Two Players: Crypto (Finance) & Open Source (Platforms)
The rise of cryptocurrency, sparked by Bitcoin’s introduction in 2009, has fundamentally altered the financial sphere. However, Bitcoin’s inception begs the question: why was it developed? The answer, quite simply, is freedom. People inherently desire the liberty to make choices and learn from their errors. Therefore, if the adage “who controls the money controls the world” holds true, then cryptocurrency becomes a crucial pillar in any society that values the safeguarding of human rights.
Crypto, in tandem with resources like open-source software, contributes to the creation of platforms that protect our freedom. Yet, are these tools sufficient? Despite crypto’s many advantages, it often intimidates newcomers due to the traditional monetary systems that portray it as perilous and unpredictable. If they can’t incite fear, they aim to undermine crypto, turning it into nothing more than an extension of their existing currencies. This contradicts the original objective of crypto: to provide increased choice, privacy, and, ultimately, freedom.
Simultaneously, while open-source software stands as a robust promoter of freedom, it consistently struggles to safeguard it effectively. On its own, it typically lacks the driving force needed to gain mass acceptance and adapt effectively to market and political changes. These influential sectors’ dynamics frequently eclipse the open-source movement, limiting its potential to significantly contribute to freedom preservation.
Although cryptocurrency and open-source software are key players in the promotion of freedom, their effectiveness is constrained when acting independently. This leads us to introduce a third crucial element: generativity.
Player Three: Generativity (Content)
generativity – the ability of a technology platform or technology ecosystem to create, generate or produce new output, structure or behavior without input from the originator of the system.
It would seem that one thing is almost always universally true when we try to make decentralized systems to accomplish the goal of censorship resistance: once a system garners enough usage to become useful, it’s then covertly derailed (as we’re seeing with the crypto-institution partnerships left right and centet) or outright attacked.
A decentralized system hyperfocuses on distributing load between actors, letting fall to the wayside the idea that we should simultaneously empower each actor to be as impactful as possible. If everyone can create content in defiance of the ruling classes, they are more likely to run into the issue of having no choice but to abdicate.
This, I think, is part of the agorist playbook, which appears to be what concepts such as lunarpunk appear to follow. We are not doing anything exceptionally transformational or novel here. We are simply focusing on adding the extra metric that not only should a system be distributed among the widest amount of actors, it should also empower all actors to the greatest extent possible to create and disseminate content.
Increase Generativity
To increase generativity, a focus on making platforms more composable from top to bottom would seem to be the simple path. Simple being hard to execute, easy to understand the goal: users must be able to build, rebuild, and fundamentally transform the ecosystem’s pieces to fit their needs. Some examples of ecosystems with varying degrees of generativity are:
- Node, and to a wider extent the whole Web and JS
- Unity (with the asset store)
- Roblox
- Minecraft (with mods)
Multiplayer games especially have some level of generativity. For example, most of the content from an MMO comes from the interactions and backdrop of the impact that other players have on your experience. This is very much intended by developers (and sometimes there are unintended effects), which sums up to a wholistic and satisfying product.
One should create a platform/ecosystem with the focus and idea that it should give life to exponential generative behavior.
Seize the means of production
Users can create content and disseminate it on a decentralized and composable platform, but they need a force multiplier. AI is probably the best tool to take us from two pillars (crypto, open source) to three (crypto, open source, generative).
[insert redwood image here]
Sequoia is optimistic about the future of AI in society, but we believe they are not optimistic enough. AI will begin to automate more and more content to an ever increasing degree, each step along the way requiring less and less help from people. However, early on, it is a force multiplier.
For example, whereas previously there was a low number of digital artists capable of making of quality art for commercial use, there is now a far larger pool of artists that are leveraging AI to create. This means that the power of creating beautiful artwork is now in the hands of evermore people who can now afford the lowered market rate. Better art means better advertising and even better content in products. More products from individual players in the market selling more is the best way to resist censorship.
Because at the end of the day, if there’s always people defying tyrants openly, the tyrants and their draconian demands become that much more weak.
AI can write, it can make images, it can make voice, and the list goes on… and it will only get longer.
Individual empowerment is key
Thus, we can conclude that to achieve the full effect of the intent behind crypto and open source software, we need to add generativity into the mix. Without that, at worst, we are constantly leaving a massive attack vector wide open, at best, the projects that we hope would secure the world never quite will.
* all you need is crypto, open source, and generativity.