeling of ownership. And, this feeling of ownership strengthens members’ sense of belonging.

Decentralizing CrossFit doesn’t take away from the in-person experience. It strengthens the online experience.

Governance

Remember how these tokens give you the right to vote? What does that mean?

So think of governance as making decisions. In crypto and Web3, any decision that affects the organization is voted on by its members. Anyone who owns tokens can vote on proposals that would affect the community’s future.

So, people submit proposals and members vote yes or no? If there are more yes votes than no, the proposal passes?

Exactly. And, it’s this ability to vote on the future that gives those tokens their true value.

Eric Roza wants to move the Games to Dallas? You want more resources invested into the CrossFit Kids program? You propose it and people vote.

This mechanism of governance doesn’t stop ideas from those over at HQ. It gives people a chance to say if it’s actually what they want. This seat at the table also empowers members to fight for change, which can unlock ideas that HQ may have never thought of.

Some ideas may not need this form of governance. But, this framework ensures the community gets a say on the ones that really do.

Recently… Instead of Roza firing Castro, the community votes on a proposal suggesting he gets fired. If this happened, I believe Dave Castro would still have a job.

The Community Decides

I’m biased. I like CrossFit, Crypto and Dave Castro. And while I might be projecting my thoughts, last week was the first time I truly thought, “Wow. CrossFit needs crypto.”

Glassman stepping down, no matter what you thought of him, was a win for the CrossFit community. It showed that with influence and coordination, even the highest ranking officer isn’t immune to consequences.

But Castro’s exit was a loss in more ways than one. Yeah, losing Castro hurts on the sporting front, but we’ll never know if it’s what everyone wanted. While we can speculate, we’ll never know the result of a democratic, community based, vote.

Dave Castro, HQ and CrossFit didn’t need crypto to save Castro from losing his job. We needed it to know if it was the right decision for the community.

https://twitter.com/thedavecastro/status/1478588716260073475

Like getting into any new venture, there is likely someone better, more experienced, and offering more value than you.

As mentioned, this can be very intimidating. It can cause those onboarding into consistent giving to feel as if they’re not being impactful enough. This intimidation can lower enthusiasm and chances of long-term engagement.

While you can always be more impactful in anything you do, it isn’t always healthy to push boundaries. Neglecting important parts of your life, like the professional or social, can cause you to stress over newly introduced passions, including giving.

In this case, it is not a zero-sum game. It is not a measure of your giving vs someone else’s. Are those who donate massive amounts of capital going to receive more media coverage? Of course.

Organizations working on impactful causes are in constant need of more resources. These marketing materials intrigue other high net worth individuals to participate. It is the case that higher capital allocations are immediately more impactful than smaller donations.

But, over the course of a person’s career, it is not unreasonable to earn $3,200,000. If they consistently give 10%, they’ve given $320,000. This is absolutely tremendous and its value should not be diminished. Especially if the giving is impactful and well directed.

In casual conversations I have, some feel that giving is a one way street. You donate, receive your “thank you” receipt, and that’s about it. The occasional newsletter comes in, but at times, donors feel underappreciated. The argument is worth presenting.

This form of engagement isn’t much different than marketing strategies deployed in other industries. And, this isn’t a shot at non-profits. They’re incredibly busy with hundreds of pressing tasks at hand.

However, without a community-driven marketing strategy, lower net worth donors feel left out. This means there’s a tremendous opportunity for non-profits to have active community engagement for its regular participants. This can set them apart.

An example. If people regularly gives a certain amount in a given time period, they earn a certain level of community access. This could mean open discussion forums, regular short-form project updates, and exclusive town halls where a non-profit’s leadership provide direct updates to membership.

Not everything has to be an email. While substance and depth is important in understanding giving’s effectiveness, more frequent short-form messages can provide positive reinforcement for membership.

Immediate access to information is more valuable than ever. People rarely check inboxes and when they do, skimming is preferred to deep reading.

If people go through the effort of downloading a social messaging application and sign up for a non-profit’s discussion forum, they’re making an effort to receive shorter form content. This leads to an easier way to engage.

