SQR3D is excited to join forces with CryptApe DAO, the world-famous crypto jungle establishment!
Boasting a sizeable French community and web3 industry experts, CryptApe DAO will provide tremendous strategic value to SQR3D as the project navigates its early bootstrapping phase.
The collaboration opens the door for SQR3D to tap into the diversified skillsets of CryptApe DAO members, ranging from development and marketing support, as well as advising on protocol-level matters.
The SQR3D official MVP launch and TGE is scheduled for 2023.
About CryptApe DAO
CryptApe DAO is a community of experts passionate about blockchain and web3 technologies. CryptApe DAO supports daring entrepreneurs and provide them with the tools and knowledge necessary to realize their projects.
The CryptApe community advocates values of hard work, merit and sharing — with the aim of helping the entrepreneurs and enthusiasts of tomorrow’s world towards achieving their goals.
In the ever-evolving landscape of content creation, a revolutionary force is reshaping the way creators collaborate, share, and profit from their work. Enter Creator DAOs, a paradigm-shifting concept that is empowering content creators like never before. This article delves into the world of Creator DAOs, exploring how they are revolutionizing the creator economy and providing content creators with newfound autonomy and opportunities.
The Creator Economy in Flux
The internet has democratized content creation, enabling individuals worldwide to produce, share, and monetize their creations. This has given rise to influencers, YouTubers, podcasters, writers, artists, and other content creators who have cultivated dedicated fan bases. However, the traditional platforms and systems for monetizing content often favor intermediaries and leave creators with limited control over their work and income.
What Is a Creator DAO?
DAO stands for Decentralized Autonomous Organization. A Creator DAO is a decentralized collective that operates on blockchain technology, allowing creators to collaborate, make decisions, and distribute income without relying on centralized intermediaries. In a Creator DAO, creators are in the driver’s seat, shaping the future of their content and how they monetize it.
Empowering Content Creators
Content Ownership: In a Creator DAO, content creators retain ownership of their work. They can tokenize their creations as NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens), enabling fans to purchase unique digital assets and support creators directly.
Direct Fan Engagement: Traditional social media platforms and content-sharing sites often limit direct engagement with fans. Creator DAOs facilitate direct communication and interaction between creators and their communities, fostering deeper connections and loyalty.
Revenue Sharing: The revenue generated within a Creator DAO is distributed based on transparent and predefined rules. Creators earn their fair share, eliminating the need for platforms to take a significant cut of their earnings.
Collaboration and Decision-Making: Creators within a DAO can collaborate on projects, decide on platform rules, and vote on the allocation of funds. This democratic approach ensures that creators’ voices are heard and their interests are protected.
Case Studies of Success
Numerous Creator DAOs have emerged as powerful examples of how this model can transform the creator economy. Some noteworthy instances include:
Friends with Benefits (FWB): A DAO created by musician RAC, FWB allows members to access exclusive content, participate in events, and interact with the artist directly. Members are also co-owners of the DAO, sharing in its success.
PleasrDAO: This NFT collective has acquired high-value digital art pieces, providing opportunities for art enthusiasts to own a fraction of these pieces. It showcases how DAOs can impact the art world and make art ownership more accessible.
Forefront: Focused on the world of journalism, Forefront is a DAO that allows journalists and writers to collaborate on projects, co-own the organization, and make collective decisions regarding content and earnings.
Challenges and Opportunities
While Creator DAOs hold immense promise, they are not without challenges. Onboarding new creators, ensuring effective governance, and creating sustainable revenue models are ongoing concerns. However, the opportunities are vast, and the concept continues to evolve as the community learns from its successes and failures.
Conclusion
The rise of Creator DAOs marks a significant shift in the creator economy. Content creators now have the tools to take control of their work, interact directly with their fans, and reap the rewards of their efforts. The power of Creator DAOs lies in their ability to democratize content creation, redefine how creators monetize their work, and provide a framework for fair collaboration and decision-making. As this movement continues to gain momentum, the future looks bright for content creators and their newfound autonomy.
We are undoubtedly living in the era of creator economy. Anyone can become a public figure, as long as they have access to an internet-connected device. Long gone the days of CNBC or BBC being the only trustworthy news source, or TV commercials being the only path towards exposure and fame.
However, most of the value produced by these ingenious independent creators of our time is gatekept by internet platforms, especially the “Big Tech”. Thus, they remain under the mercy of the “walled garden” that they are locked into. Although platforms ought to get their rightful share of the accrued value, the creators of today are still unfairly shortchanged.
But what if we can harness the power of the blockchain to provide them with a fair slice of the value pie? What would happen if creators are given the liberty to explore various types of engagement and value creation methods without being ‘chained’ by the terms and conditions of rent-seeking third-parties?
Enter social tokens.
Social Tokens: Giving Power Back to Creators
[Engagement Labs] independent creators will play an increasingly paramount role going forward as more and more people spend more time on internet-connected devices
“His recent hat-trick in the final of an intercollegiate football tournament has just sent his stock soaring.”
Prior to social tokens, this lucky guy would probably ‘only’ get lots of clout — with the introduction of social tokens however, his excellent performance would literally send his tokens soaring!
In a nutshell, social tokens are tokens imbued with certain rights or utilities by its issuer. In the case of our college footballer, he may decide that his social tokens will entitle holders to a 20% share of his footballing income until the age of 25, plus a scheduled dinner with him for large holders capped at once a year.
You can see where this goes. Social tokens (and with it, ‘SocialFi’) provide creators with a slew of options to engage fans or monetize their brand. Imagine if creatives such as musicians, artists, and athletes can be given the same “entrepreneurial footing” with business owners. Creators who feel that the current status quo might have restricted their entrepreneurial output are now “set free” again. Sooner or later, you might even see creatives breaking the Bloomberg Billionaires Index!
With the context being set, we will now go through some scenarios on how social tokens might play out in the real world. While this is by no means an exhaustive list (we might have missed some key points as well!), in most cases social tokens would fall into either one of these three use cases: 1) income sharing agreements; 2) exclusive real-world utility; 3) loyalty programs.
