This is the first of a multipart series providing a high-level overview of the CCR (Creator Collector Reciprocity) concept. Layers one through four are focused on how creators can collaborate on crafting on-chain artifacts as a collective, specifically as a particular flavor of web3 community known as a DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization). These layers are supported by tools designed to facilitate collective collaboration, poised to empower the DAO to disseminate content as a unified entity. More than simply a shared treasury or governance layer wrapping otherwise disparate individuals, we imagine a DAO of creators maturing to sense, learn, and publish as one voice.
However, there are numerous uncertainties that arise, particularly when the creative output is brought on-chain. We have many unanswered questions regarding the specific data that needs to be captured within the artifact produced by the creators, the services we will incorporate or need to build, how these decisions will interface on-chain intellectual property rights, the formation parameters of the Collector DAO, and the minutiae regarding sales, editions, and other minting considerations. Our goal is to explore this design space, to generate more questions than answers, and pose these observations to our peers who are currently hacking on some new primitives that might attend to these needs.
Layer One: DUCE
Layer one is concerned with DUCEs (Decentralized Universal Comment Emissions), which we believe represents information at its most basic or atomic level. A DUCE is the smallest unit of information submitted to a repository. We are particularly concerned with a repository stewarded by a DAO of relatively like-minded creators. This hypothetical DAO consists of creators who have come together with the explicit intention of coordinating around a specific set of interests.
The decision regarding who these individuals are and the themes they organize around typically occurs off-chain or maybe even offline. We're assuming this process has already been completed, whether through a platform like Yeeter or by summoning a DAO of any type. In this scenario, the DAO acts as the proprietor and steward of the shared repository. Here we might bookmark ideas of access, as there might be various levels of permissions regarding who can submit a DUCE.
We have questions about what a DUCE actually is. Simply put, a DUCE is any kind of data, from text comments to a URL serving as a reference or a code snippet. It could point towards any form of media, such as a picture or a video. We've explored the potential problems with a DUCE consisting of a URL that points to content residing elsewhere. Ideally, the content itself, whether it be text, image, or PDF of a book, should be uploaded directly to the DAO repository or reside on-chain, rather than just being a link out.
A DUCE should be composed of immutable content and not subject to change outside the control of the repository. Therefore, the comment doesn't necessarily need to be to something within the repository itself; it can lead to a permanent resource hosted elsewhere. This approach aligns with technologies like Arweave or IPFS, which employ a robust pinning system to ensure permanence.
Creators are constantly amassing their own source material. At this juncture, it's pertinent to introduce the notion of a personal DUCE repository and a shared DUCE repository. Upon joining a Collector DAO, one essentially contributes a portion of their personal repository to the collective repository relevant to a specific topic. However, they do not relinquish control over their entire personal collection that they’ve meticulously curated. A DAO may also choose to start from scratch.
Concerns regarding the permissioned nature of the repository arise, especially concerning sensitive subject matter, emphasizing the significance of privacy at every layer of consideration. It's crucial for a community of creators to decide whether the intellectual property or cultural assets within the repository should be accessible to all or restricted solely to the specific creators or members of the Creator DAO. Once published, they may choose to make the derived works available to a broader audience, not limited to the original creators. Clear on-chain roles will be key at this stage.
An additional point at layer one concerns the implications if a member of the Creator DAO decides to leave abruptly ("rage quits" the DAO). This raises questions about their representation in the repository, whether they take their contribution of intellectual property with them, or if leaving equates to abandoning their stake in the collaboration. At one point, we also delved into the potential issues surrounding the redundancy of intellectual property across different Creator DAO communities if they share members, which could be either a minor inconvenience or a significant problem.[1] These concerns highlight some of the complex challenges that need to be addressed.
As we delve into the complexities of licensing, the situation becomes more challenging. When multiple Creator DAOs hold the IP rights to content, determining which DAO should benefit from the licensing proves to be a tricky problem. This complexity arises when attempting to navigate the shared ownership of IP, but that represents a different set of challenges beyond the scope of this discussion.