This higher level of engagement can produce more conversation, immediate feedback and create a sense of ownership. People feel a stronger sense of belonging and connection to the non-profit.

They’re already donating funds regularly, so the financial incentive is there. Why not reward them with more immediate feedback? Why not give them a platform for conversation? Why not give them more of a reason to be involved?

It could truly create a more meaningful relationship between non-profits and its donors.

Taking ownership a step further, many people have been discussing NFTs as a form of governance tokens in the Web3 space. In the non-profit space, governance isn’t as straight forward. It is likely that a non-profit knows what its beneficiaries need more than its donors.

This isn’t to say that non-profit organizations can’t follow Web3’s famous decentralized organizational structures. It just might take time, trial and error for non-profits to adopt these models.

In the interim, there will likely be DAO protocols raising funds and partnering with effective non-profit to solve problems that are a mutual interest.

In present time, it might be better to provide regular community members digitized rewards in the form of NFTs.

This digital reward can be more beneficial than its physical counterparts. It is easier to ship to community members directly. It can be a more custom and memorable reward for participation. It stays with members digitally, and forever. As opposed to physical rewards that suffer from wear and tear or misplacement.

In my experience, I have never seen non-profits implement these strategies at scale, or at all. This opportunity might not be helpful for high worth donors, as their incentive model could be different.

However, for the average consumer, this could create a real sense of appreciation which drives long-term participation.

Notice, the amount given is never mentioned above, and could be irrelevant to this strategy all together. Sure, minimum amounts could be established for reward access, but is there a need?

This strategy could be instrumental in driving adoption for, well, everyday people. Why restrict people from different socio-economic backgrounds from actively participating? Valuing active participation over dollar amounts could prove to be financially beneficial.

Effective non-profits solving pressing problems that leverage effective marketing strategies… means more people giving towards said non-profits.

This mainstream giving results in more money for non-profits. Just as there’s an opportunity consumers should consider related to giving, there’s an equal opportunity non-profits should consider related to keeping its community engaged.

Digital rewards and community might be a catalyst for mainstream adoption.

I would presume that most people say yes.

If you were wearing a suit/dress that was worth $3000, would you still dive into the water and save the child?

I would presume that most people say yes.

The reason being, you obviously value the child’s life more than the clothes you’re wearing. The life of the child can never be replaced. Your wardrobe can.

Now, this scenario is a very easy one to answer. I don’t feel that anyone’s moral compass is so far gone to decline the opportunity to save the child.

From a psychological perspective, the amount of good you would personally feel is an indirect benefit from saving the child’s life. On the unlikely chance this would happen to you once a year over the course of your life, you would be eventually deemed a hero by many in society. You could become a public figure. Someone might potentially pen an autobiography about you. All for doing the right thing.

This would make you feel better.

This indirect benefit is not the reason you jump in the water. You jump in the water to because your moral compass has been programmed to say that it’s the right thing to do. When presented with that opportunity, you obviously take it.

Now, back to the beginning of the scenario. You’re wearing a $3000 article of clothing.

Owning this article means at some point in time, you spent $3000 on something you didn’t particularly need.

New scenario. You’re at home browsing the internet to buy $3000 worth of items that you don’t need. Yes, they would be nice to have. Yes, you’ve worked hard to have this extra $3000. But no, the items you’re looking to purchase will have no particular psychological or physical benefit on your health.

Instead of finalizing the checkout, you’re presented with an opportunity to donate to a charity that prevents young children from getting Malaria. As you would perform due diligence with the items you purchase online (checking reviews, sizing charts, etc), you do the same with this charity.

You find that the $3000 dollars you were going to spend has been effectively proven to save a child’s life.

Therefore, ruining the $3000 suit/dress and not spending the $3000 online shopping can have the same result. It can save a child’s life.

The only difference is one child is within your physical perception of reality, and one is not.

You might be familiar with this argument. Philosopher Peter Singer has used it on numerous occasions.

There are many arguments for us living within a simulation. Within this argument, something that has been presented is that people outside of your personal simulation are Non-Player Characters (NPCs).