Use Case #1: Income Sharing Agreements (ISA)
[Washington Post/YouTube] income sharing agreement (ISA) tokens allow speculators to invest in artists just like how VCs invest in startups…
This might be the most obvious use case for social tokens if you look at it purely from an investment lens. TradFi (or “traditional finance”) professionals would also find this much easier to understand, as the token itself represents a claim to future “cash flows”, making it quite straightforward to assign a valuation to it.
Creators can specify the terms of the income sharing agreement prior to launching their token. This can take on any form; a few examples:
A musician entitling holders to 30% of his music royalties till he turns 30;
A virtual asset creator entitling holders to a lifetime 10% claim on all of his current and future NFTs sold on the secondary market.
This is basically TradFi stuff, but just done more efficiently with social tokens.
Use Case #2: Exclusive Real-World Utility
[Warriors/NBA] value doesn’t have to be in form of financial upside — social tokens imbuing holders with access to a private basketball session with Steph Curry will also carry tangible value
On the contrary to income sharing agreements, social tokens that belong solely on this spectrum will be extremely difficult to be assigned a tangible value. This is because the “value” of the token itself is the various real-world interactions and experiences that the creator has promised to fulfill for token holders. To illustrate the point, how do you put a dollar value on a dinner outing with Cristiano Ronaldo, or a tennis session with Roger Federer?
One thing that is certain: although it is hard to assign a tangible value to the token, interactions and experiences with your favorite creators undeniably brings value to its fans. To put things into perspective, here are some examples of real-world utility that creators might imbue to their tokens:
A celebrity treating token holders to exclusive meet-and-greet sessions;
A singer allocating a select number of VIP seats for token holders, no matter the region where the concert is held;
A public figure hosting a one-off lavish party in his private mansion, only allowing access to holders who have held the token for at least two years;
A chance to enjoy a private basketball session with a world-renowned basketball player for holders holding at least a certain number of tokens;
A celebrity giving exclusive merchandise for fans who have accumulated enough social tokens to redeem it;
A basketball club letting token holders to vote on what song to play on its stadium on player entrance, defense, offense, time-outs, half-time, and etc.
Value doesn’t have to be in form of financial upside. Income sharing agreements are great, but there is no reason why social tokens purely offering exclusive real-world utility can’t be valued on the same level of good-faith. Dismissing them is just plain ignorant — heck sometimes they could be worth more!
Use Case #3: Loyalty Programs
[@atdanwhite/Twitter] poor Dan has a lot of Starbucks coffee to redeem — if only there is a way to freely trade them with other people…
Remember your unused Starbucks loyalty rewards due to your relocation? How about your frequent flyer miles from a local airline that you have been dying to redeem for a trip to Tokyo, but hasn’t been able to as you have reservations on travelling in the midst of COVID-19? What if you’re told that you can convert these “leftover” perks to real money?
Make no mistake, the above proposition would be feasible if loyalty programs are put on the blockchain in form of social tokens (or in this case, brand tokens). Holders would be able to swap it with other cryptocurrencies of their choice, and its value would be based on the perceived benefit that a holder can get out of each unit of token.
In the case of your Starbucks loyalty rewards, if it is represented in form of social tokens (the ‘creator’ in this case would be Starbucks itself), then its value would be based on how many cups of coffee that it could be exchanged to, discounted slightly due to illiquidity (as the token is only exchangeable for Starbucks coffee).
Like current loyalty programs, here are some examples to earn social tokens:
A football club running a score prediction contest, where each correct score prediction entitles fans to a number of social tokens;
A celebrity giving out a select number of social tokens to all fans that will attend his upcoming concert in London;
A musician rewarding its fans with social tokens every week if their cumulative streaming time of his songs reaches 24 hours.
When paired with “exclusive real-world utility”, the issuer of the social tokens has effectively designed a micro-economy revolving around themselves. The loyalty programs will form the “earning” part of the economy, while the real-world utility will form the “spending” part of it.
SocialFi: The Great Equalizer
[Nylon.com] TikTok celebrities: just the latest manifestation of our influencer-led creator economy
Social tokens allow creatives, irrespective of the field that they’re in, to design their own micro-economies — a luxury that is previously only available for established businesses to tap into. In the presence of social tokens, PayPal’s and Venmo’s tip jars would quickly become a relic of the past in the eyes of future creatives.
The golden age of entrepreneurial creatives is just around the corner — SocialFi, is here to stay.
The internet has transformed the way we connect and communicate, giving rise to the phenomenon of online communities. These digital gatherings have evolved from simple forums and fan pages into powerful ecosystems where members are not just followers but stakeholders with a voice in decision-making. In this article, we explore how online communities are changing the social landscape and the concept of digital citizenship.
The Birth of Online Communities
Online communities emerged in the early days of the internet, often in the form of forums and chat rooms. They catered to niche interests, bringing together people with shared hobbies, passions, or questions. Members primarily served as consumers of information and contributors to discussions.
The Social Media Revolution
The advent of social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram shifted the dynamics of online communities. These platforms allowed individuals to connect with friends, family, and strangers on a global scale. Users could follow their favorite celebrities, influencers, and brands, consuming content and occasionally engaging with likes, comments, and shares.
The Rise of Web3 and DAOs
Web3, the next generation of the internet, is ushering in a new era of online communities. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are at the forefront of this transformation. DAOs are blockchain-based entities that rely on community governance to make decisions, manage assets, and execute projects.
Key Elements of the Evolution:
Community Governance: DAOs empower members to participate actively in decision-making. Through voting mechanisms, every member becomes a stakeholder, having a say in the direction and activities of the community.
Tokenization: Many DAOs issue tokens to their members, which represent ownership and voting rights. These tokens can also have real-world value, providing incentives for active participation.