We now face the looming question of what constitutes a DUCE. Moving beyond the broad definition that a DUCE can be any kind of data, it becomes clear that the content of a DUCE is accompanied by specific metadata aimed at attributing the Creator member to their submission. Clear attribution ensures that if a member submits a DUCE, their identity is attached to it. Similarly, if two members collaborate on a DUCE, we would expect both of their identities would be associated. However, this raises a question: should multiple entities co-submit DUCEs, or does this complicate the system? Of course, it’s technically feasible for one DUCE to be associated with two addresses. We might initially consider the scenario where members work on separate DUCEs and then merge them, serving as a collective reference to each individual's efforts, potentially adding weight to the contribution. The principle that one DUCE should correspond to one contributor or vice versa introduces a streamlined approach.
Additionally, DUCEs possess metadata elements for tagging and categorization, facilitating natural language searches and linking between ideas anticipating the interactions of layer two. There might be value in categorical tags indicating the type of media or additional metadata for sorting. The primary goal is to prepare for features anticipated in layer two, including curation, organizational searching, and discovery. This suggests that users may not fully anticipate how DUCEs link together, allowing for organic discovery, novelty, and emergence.
A significant unresolved issue is whether DUCEs need to be on-chain. Despite extensive discussion from numerous vantages, this remains an open question, indicating the need for further deliberation to reach a concrete conclusion. There are significant trade-offs to consider regarding the “proof of DUCE” ownership. Without an on-chain presence, there's no timestamp to prove ownership, which is crucial for avoiding disputes over credit for someone else's work. To maintain credibility and ownership clarity, being on-chain is preferable. However, this introduces user experience (UX) complications. Our strategy might entail keeping everything off-chain until publication, at which point all relevant data is locked on-chain, ensuring permanence through its on-chain status. We are drawing inspiration from Nostr, which manages a complex web of content through metadata and employs a kind ID system to allow for different data types and references among content chunks.
Regarding the aspect of discoverability, the question arises whether it is inherent to the DUCE or an external addition. The tagging associated with any DUCE facilitates its curation, scaffolding, and integration into the composition of succeeding layers. However, the distinction between tagging being an integral part of the DUCE or an external overlay remains unclear from a technical standpoint.
If tagging is internal to the DUCE, everyone must interpret the DUCE identically. Conversely, if tagging is external, it allows for multiple interpretations based on the perspective or lens through which the DUCE is viewed. For example, a DUCE concerning Friedrich Hayek could be tagged with political philosophy or economics, depending on the context of the discussion. This flexibility enables the DUCE to be categorized differently in various contexts without altering its inherent content. The decision between allowing post-publication tagging, which effectively modifies the DUCE, or adding tags as references, thereby introducing an additional layer without changing the DUCE itself, circles back to the theme of immutability and the dynamics of data management.
Our initial impulse is to support a pluriversal approach, allowing creators the freedom to determine how they view and curate content, fostering a diverse range of perspectives rather than conforming to a standardized method. However, playing devil's advocate, we also find the idea of a DAO of creators debating towards a unified method intriguing. This scenario might necessitate DAO governance to make such decisions. The question arises: should we dictate this choice, or can we offer options for users to decide for themselves? This dilemma extends to the mechanics of tagging. We’re primarily considering the placement of the tag: is it part of the object (object-oriented) or does it exist as an external node in a graph database setup? For example, an economist's definition of Friedrich Hayek could be an independent entity, contributing to a broader graph of interconnected information. The core question is whether the tag is intrinsic to the object or an external descriptor.
Layer Two: Curation
Layer two builds on the premise that multiple creators, who are members of the Creator DAO, are submitting DUCEs into the shared repository. These DUCEs feature various forms of tagging or sorting data points. The goal at this stage is for creators to begin grouping the atomic bits into collections or curations, bundling them together like molecules.