Similar to a video game, people that you do not directly interact with, do not actually exist at all. They just appear to exist to provide your simulated reality more substance and believability.

To most, this sounds crazy and only aligns with the widely touted “CPU-generated” simulation theory. Its association with an unpopular theory deems it a falsehood, and is discredited.

I believe Joscha Bach’s, a popular cognitive scientist, presentation of a simulation is more compelling.

In short, Bach argues that we are living in a simulation that is generated by our own brains. There is a physical reality, which our brain interprets, thus creating a visual simulation within our minds. Our simulation’s consistency with the physical reality, which others are also simulating, proves our sanity.

Basically, we’re simulating the physical reality and our experiences to create a worldview that our mind believes to be true. We align this with others in the physical realm.

Combining Bach’s arguments, and the concept of NPCs, I believe there is a genuine detachment between our direct simulations and those who are outside of our physical realities.

Meaning, I believe it is easy to look at others living in the world as NPCs. The people we do not interact with directly are NPCs.

Thus, these people have very little effect on our lives and therefore their lives have little value with respect to ours. To put it harshly, they do not exist.

This lack of tangible proof of existence lessens our sympathy to their pain and suffering, which makes it easier to ignore.

Example, it is easier to ignore a child dying from Malaria whose existence we can’t directly perceive than it is to ignore a child dying from drowning who we can directly perceive.

We make this easier because we allow our perceptions to involuntarily classify some people as NPCs. It is hard to appreciate suffering if we do not believe it actually exists.

I do not believe people think this way voluntarily. I believe this is due to society’s programming towards consumerism, materialism and valuing direct perception drastically more than indirect perception.

I apologize if my analysis is Joscha Bach’s theory is off.

Now, this may sound somewhat extreme. You would be unique if you admitted to believing people outside of your physical reality don’t exist.

Let’s form a contract. We agree that people who we have never interacted with on a direct level do exist. They are real as are their happiness, suffering, and experiences.

Related to those who are in desperate need, there is a tremendous opportunity to help them. This opportunity can benefit you psychologically, give more meaning to your work, and directly benefit those in desperate need.

If you make more than 30,000 USD/yr, you can likely save a child’s life every year by donating a small portion of your monthly salary. If you start donating monthly at the age of 30, and you work until you’re 65, you could potentially save 35 lives. This is not considering likely increases in salary, bonuses and other financial rewards as you progress in your career.

Progress in your career can lead to a sense of accomplishment, fulfillment and now, through careful study and application, also directly impact the lives of those in need.

Rather than viewing this as a moral obligation, which many have presented it to be, philosopher Will MacAuskill argues that we should view it as a tremendous opportunity. An opportunity to help others and expand fulfillment to other areas of our lives, personally and professionally.

Now, there are millions of people who do not have access to resources they need to live sustainable and healthy lives.

274,000 children under the age 5 die from Malaria every year. 9.2% of the world’s population live on less than $1.90 a day. Access to healthcare, education, and other resources are extremely limited to millions.

And the ability to help them, in an effective and direct manner, is easier than ever. It also does not come at an extreme cost to ourselves.

If you agreed to the presented contract earlier, I ask:

Would you save a child in Sub-Saharan Africa, who you’ve never seen or met, from dying?

Would you provide families in extreme poverty access to financial resources that could drastically improve their lives, and potentially bring them out of poverty?

Would you help the people who we agreed are not Non-Player Characters in a simulation, but rather real human beings who experience feelings and emotions like us?

I do not expect people to answer yes immediately. As mentioned, careful study, application and allocation of resources is needed to make this worthwhile. However, it is important to consider taking this opportunity seriously.

It’s easy to subject ourselves to moral degradation because we’ve previously missed an opportunity to help those in need. I do it daily.

But now, I choose to view this tremendous opportunity to do good as another motivation to allocate my time, resources and money more effectively.

Pursuing opportunity is much more meaningful than upholding an obligation. You may not be deemed a hero, and you may not get that autobiography.

But, I do believe it can provide more fulfillment and meaning to our lives. And more importantly, it can drastically improve the lives of those in desperate need.