Revenue Sharing: Online communities are finding ways to distribute earnings among their members. For instance, a content-focused DAO might share profits from advertising or content sales with its contributors.
Transparency: Blockchain technology ensures transparency in financial transactions, decision-making, and resource allocation. Members can track funds and contributions in real-time.
Examples of Modern Online Communities:
Ethereum Community: The Ethereum community operates through a DAO model. It funds projects, conducts upgrades, and decides on critical aspects of the Ethereum network. Ether (ETH) holders have a say in these decisions.
PleasrDAO: This NFT collective, as mentioned in a previous article, allows art enthusiasts to co-own high-value digital art pieces. Members decide whether to sell, hold, or distribute the art.
Forefront: A DAO for journalists, Forefront collaboratively funds and curates journalism projects. Members decide which stories to pursue and how the community’s resources are allocated.
The New Digital Citizenship
This evolution in online communities is redefining the concept of digital citizenship. Members are no longer passive consumers but active participants with a sense of ownership and responsibility. They have a voice, financial stakes, and a role in shaping the community’s identity and direction.
Challenges and Potential
While this shift is promising, it comes with challenges. DAOs must find ways to include diverse perspectives, prevent manipulation, and maintain a healthy balance of power. Additionally, the regulatory environment surrounding DAOs is still evolving.
Conclusion
Online communities have come a long way from their early days as simple forums. With the advent of Web3 and DAOs, they have transformed into powerful entities where members are not just followers but stakeholders with a tangible influence. As this evolution continues, it brings forth exciting opportunities for participatory governance, shared ownership, and a new form of digital citizenship. Online communities are no longer just places to connect; they are places to co-create and shape the digital world.
Crypto here, crypto there. Countless “introductory” webinars and article reads later, you still don’t quite grasp how this whole thing works. Rest assured, you’re far from being the only one.
Cryptocurrency is notorious for its high learning curve, so don’t beat yourself up if you can’t seem to understand. This article will make sense for you in the most concise way possible on how cryptocurrencies actually work, and why they represent a superior form of money over fiat currencies.
The Nuts and Bolts of Cryptocurrency
[CoinGecko] cryptocurrencies are more than just for you to trade on-screen numbers…
In essence, cryptocurrencies are programmable money living on a decentralized network (the blockchain) — a shared public ledger.
User independence on their funds is achieved through encryption/decryption processes via public keys (your public key or crypto address, like your bank account number) and private keys (your private key or seed phrase, like your bank account password). This is referred to as public key cryptography.
Complex math is behind public key cryptography, specifically designed so that you can encrypt a piece of data with your public key, but the decryption can only be done with your private key. Vice versa, you can encrypt a piece of data with your private key, but it can only be decrypted with your public key.
Furthermore, it is also designed in such a way that although the public key is generated from its private key, you can never work backwards to derive the private key from its public key — again, enforced via mathematical algorithms.
To put things into perspective, as an analogy, if you receive a package from Amazon, you want to make sure that: a) Indeed Amazon has sent the package and not some bio-terrorist (signing) b) While in transit, nobody else knows what is inside the package (confidentiality) c) The package is not tampered while in transit (tamper-proofing).
Similarly, a network transaction also involves a sender, the ‘in-transit’ or network pipe, and a receiver. Public key cryptography comes in to solve the problem of signing, confidentiality and tamper-proofing of network transactions, all in one neat package.
Bear with me, let’s see how cryptocurrencies aka “data” are sent in practice:
The sender encrypts the data that the sender wants to send to the receiver with the sender’s private key to create the signature “sender-private-encrypted-data”. This is then combined with the data once again to form “data + sender-private-encrypted-data”.
The sender will again encrypt the above with the receiver’s public key to form “receiver-public-encrypted-data”. This is broadcasted on the blockchain network — no intruder can decipher this message as only the receiver’s private key can decrypt it.
The receiver would for the first time decrypt the above with the receiver’s private key, from “receiver-public-encrypted-data” to “data + sender-private-encrypted-data”. Since only the receiver can see “data”, confidentiality is achieved.
The receiver would for the second time decrypt only the “sender-private-encrypted-data” using the sender’s public key, resulting in “data”. Being able to decrypt it with the sender’s public key ensures that signing is achieved, and the fact that decrypting it with both the receiver’s private key and the sender’s public key results in the same “data” means that tamper-proofing is achieved as well.
Once a transaction has been authorized (or “signed”), it will be made eligible for inclusion into the blockchain (or the shared public ledger). Only when the transaction has been successfully included, then the balance change will be reflected on both your address and the receiver’s address.
[Antonio Mahler/blockwhat] signing allows the receiver to verify that the sender is indeed the “owner” of the subject public key
With that said, we need to decide on a mechanism to govern who gets to write this transaction into the blockchain in the first place: enter what we call as “consensus mechanism”. Although there are various models of consensus, the two most prevalent ones are proof-of-work and proof-of-stake.
In proof-of-work, people (referred to as miner nodes) compete to solve a complex mathematical problem, and the first miner to get to the solution gets to group a bunch of pending transactions into a “block”, then include it into the blockchain — obtaining cryptocurrencies as compensation for each successful block inclusion. Therefore, the more powerful a miner’s mining rig, the better chance they will have on being the first one to solve the math problem, and hence the likelier that they will be able to “mine” the next block.
In proof-of-stake, the probability of a node mining the next block will be equivalent to the percentage of their staked tokens relative to the total tokens staked in the network. For example, if you staked 1 $ETH, and the total staked in the network is 100 $ETH, then you will have a 1% chance of mining the next block. Similar to proof-of-work, the miner will be rewarded with cryptocurrencies as compensation for each successful block inclusion.
[Durwin Ho/Medium] a tale of two consensus mechanisms: proof-of-work vs. proof-of-stake
Once a block has been mined, all transactions included inside this block can’t be reversed or tampered with — the block will be stacked on top of the previous block, such that the series of stacked blocks (hence the term “blockchain”) present a chronological view of transactions. These “stacks” are engineered in such a way that each node on the network will be able to verify that the latest block is indeed stacked (or “chained”) by the “winning” miner — facilitated via a hash-based data structure called the Merkle Tree.