An individual creator seeks to view DUCEs in an easily comprehensible format. We are curious about presenting these in the form of a spatialized graph, although a more traditional nested information architecture (files within folders, and so on) could also serve this purpose. This phase involves considering different display possibilities. The underlying motivation for creators is to identify thematic relationships. This could stem from an initial intention they bring to the repository, searching for specific connections, or they may approach the task without a predefined goal, hoping to discover something emergent.
The process involves selecting DUCEs and grouping them into a batch. The purpose behind curating a batch of DUCEs is to present it to peers, aiming to garner attention for the identified series of connections. This act proposes the significance of these connections, suggesting a move towards a more explicit or concrete next step. Thus, layer two is fundamentally about exploring these curation dynamics.
We encounter a similar challenge here as in layer one as we question the types of DUCEs to include. To some degree, curation revolves around clustering DUCEs in a somewhat Darwinian search for the most coherent or fit cluster to advance. But unlike the idea of Darwinian fitness[2] we envision a scenario of multiple parallel thematic organism developments. Members of the Creator DAO can identify various themes and form numerous curations that might conflict with each other, including overlapping DUCEs. Importantly, the DUCEs are not mutually exclusive, and one members’ curations do not negate another. While the notion that “the best curation wins” or is deemed most viable is intriguing, our inclination is that if a curation is relatively good - by whatever subjective position held by the creators - it should be advanced to the next step. Some curations naturally rise to prominence while others may not make it to the scaffolding phase due to lack of compelling attributes. For instance, certain clusters might not survive because they fail to engage or resonate, despite someone finding them interesting.
For example, as a member of the Creator DAO, I'm interested in writing about effective accelerationism and wish to link to a DUCE on Friedrich Hayek, tagged as a political philosopher, using specific quotes to bolster the notion that effective accelerationism is a concept worthy of our attention is such and such a way. Concurrently, harboring some skepticism about effective accelerationism, I'm drawn to exploring the counterpoint of decelerationism at the same time, proposing another Friedrich Hayek DUCE to balance the discussion. This results in the Friedrich Hayek DUCE being included in both curations, alongside distinct non-overlapping DUCEs that support these divergent viewpoints.
After creating these curations independently, without any prior dialogue, I present them as curations to my peers, complete with bibliographies or lists of the specific DUCEs referenced therein. I engage other members of the Creator DAO, pitching my ideas and seeking feedback. For instance, some may decide to support the effective accelerationism path but opt out of the decelerationism route. This peer validation indicates a distribution of attention across concepts and rouses member interest in preparation to act.
The curation of DUCEs resembles a brainstorming phase. Essentially, we gather various items related to a topic and toss them into a metaphorical bucket. This stage involves loosely grabbing items and possibly making some preliminary connections, but the approach is quite freeform. Once we feel we've brainstormed sufficiently, we take a step back to assess the connections among the gathered items.
Imagine both of us working on a project and deciding to create, say, three clusters each. For instance, I might form one cluster around Austrian economics, pulling in insights from Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and others. Perhaps I also develop a cluster on accelerationism and another on Italian Futurism. You, on the other hand, might create three distinct clusters of your own. As we progress, we discover overlaps between our clusters. For example, your accelerationism cluster might intersect with my Austrian economics and Italian Futurism cluster, prompting questions like, "What did the Austrians have to say about acceleration?" or “Are there fascist aesthetic histories underpinning accelerationist economic theories?” Consequently, these overlapping clusters gain traction and move forward to the scaffolding phase, while a separate cluster you've developed—perhaps on decelerationism—also advances as a unique contribution.
In this scenario, the curations that have not been selected for advancement at this stage are temporarily set aside.[3] They remain potential sources of inspiration or material for future work but are not immediately pursued further. This process might lead to the creation of new curation clusters based on feedback or revisiting previously overlooked clusters in follow-up articles. Essentially, this method outlines how coordination and negotiation between contributors determine which projects or themes are developed further.