The collective appears to be more than just a record label when digging in. At first glance, information is limited. You see a sold out merch line and links to all of its artists’ social media pages. Combine this with conclusions from Marshmello’s passion for pseudonymity and dabblings in crypto, you can think there’s another play here.

The site’s discreetness and structure portrays that all members are equal vs Marshmello being the leader of group. The music its members have produced in the past show a willingness to connect with their fanbases, and the ability to relate to struggles that many people are going through, but don’t have the confidence or an audience to share with.

A voice for the voiceless.

Modern hip-hop is blending between a variety of its past sub-genres. More and more, mental health is common theme that is found in many records. It is something that people are more comfortable sharing as the world moves forward.

A few examples of this are popular artists’ associations (directly or indirectly) with Soundcloud’s emo-rap scene, Travis Barker’s resurgence, Chicago’s drill artists’ evolution into the mainstream, and a specific example, DaBaby’s recent record with Lil Wayne.

Whether it’s taking a Xanax to calm down, remembering ones lost, or articulating the personal struggles artists have gone through, the message resonates with many who are still finding their way.

What makes Polar Culture more interesting than the standard record label is its potential to associate with its fanbase in a powerful online community.

One of the definitions for polar is being directly opposite. Past methods of gathering online attention were based on passive consumer consumption, and creators developing massive amounts of content in hopes of being discovered on streaming platforms. This method of discovery is highly dependent on the platforms’ sharing algorithms, which are developed with the platform in mind, not the creator.

While there were successful examples of artists building communities through these channels, Oliver Francis being a great one, this isn’t optimized for the future.

Future methods of attention gathering are moving towards active consumer consumption, engagement and participation. This method enables the consumer to engage and discover new content more organically, and feel more in control of what they’re consuming on a regular basis.

It also gives the creators (especially those up and coming) more control, as they don’t feel the need to put out content to stay relevant on the various sharing platforms’ algorithms.

Soundcloud was a massive platform for artists to connect, collaborate and eventually produce some of the groundwork the industry is building upon today. New community driven platforms provide artists a way to create meaningful communities online according to their own rules.

Such platforms, like Discord, can bridge the gap between artist-to-fan and fan-to-fan interaction. This interaction aggressively earns a consumer’s attention and produces more engagement within the collective.

With the future of online attention moving from passive to aggressive, groups like Polar Culture can leverage this to create even more relevancy than they would solely using traditional methods.

For example, let’s say Lil Dusty G was releasing a song on December 31st. Members of the community could be invited to a listening party the night of December 30th. While there are risks associated with this, there are potential monetization methods the collective could employ to make this worthwhile.

As mentioned, in communities like Discord, you create your own rules. Let’s say there are 100,000 members of the community; a listening party for everyone involved wouldn’t be much different from announcing the song’s release on instagram.

But, let’s say the listening party was for members who have a participation level of X, and also have previously verified that they purchased Polar Culture merch. The reward for active engagement is access to the listening party.

As other members see this type of engagement being rewarded, they’re incentivized to give more attention to the group and participate more often. Let’s say participation can be defined as engaging in community message boards, sharing songs on social media, or pre-ordering merch. This results in merch drops being consistently profitable, organic artist promotion, and a stronger digital brand for the collective.

News then spreads about the strength of the community and then drives more community membership, participation and eventual revenue streams for the collective. Again, this is all done organically and independent of streaming platforms, and keeps the collective, its creators and its community first.

I don’t know if Polar Culture intends to go in this direction, and I believe they’ll be a success independent of any decision regarding this.

But, given the assumptions made earlier, it certainly could be a possibility. NFT’s, online communities and people’s desire to be a part of something in the digital world is creating an opportunity for groups to effectively earn their audience’s attention. This attention is much more valuable than it has been in the past.

My inclination to believe that Polar Culture has the ability and desire to provide this level of engagement stems from content in its members’ previous releases.

Examples being Lil Dusty G’s latest release, Preached, Munk’s Crown The Empire’s first hit Voices, and Marshmello’s collaboration with the late Lil Peep. People resonate with this type of music, especially in their darkest moments.

And those are the moments we need community the most.