Robin Sloan, in the conclusion to the first installment of his “media lab” community, explores the minting of NFTs to register art ownership on a blockchain. He loses cash, learns a new API and has fun. Ultimately, what makes it work for him is not the technology but the acts of language that make this a shared reality for the participants:
Again, I’ll remind you — this is so so crucial — when you buy CryptoPunk #2890, you are NOT buying an image of a little blue dude, as depicted above. Rather, you’re buying an entry in a ledger that associates your identity — yours alone — with CryptoPunk #2890, an image of a little blue dude. That’s it. That’s the deal.
This is really 100% social; it’s about conjuring a dream of ownership, of value. The CryptoPunks were, and are, a magic spell; I mean that in a basically literal sense.
What I still don't get – or perhaps I'm being purposefully obtuse, this is still young, unevolved technology with many possible futures – is how building startups, incompatible "standards" and competing art marketplaces around this really is different from what we have now. Wasn't this supposed to be a "protocols not platforms" party? I cannot help but agree with Sloan here:
It feels like the digital utopians (I have been one; I might be still) learn this lesson over and over: that accursed “centralization” often coincides with accessibility, usability, innovation, good design — the list goes on
Sloan's was the singular piece that made me see fun, value and yes, magic, in this area. The blockchain is a tool for telling stories. Only, the people those stories are for need the maths, the formulas, the networks and, ironically, the hefty real world price to believe in them.
Visit link →