We have explored tools like Obsidian and LogSeq in their offerings of a spatialized graph view and features that enable users to select items and group them into batches. Varying zoom levels within the knowledge graph allows for a macro view of clusters and the ability to zoom in for a closer look at specific clusters. Such functionality would be crucial on the UI side to manage the visibility of different levels within the stack, considering these curated groups as DUCEs themselves. This approach aims to reduce clutter by distinguishing between the atomic DUCEs and the more complex 'molecule' DUCEs.
An important aspect yet to be discussed is the notion that the act of curation itself will also result in the creation of a DUCE. Additionally, we'd like to consider whether our curation approach should lean more towards negotiated curations or survival-based curations. It seems beneficial to explore joint curation, where we might individually curate before identifying overlaps and proceeding with a collaborative curation. This process would involve negotiating which aspects to include or exclude, essentially conducting another round of curation with a shared focus. This raises the question of whether all curations should inherently be of this collaborative nature, facilitating ongoing negotiation among contributors. The features needed might vary depending on whether the curation is being conducted solo or collaboratively by two or more people. Ideally, the starting point would include simple and user-friendly selection and curation features that accommodate both individual and group efforts seamlessly.
We might highlight another important aspect: the curator does not necessarily have to be the original DUCE creator. This distinction allows for a division of responsibilities, where one might act as a researcher, contributing DUCEs to the collective pool, while another, more akin to an editor, takes on the role of curating these inputs. Such a setup offers flexibility in roles, underscoring the fluidity within the process whereby individuals may adopt different roles at different times, facilitating a dynamic and collaborative environment.
Layer Three: Scaffolding
Layer three acts as a critical intermediary phase bridging the gap between the curation activities of layer two and the composition phase of layer four, which we refer to as scaffolding. In scaffolding, there appear to be two primary tasks: editing the curations and prioritizing or ordering them. Editing involves scrutinizing the curated content to identify gaps, such as the need for additional references to bridge concepts like Friedrich Hayek and political philosophy. This process not only highlights missing elements but also involves trimming superfluous DUCEs to narrow the focus, especially if certain topics initially considered relevant are later deemed out of scope. Prioritization, or ordering, requires tools and a user interface that facilitates the sequence of discussion topics and overall structure, including the beginning, ending, and length of the work, introducing formal constraints on the collaboration.
Initially, we have explored using DAOhaus' Signal app as a tool for this layer, drawn to its seamless integration with Moloch DAOs via the DAOhaus interface. The user flow involves members submitting curations to a TCR (token curated registry), with all participants, assuming equal shares within the Creator DAO, voting with equal weight on the content's ordering. This process doesn't necessitate unanimous agreement on the outcomes; rather, its purpose is to surface emergent priorities through collective decision-making.
The scaffolding phase serves to document our organizational activities, making what is typically an invisible process more visible. More importantly, it allows for the tracking of included DUCEs, assessing their relevance and noting omissions along with the rationale, thus enriching the metadata associated with each atomic, molecular, and organismic DUCE.
We still harbor some skepticism regarding this step. It introduces an experimental approach to document outlining, and we’re uncertain about its effectiveness in contributing to the composition phase in layer four. This uncertainty raises a couple of questions: first, whether this mechanism effectively achieves its intended purpose; and second, the degree of freedom it leaves the creators responsible for composition. We see the value in incorporating some form of voting, given that the Creator DAO aims to present a unified voice. The ability to endorse or disregard certain elements through voting seems beneficial.
Our hesitance extends to another feature set that seems somewhat tangential. Our concern is that overly expansive curations in layer two might overwhelm the process, making it challenging to discern a clear path forward and inhibiting action. Thus, we envision layer three as a rigorous and discerning phase that addresses this friction, crucial for shaping DUCEs into a coherent structure that others can easily understand and engage with creatively.