[Wikipedia] oversimplified: the Merkle Tree data structure
Now that we know how cryptocurrencies actually work under-the-hood, the remaining parts of this article will elaborate on why cryptocurrencies are by far the superior form of money in comparison to our existing fiat money system.
Fiat Currencies: Inefficient, Centralized, Opaque Money
[Encyclopedia Britannica] backed by ‘good-faith’: banknotes are not worth anything by itself — they merely serve as the physical representation of fiat currencies
In a nutshell, the current financial system is just a network of silo-ed bank ledgers, with each country’s central bank at the top coordinating everything: from interbank transfers to the reduction or expansion of its currency’s money supply.
To illustrate, when you transfer $1 to a friend, the money doesn’t actually “move” per se. Instead, the bank will just adjust you and your friend’s balances accordingly on its internal ledger, debiting $1 from your account and crediting $1 to your friend’s account. If your friend uses a different bank, both of your banks simply account for this movement internally until the central bank adjusts for this interbank money movement on its ledger.
Hold your horses, this gets even more complicated for international transfers — involving what we refer to as nostro and vostro accounts.
[FedPayments Improvement] the correspondent banking model aka silo-ed bank ledgers: more intermediaries, more fees…
As a byproduct of how our current financial system is arranged, besides being highly inefficient by itself, it gives financial intermediaries a bird’s eye view on transactions, in which they can intervene at will.
Donating money to a political opposition of the current government? Blocked, whereabouts tracked, then jailed. Moving money out of the country? Restricted, whereabouts tracked, then questioned. While this might seem exaggerated for those living in functional democracies, just ask the citizens of China or Vietnam — they would beg to differ.
You could even go as far to say that banks are ultimately the ones controlling “your” money. What you are holding is simply a receipt that says that your money is with the associated bank, backed by ‘good-faith’ that the receipt will be honored at all times.
While highly unlikely, if your bank goes belly-up, your money will be at risk (in the United States, the FDIC will only insure up to $250k per individual per bank). Again, although this might seem exaggerated, just ask Saudi Arabia women on whether they can open a bank account without involving a male guardian, or Venezuela citizens on whether they think saving money in a bank is a good idea.
In addition, due to the silo-ed nature of the current financial system, opacity in financial markets is inevitable. For example, an asset can be securitized by a bank, sold to the bank’s investors, gets further repackaged by these same investors, and then resold again to other entities. Extrapolate this instance with every representable asset on the financial system, and what you get is a messy convoluted spiderweb of financial products with untraceable “source” assets.
In fact, this is exactly what happened during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, culminating in the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers (at the time the fourth largest investment bank in the US) and the bailouts of other firms deemed to be “too big to fail” (the likes of Bear Stearns and AIG). This would not have happened in the first place if everything is out in the open for the public to scrutinize — allowing anyone to transparently evaluate the tangible value of these repackaged securities for themselves over being forced to blindly trust the security underwriter’s word for it.
Cryptocurrencies allow you to no longer subject yourselves to a bank’s internal ledger for money movements. Anyone is able to initiate a transaction, and no one is able to do anything to prevent your transaction from going through — unless you pay absurdly low amounts of gas fees (miners won’t bother including your transaction into their block, as they feel they are not compensated enough for it).
Gone are the days when we have to adhere to your bank’s working hours, wait 10 minutes (or even a few days) for a transaction to be confirmed, or pay $50 in fees per transaction — blockchain networks like Solana or Avalanche operate 24/7, confirm within a few seconds, and charge mere cents in fees.
Without needing to involve banks, intermediary banks, and central banks for international money transfers, sending money via cryptocurrencies to a friend residing on the other side of the world would be as if you’re sending money to your neighbour living just a few blocks down the road!
Moreover, instead of being forced to trust the ‘good-faith’ of banks to store our money, cryptocurrencies provide anyone with the option to store money on a decentralized network that is impossible to shut down (unless the whole internet goes off, which if it does, we would have bigger problems to worry about). As such, as far as saving money goes, options are no longer restricted to the currency of the country that you are residing in or are a citizen of.
Donating to an opposition political party? Go ahead. Handling $1m as a 12-year-old business owner? Why not. Opening a bank account without a male guardian as a woman in Saudi Arabia? Who needs one when you can save in cryptocurrencies!
This might seem trivial for people living in countries with stable currencies, but for those living under oppressive (like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan for women) or corrupt regimes with highly inflationary currencies (such as Argentina or Venezuela), cryptocurrencies present the only lifeline for them to store wealth and escape the continuously eroding purchasing power of their local fiat currencies.
To top it off, blockchain networks enable anyone to have equal access to transaction records, compared to our current financial system where only select financial institutions are provided with this privilege — significantly reducing information asymmetry.
Recall the example of an asset being securitized and repackaged repeatedly. If every transaction is done on the blockchain, then no matter the number of ‘iterations’ that a securitized asset has been subjected to, we can always trace it back to the “source” asset with confidence, knowing that any transaction recorded on the blockchain will be immutable — no entity is able to reverse or tamper with an already confirmed block.
Cryptocurrency is an amalgamation of various technological components elegantly intertwined with one another: public key cryptography, consensus mechanism, and the Merkle Tree data structure, just to name a few.
A new frontier of a similar magnitude to the internet in the 1990s, the advent of cryptocurrencies made it possible for us to reimagine the entire stack of our financial system — away from the inefficient, centralized, and opaque nature of fiat money.
Money is the lifeblood of the economy. Cryptocurrency might just be the messiah that we are all waiting for: a superior form of money on a better financial system to propel our economy of the future to the next level.
When we think of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), our minds often jump to digital art, collectibles, or rare in-game items. However, NFTs are not limited to these categories. They have started to play a pivotal role in content creation across various industries, revolutionizing the way creators produce, distribute, and monetize their work.