Regarding the integration of AI, which we hesitantly mention, our proposition is not for AI to generate content from the DUCEs. Instead, we suggest AI could assist by organizing the information from the DUCEs and the outcomes of the layer three signal proposal, forming the foundation for layer four. This preliminary step would result in a pre-ordered document, streamlining the transition into the writing phase. The primary goal of layer three is to transform a multitude of ideas, akin to an array of sticky notes on a whiteboard, into a structured first draft. This process aims to expedite and enhance the efficiency of transitioning from concept to composition, reducing the need for administrative skills and allowing creators to focus on the nuances of writing as swiftly as possible. If certain tasks prove challenging or time-consuming, AI can be utilized to facilitate these aspects, acting more as a tool at the discretion of the contributors rather than a built-in component of the process. This approach maintains the focus on human-led decision-making while providing support where necessary.
This phase could be seen as an iterative process beginning with high-level clustering. This is followed by a negotiation phase where clusters may merge or interact, leading to a subsequent trimming phase. There might even be a need to circle back to layer one for additional DUCE submissions if more content is required in certain areas. Essentially, the creative process remains within layer two until a member deems it ready for a TCR vote, transitioning it from a loose curation to a linear architecture. The scaffolded curations thus serve to prioritize the most critical points and valuable information, potentially sidelining less impactful ideas that, while part of the ideation, don't significantly influence the final output.
We'd like to emphasize the possibility of encountering failure at any layer, leading to a return to layer one, where members start anew by submitting DUCEs. Specifically, layer three represents a critical inflection point. If an idea possesses sufficient strength and consensus, it will advance to become an artifact. If not—due to lack of agreement, insufficient content, or other reasons—the outcome of that signal becomes another DUCE representing the result of this dead-end in the decision tree. This DUCE is then reintegrated into the repository, serving as a valuable reference for future efforts or as a lesson on what approaches may not be successful. Essentially, even in failure, there's valuable information to be gleaned, turning the experience into a constructive artifact.
A similar evaluative phase is necessary between the composition of layer four and minting concerns of layer five. This phase acts as a crucial quality and velocity filter to prevent the simultaneous release of multiple compositions, which could inadvertently compete for attention within the same temporal window. There should be a mechanism—possibly policy-driven or decided by a vote—to determine the sequence of publication. This process ensures that compositions are not only queued for release but also curated to maintain both quality and strategic timing.
Layer Four: Composition
Layer four builds on the foundational work of the previous layers, where atomic units of DUCEs are combined through curation, then edited and structured, resulting in an outlined text piece. While this process could theoretically apply to any form of collaborative media, it seems most pragmatic to concentrate on producing a text article for our initial endeavor. The starting point for layer four involves the somewhat ordered DUCEs and the associated Creator DAO members whose aim is to write, compose, and execute the article.
An important clarification here is that contribution to the earlier phases does not guarantee direct involvement composing the final artifact during layer four, although those previous contributions will still be accounted for in the DUCE metadata. Conversely, a creator member who hasn't participated in the first three layers might join in layer four, possibly as a writer, editor, consultant, or in another capacity. This raises questions about tracking contributions to ensure they are acknowledged in the metadata of the final artifact.
For instance, if a member contributes as a writer, filling gaps between DUCEs, that contribution would become a DUCE tied to their wallet at this layer. Similarly, if someone’s role is limited to editing for grammar, punctuation, or sentence structure, their contributions, too, should be recognized, albeit with potentially lesser weight. If the original DUCE submitter is no longer involved, consulting with a specialist and incorporating their input should be formalized into a unique DUCE and added to the article's metadata. The culmination of this process is a polished written artifact, ready for publication, possibly enriched with illustrations or images, each contributing member’s role duly noted in the metadata.
It’s conceivable that all the DUCEs contributing to the artifact might serve to populate an index. Drawing inspiration from tools that generate bibliographies from footnotes could prove useful, perhaps offering a more digestible format than a lengthy text block at an article’s end, such as a linked index for interested readers. It is imperative that each DUCE adequately documents its references, ensuring that the data each contributes to the artifact is accurately tracked. This ensures the final product reflects a structured hierarchy of all contributing DUCEs. Part of the curation phase involves refining the content to ensure that a high-quality bibliography can be generated.