Expanding Beyond Digital Art
While NFT art pieces like CryptoPunks and Beeple’s “Everydays” have garnered attention for their multi-million-dollar price tags, NFTs are extending their reach into content creation beyond visual art.
Music and Audio
The music industry is one of the early adopters of NFTs. Musicians are tokenizing their songs, albums, and concert tickets. NFTs allow artists to sell music directly to their fans, eliminating intermediaries. Additionally, musicians can create unique experiences, such as exclusive access to concerts or even virtual backstage passes, all represented as NFTs.
Video and Film
NFTs are making waves in the world of video and film production. Filmmakers can tokenize their creations, sell limited edition clips or scenes, and raise funds for future projects. The ownership of a video clip can also grant access to exclusive content or behind-the-scenes footage.
Literature and Writing
Writers and authors are exploring NFTs to revolutionize the publishing industry. NFT books can be published chapter by chapter, allowing readers to collect and trade them. It introduces a new way of consuming literature, akin to collecting rare first editions.
Gaming and Virtual Real Estate
In the gaming industry, NFTs have gained popularity as in-game assets, but they go beyond characters and weapons. Virtual real estate, such as land in virtual worlds like Decentraland and The Sandbox, is sold as NFTs. Players and investors purchase these virtual properties, which can appreciate in value or be developed for various purposes.
Podcasts and Digital Collectibles
Even podcasters are getting in on the action. Podcast episodes or exclusive content can be tokenized. Digital collectibles like NFT trading cards representing podcast hosts or memorable moments can be traded and collected by fans.
The Benefits of NFTs in Content Creation
Monetization: Creators can directly sell their work to their audience, eliminating intermediaries and ensuring fair compensation.
Ownership: NFTs provide undeniable proof of ownership and authenticity, reducing issues related to copyright and piracy.
Community Engagement: NFTs can foster a sense of community and belonging among fans and collectors, as they share ownership of unique digital assets.
Flexibility: Creators have the flexibility to tokenize their work in various ways, from limited edition releases to fractional ownership.
Challenges and Concerns
While the NFT space in content creation is exciting, it also faces some challenges and concerns:
Environmental Impact: NFTs on certain blockchains have raised concerns about their carbon footprint. Creators need to consider more eco-friendly alternatives.
Copyright Issues: NFTs do not inherently solve copyright issues. Creators must still be vigilant to protect their work.
Speculative Market: The NFT market can be speculative, with prices fluctuating wildly. Creators may worry about their work’s perceived value.
Conclusion
NFTs have ventured beyond the world of digital art and are becoming a revolutionary force in content creation. Creators across various industries are exploring the possibilities that NFTs offer in terms of monetization, ownership, and community engagement. As this space continues to evolve, we can expect more innovative use cases and collaborations that will change the way we create, share, and enjoy content. The NFT revolution is not just about art; it’s about transforming the entire content creation landscape.
The Domain Name System (DNS) is something that the average internet user has regularly interacted with, but rarely they have an idea of how it works under-the-hood.
Putting it on a silver platter, this integral piece of internet infrastructure is what allows you to type the namespace “linkedin.com” instead of the IP address “108.174.10.10” on your web browser. Imagine if you have to remember every single IP address of your favourite internet services — not too convenient, isn’t it?
With that said, there exist gross inefficiencies plaguing the traditional DNS value chain — giving rise to the narrative of blockchain domains as the next-generation solution towards IP address naming.
Before we get into it though, you will need to know some of the key concepts regarding how the traditional DNS actually works behind-the-scenes.
The name “google.com” might be easily ‘remember-able’ for us humans, but for computers who are actually doing the grunt work, this alphabetical string is actually a pain in their (metal) ass.
We assign alphabetical names like “Joe” or “Jill” to people, mainly because it is easy for us to refer to people by these names. For computers however, it is easier for them to refer to each other with numerical names (or what we call as IP addresses) like “105.21.51.78”.
To address this difference in naming preference between humans and computers, we came up with something called the Domain Name System (DNS). In simplest terms, it allows humans to assign a human-readable name in place of a computer’s machine-readable name. These records are then stored on a huge lookup database.
From the user’s perspective, upon requesting “google.com” from the web browser, the text will be directed to this lookup database — which then determines whether “google.com” actually exists. If it does, the database will return its associated IP address, in which the web browser will use it to locate the server where the content is hosted on.
The whole process is analogous to asking a librarian where a certain book is located: 1) you tell the librarian (the lookup database) the name of the book that you’re looking for; 2) the librarian searches for the book’s location as per the library’s records; 3) if it exists, the librarian replies you with the book’s exact aisle, shelf, and row number, so that you can go and retrieve it.
[Coin Bureau] ICANN: the librarian of domain names
This huge lookup database is collectively maintained by ICANN and its network of registries and registrars. ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) oversees maintenance of the root name server. Following on, registries are responsible for top-level domains (TLD), and registrars manage second-level domains (SLD) and its constituents.
Relating back to our library analogy, aisles will be the equivalent of the root name server, shelves will represent top-level domains, rows will be like second-level domains, and so forth.
DNS hierarchy: the root name server (ICANN), TLDs (registries), SLDs and its constituents (registrars)
The hierarchical design of the DNS means that only ICANN is able to add a new TLD into the root name server. To register a new TLD, registries must submit a paid application to ICANN, then wait for approval before the TLD is reflected on the root name server by ICANN.
Registries come in all shapes and sizes depending on the nature of the TLD. In the case of “.com” and “.net”, since they are meant for commercial purposes, they are maintained by Verisign, an American for-profit firm. There are also TLDs reserved for sovereign nations such as “.au” for Australia, or “.uk” for the United Kingdom — usually maintained by a government-sanctioned entity.
Going down the bottom of the food chain, just like how registries require ICANN’s approval to register a TLD on the root name server, registrars will also need to obtain a registry’s approval for the right to register SLDs on top of the registry’s ICANN-approved TLD. Fees will depend on the registry itself — but as a rule of thumb, commercial TLDs like “.com” will usually cost more.
Registrars are usually the first point-of-contact for most people: interfacing with the likes of GoDaddy when looking to buy domain names. Accordingly, registrars maintain SLD ownership records for their customers — where its main responsibility is to prevent ownership conflicts.
All in all, the DNS is essentially a unified view on world domain ownership, spearheaded by ICANN along with its network of registries and registrars.
Blockchain Domains: Disrupting Registries and Registrars in One Fell Swoop
[CoinCentral] Blockchain Domain Protocols: Unstoppable Domains (UD), Ethereum Name Service (ENS)
Due to the nature of the traditional DNS, gross inefficiencies will emerge as a byproduct of the coordination overhead amongst participating intermediaries. Recall that the DNS involves at least three separate entities: ICANN, registries, and registrars.
With each layer of intermediary comes additional red tape to jump over when processing SLD registration requests, and more cuts taken from the “domain registration pie” to sustain each intermediary’s operations (along with some profits for its shareholders). As a consequence, these costs get directly passed down to us, the end-users buying up the SLDs in the first place.
Historically, there needs to exist a separation of powers on TLD and SLD registration. If not, rent-seeking practices would gradually ensue — a natural repercussion of centralized management. But now for the first time ever, TLD and SLD registration could be rearchitected into a single cohesive unit: the blockchain domain protocol.
Building on from the above, just like how DeFi has managed to disrupt the entrenched banks and financial institutions of our traditional financial system, blockchain domain protocols could potentially take on the roles of the registries and registrars of our traditional DNS in one fell swoop.
Instead of having Verisign and GoDaddy as the TLD registry and SLD registrar respectively, a smart contract could act as a “container” for a TLD, in which SLDs on top of this TLD would be represented as distinct NFTs — one NFT for each SLD. As such, anyone will be able to claim an unowned SLD for a fee anchored on supply and demand, wherein the fee determination algorithm would be enshrined within the protocol itself. This transparency ensures that instances of manipulation is highly unlikely, if not infeasible.
This “SLD NFT” would also be freely tradable, since it is an on-chain NFT. In terms of market dynamics on highly sought-after domain names, the same implications found on the traditional DNS would also carry over to blockchain domain protocols: the more lucrative an SLD is regarded (for instance, a short SLD with a catchy name), the higher price the SLD would command.
Underpinned by the blockchain’s properties of credible-neutrality and decentralized consensus, once a party claims a domain name via SLD NFTs, ownership of the domain will be irrevocable and immutable — assuming the owner pays its associated renewal fees in time throughout its tenure. Since SLD NFTs are transferrable just like regular tokens and NFTs, they would be able to be resold on secondary markets at the discretion of their owners.
In the event of domain name defaults, the smart contract will automatically update the subject domain name’s ownership status on its registry, such that it is available for purchase by interested parties. The SLD NFT belonging to this defaulted owner would become worthless — the smart contract will mint a new SLD NFT for the domain’s new owner upon verification of the purchase, which will then be reflected on its registry in place of the old SLD NFT.
In addition, it offers an additional benefit native to the crypto space: referencing a crypto address with a remember-able name. In this case, if the lookup database of the traditional DNS only contains two “columns” (namespace, IP address), the lookup database of blockchain domain protocols would consist of three “columns” (namespace, IP address, crypto address). As such, users will be able to send crypto transactions via remember-able domain names instead of having to input the full string of a crypto address.
In a nutshell, blockchain domain protocols safely combine the functions of registries and registrars under one unified umbrella. The deterministic nature of smart contracts, coupled with the blockchain’s inherent properties of credible-neutrality and decentralized consensus, eliminates the need for centralized intermediaries to step in and mediate world domain ownership.
The cost of domain ownership would significantly decrease: less intermediaries would mean less red tape and more efficiency across the board, eventually leading to cost-savings for the end-users.
Looking Forward
Currently, the utility of blockchain domain protocols is still restricted to referencing crypto addresses via human-readable names. For blockchain domains to be able to reference IP addresses (for hosting websites, etc.), the protocol needs to first obtain ICANN’s approval for its TLD, so that the TLD can be reflected on the root name server.
As blockchain domain protocols approach maturity, governance of the smart contract registry could be gradually handed over to a DAO, where its scope might include: adding a new TLD and creating a new registry for it, removing underutilized TLDs and deleting its associated registries, leading ICANN talks to register a new TLD to the root name server, altering the protocol’s value accrual model for its native token, protocol fiduciary elections, and other ad-hoc resolutions.
The evolution of social media has been nothing short of revolutionary, connecting people across the globe. However, it has also raised significant concerns about privacy, data ownership, and censorship. In response, decentralized social platforms have emerged as a new frontier, promising a reimagined digital landscape that prioritizes user control and privacy.
The Privacy Paradox of Centralized Social Media
Centralized social media platforms have become an integral part of our daily lives. We use them to share our thoughts, connect with friends and family, and discover new content. However, these platforms often come at the cost of our privacy. Here’s the privacy paradox of centralized social media:
Data Collection: Centralized platforms collect vast amounts of user data, from our posts and messages to our location and browsing habits.
Data Ownership: Users often have limited control over their data. Once you post content on a centralized platform, it becomes the platform’s property.
Censorship: Centralized platforms can moderate and censor content, leading to concerns about freedom of expression.
Data Breaches: High-profile data breaches have exposed the personal information of millions of users.
Algorithmic Manipulation: Algorithms on centralized platforms determine the content we see, potentially shaping our views and opinions.
The Promise of Decentralized Social Platforms
Decentralized social platforms offer a compelling alternative to the privacy challenges posed by centralized networks. Here’s how they are reshaping the digital landscape:
User Control: Decentralized platforms prioritize user control. Users own their data and have the final say on how it’s used.
Censorship Resistance: These platforms are resistant to censorship, making them attractive to those who value freedom of expression.
Privacy-First: Decentralized social networks implement privacy features like end-to-end encryption, protecting user communications from prying eyes.
Data Monetization: Users can choose to monetize their data, receiving rewards for sharing information with advertisers or researchers.
Open Source: Many decentralized platforms are open-source, allowing for community-driven development and transparency.
Interoperability: Users can communicate across different decentralized platforms, fostering a more open and inclusive digital ecosystem.
Challenges and Considerations
While decentralized social platforms hold great promise, they also face challenges and considerations:
User Experience: These platforms may require a learning curve and can be less polished than their centralized counterparts.
Adoption: Mass adoption remains a challenge. Encouraging users to transition from familiar centralized platforms is no small task.
Regulatory Hurdles: Evading government regulations can be challenging, especially regarding data privacy and content moderation.
Examples of Decentralized Social Platforms
Several decentralized social platforms are making waves in the digital space:
Mastodon: A decentralized microblogging platform that resembles Twitter but is community-driven and open-source.
Diaspora: A distributed social network that allows users to host their own nodes, retaining control over their data.
Signal: An encrypted messaging platform known for its strong stance on user privacy.
Steemit: A blockchain-based blogging and social media platform that rewards content creators with cryptocurrency.
The Future of Decentralized Social Platforms
The rise of decentralized social platforms represents a turning point in the digital era. As privacy concerns continue to mount, users are seeking alternatives that put them in control of their data and digital identities. While the journey towards mass adoption may be long, decentralized social platforms offer a new dawn for privacy, putting the power back into the hands of users.
In the coming years, we can expect a growing ecosystem of decentralized social platforms, each with its unique features and communities. As more individuals recognize the value of privacy and data ownership, the shift towards decentralized networks may become a fundamental transformation of the digital landscape. The era of user-centric social media has begun, and it’s poised to redefine the way we connect and share online.
The grandfather of cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin, is notorious for not being environmentally friendly. According to a University of Cambridge study, Bitcoin is estimated to consume around 121.36 terawatt-hours (TWh) a year, which is more electricity annually than what Argentina consumes, being a country of 46 million people. This is even more than the consumption of Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft combined!
At this point, it is common sense to see that Bitcoin indeed has a carbon problem. Critics are of the opinion that Bitcoin’s “utility” doesn’t justify the energy expended for it, and that the world would be better off with the traditional financial system if having a decentralized financial system meant expending gigantic amounts of energy for it. Proponents argue that Bitcoin’s inherent decentralization is worth its cost in energy consumption, and that mining is an inseparable part of Bitcoin itself.
Read on.
Proof-of-Work = Proof-of-Waste?
[Destroying the Planet] farm flooding: climate change is breeding storms with heavier rainfall
The main cause of Bitcoin’s mammoth energy use can be boiled down to one thing: proof-of-work mining. Before we get into it, think of blockchains as decentralized ledgers powering its underlying cryptocurrency: the Bitcoin network can be regarded as a decentralized database that anyone is free to download and maintain — Bitcoin balances are merely entries to that database.
To write data (in other words, assign $BTC balances to an address) into this decentralized database, there needs to exist some kind of foolproof mechanism that governs this function (if not, people could just write $BTC to themselves at will). This mechanism must be free of human interference, such that there exists no room for opportunistic behaviour to skew incentives. To satisfy all the above criteria, Satoshi Nakamoto (aka the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin) came up with what we now know as proof-of-work.
In simplest terms, proof-of-work pits “miners” (a term referring to anyone maintaining the Bitcoin database) together into a “math competition”, where the fastest computer to solve the mathematical problem gets to write data into the database.
This competition occurs on every block time, meaning that for each block (the “row”) that gets appended into the blockchain (the “database”), there exists an “evaluation period” (the “block time”) in which the host of the math competition can adjust the difficulty level of questions on the next round based on how well or terrible the computers have performed on the previous round.
The target benchmark is 10 mins for Bitcoin, meaning that if a computer can solve the question below the 10-min mark, the difficulty will be adjusted upwards in proportion to how much faster the computer is relative to this 10-min mark (and vice versa).
[Bitcoin.com] competition drives proof-of-work’s race-to-the-bottom — miners acquire more and more powerful ASICs, which further exacerbates Bitcoin’s carbon footprint
Since people get rewarded in $BTC when their computers are the first ones to solve the math puzzle, they are incentivized to procure more and more powerful computers in a bid to get more $BTC, which in turn triggers the Bitcoin network to adjust its difficulty further up, which then spurs people to obtain even more powerful computers.
This race-to-the-bottom is essentially the root cause of Bitcoin’s huge carbon footprint. In theory, if people stop procuring more powerful computers in a quest to outcompete each other, then Bitcoin’s energy use can be brought down to the tiniest of levels. But this is wishful thinking at best: as long as there are outsized incentives to be won for a select economic actor over the others, then competition will always exist by default.
Bitcoin = Crypto; Crypto ≠ Bitcoin
[Master the Crypto] not an endorsement: Bitcoin is just one of the numerous cryptocurrencies out there…
Make no mistake, Bitcoin is by far the largest cryptocurrency by market cap. However, it is not the only cryptocurrency out there. In fact, there exists thousands of cryptocurrencies, each with their own consensus (proof-of-work is Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism). Critics and proponents of Bitcoin can go at it all day on whether Bitcoin’s consensus mechanism justifies its utility — but it is simply unfair to drag other cryptocurrencies into the fray, considering the fact that they are running on a completely different consensus mechanism than Bitcoin’s proof-of-work.
[Ethereum.org] not an endorsement: energy-efficient PoS Ethereum, compared to PoW Ethereum and Bitcoin
One such cryptocurrency is Ethereum, currently the second-largest by market cap. Ethereum is a smart contract compatible blockchain, meaning that unlike Bitcoin which can only do simple send/receive transactions, applications can be developed on top of Ethereum to do more complex computations such as swapping tokens, lending/borrowing, minting NFTs, and other kinds of applications that we are not exposed to yet.
Just like Bitcoin, Ethereum’s consensus mechanism is currently proof-of-work — however, the Ethereum community is of the opinion that this mechanism is unsustainable in terms of its energy use and potential scalability, and as such has committed to transition towards a more energy-efficient consensus alternative called proof-of-stake.
The key distinction of proof-of-stake with proof-of-work is that instead of having miners compete for blocks, the network assigns blocks to miners based on their number of staked $ETH. The bigger a miner’s $ETH stake out of the network’s total staked $ETH, then the miner will have a higher chance for the right to write the next block into the blockchain. The absence of “math competitions” to determine consensus means that proof-of-stake by default will be significantly more energy-efficient than proof-of-work.
[Fantom Foundation] not an endorsement: Fantom is fully operational, being both energy-efficient and smart contract compatible
Indeed, “The Merge” is still in the works at the time of this writing. However, there are still plenty of other environmentally friendly blockchain networks that are already fully operational.
One such example is Fantom, where it uses a consensus mechanism called Lachesis PoS in a bid to further scale the Fantom network even more than ETH2.0. To achieve this, instead of using a “traditional” blockchain data structure for its decentralized ledger, they employ what we call as a DAG (directed acyclic graphs).
[Solana.blog] not an endorsement: Solana just brought energy-efficiency to the next level, where a single Solana TX is comparable to the energy expended for a single Google search!
Another example of a scalable and energy-efficient cryptocurrency is Solana. They are highly touted as the world’s most performant blockchain, which is achieved through its so-called seven core innovations, spearheaded by its proprietary Proof of History PoS consensus mechanism.
[MetaCrunch] not an endorsement: Celo’s branding perfectly reflects its core values — to be carbon-negative
Heck, there is even a carbon-negative blockchain network (at least according to its transparency reports). Celo, a mobile-first blockchain network with Valora as its flagship product, achieves its carbon-negative goal through a combination of its already energy-efficient blockchain along with its “Carbon Offsetting Fund”, which basically sets aside a fraction of the rewards that is meant for Celo validators in favor of donating them to an organization that commits to using those assets for carbon offsetting projects.
No Size Fits All
It really doesn’t have to be one way or another. Pro-crypto doesn’t necessarily entail an anti-environment stance, nor that anti-crypto is pro-environment.
As such, no matter if you are a hardcore environmentalist with the belief that the most important consideration for a product or service is its carbon footprint irrespective of its utility, or a “decentralization maximalist” with the opinion that the superiority of Bitcoin’s proof-of-work renders its energy usage worth its weight in gold (this is an infamously contentious issue; for further reading: Blockworks’ take on proof-of-work vs. proof-of-stake), the plethora of cryptocurrencies ensures that there will exist communities that are aligned with your principles or the causes that you are advocating for.
In the world of decentralized communities and blockchain networks, a new and innovative trend is emerging – the gamification of community governance. This groundbreaking concept is transforming the way decisions are made, fostering engagement, and empowering participants in decentralized ecosystems.
The Challenge of Governance in Decentralized Communities
Decentralized communities, built on blockchain technology, often face the challenge of governance. These communities can consist of thousands, if not millions, of participants worldwide, all with their unique perspectives and interests. Deciding on network upgrades, protocol changes, and resource allocation can be a daunting task. Traditional methods of governance, such as voting and decision-making by a select few, may not fully address the complexity and diversity within these communities.
The Rise of Gamified Governance
Gamified governance introduces elements of competition, reward, and participation in the decision-making process. This approach leverages game mechanics and incentives to engage community members actively. Here’s how it works:
Tokens as Votes: Participants use tokens or cryptocurrency to cast their votes on various proposals and decisions. The more tokens one holds, the more influence they have.
Staking and Rewards: Users can “stake” their tokens to express their support for a particular decision. If the decision passes, they receive rewards or additional tokens.
NFT Governance: Some projects are experimenting with non-fungible tokens (NFTs) as governance tokens. Holding specific NFTs grants voting rights.
Prediction Markets: Gamified governance platforms often include prediction markets where users can speculate on the outcome of decisions.
Liquid Democracy: This model allows users to delegate their votes to trusted individuals, creating a fluid and dynamic decision-making process.
Benefits of Gamified Governance
Gamification of community governance offers several advantages:
Increased Participation: Gamification encourages more members to actively participate in the decision-making process.
Transparency: Decisions and their outcomes are recorded on the blockchain, ensuring transparency and accountability.
Rewarding Engagement: Participants are rewarded for their involvement, increasing community loyalty.
Incentive Alignment: Gamification aligns the interests of participants with the success of the network or community.
While gamified governance is a promising trend, it also comes with its set of challenges and considerations:
Token Distribution: Ensuring fair token distribution is critical to prevent centralization of power.
Sybil Attacks: Protecting against Sybil attacks (where one entity creates multiple fake accounts) is essential to maintain the integrity of the process.
Complexity: The gamified governance process can be complex, which may deter some participants.
Regulatory Concerns: Regulatory authorities may view token-based governance as a form of securities and subject to legal oversight.
Prominent Examples of Gamified Governance
Several blockchain projects and communities have already embraced gamified governance:
DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations): DAOs like Compound and Yearn Finance allow token holders to vote on proposals and manage decentralized funds.
DeFi Projects: Many decentralized finance projects employ gamified governance models, including AAVE and MakerDAO.
NFT Communities: Some NFT platforms use gamified governance to make decisions about platform improvements, art curation, and collaborations.
The Future of Gamified Governance
The gamification of community governance is set to play an increasingly significant role in decentralized ecosystems. As blockchain technology continues to evolve, innovative governance models that engage and empower participants will become more commonplace. Liquid democracy, prediction markets, and dynamic decision-making will redefine how communities govern themselves. In this gamified future, participation and engagement are not only encouraged but also rewarded, ensuring the continued success and growth of decentralized networks and communities.