The matter of document versioning and sidebar commenting also prompts reflection. Whether these elements should be integrated into the document remains a point of discussion. One consideration that arises is whether the composition phase involves the creation of multiple DUCEs, encompassing both the writing and any additional elements like imagery. We hypothesize an increased production of DUCEs during this phase, culminating in a singular, final organismic DUCE (the final artifact) that acts as a comprehensive reference for all contributions. This prompts further reflection on the distribution of credit and potential royalties for contributions to the artifact, introducing complex economic considerations we will explore in Part Two of this work. Moreover, the criteria for recognition as a contributor come into play; for instance, does a single comment qualify someone as a contributor, or is a more substantial interaction required?
Despite the apparent simplicity of writing the article in layer four, the technicalities of how this phase will operate pose significant challenges. Layer four may resemble an on-chain WYSIWYG editor, yet the specifics of its implementation are beyond the scope of this discussion. It raises important considerations about the immutability of DUCEs. Specifically, this prompts the question of when to version a DUCE—to distinguish between an initial draft and subsequent modifications, which would be added as new DUCEs that supersede the original. Alternatively, are DUCEs immutable until they reach the on-chain minting stage, at which point they become permanently fixed?
The composition phase aims to consolidate all essential data crucial for drafting the final artifact for minting. It's imperative to capture the entirety of the effort that contributes to the composition process, as it determines the distribution of royalties among creators, solidifying the royalty split based on the documented contributions. This approach ensures that all participants are fairly recognized and compensated for their involvement in creating the final product. We will later see how this fits into a larger reciprocal economic exchange with collectors and the wider public.
Layer Five and Beyond
Layer five focuses on a rather specific yet crucial set of considerations around the minting of the on-chain artifact that significantly influence the subsequent phases. Layer five initiates with a completed draft, crafted by members of the Creator DAO, and revolves around the process of minting this artifact as an NFT. Discussing layer five inherently evokes the contexts of layers six and seven, though they remain distinct stages, as we will see.
A pivotal inquiry at this juncture is the selection of the NFT standard and the underlying rationale, essentially boiling down to the specific utilities required by the NFT. This consideration tethers to later questions about transferring DAO member shares, token-gated access to content, and similar functionalities. Essentially, layer five prompts deliberation on necessary parameters, the edition in which the NFT is minted—be it a unique edition, limited number, unlimited, time-boxed mint, etc.—and how these choices reflect on the establishment of a Collector DAO, which is the focus of layer six. These decisions aim to foster a reciprocal relationship between creators and collectors, touching on aspects of scarcity, stewardship of the artifact or its intellectual property license, and necessitating some form of contractual agreement between the Creator and Collector DAOs. Such an agreement might be formalized through a smart contract, possibly incorporating an escrow mechanism, to ensure transparency and prevent potential disputes.
Layer five also presupposes a degree of exclusivity in the creator-collector relationship, with the minting process potentially being restricted to whitelisted members of the Collector DAO. Our attention begins to shift towards layer six, particularly concerning the destination of the minted artifacts. The provisional strategy entails distributing the first artifact to the Creator DAO's treasury, the second to the Collector DAO's treasury, and reserving discussions for the destination of the third artifact for layer seven. In essence, layer five embodies the fundamental considerations of what is minted and how, laying the groundwork for subsequent deliberations and actions.
The primary question centers on whether the focus of collection is the artifact itself or if the NFT serves as a representation of the collectors' intellectual property, or perhaps both. From one perspective, this stage could introduce the concept of a template NFT, acting as the progenitor, with subsequent decisions regarding the minting of collectible NFTs derived from it. This template could remain under the perpetual ownership of the Creator DAO, functioning as a license or certificate symbolizing the artifact. Then, negotiations could determine the specific form of the actual mint, whether it adheres to the proposed three-NFT model or adopts an alternative minting approach—be it an open edition or another format. This step is distinct from the process of tracking royalties, which would be attributed back to the original certificate for monitoring purposes.
A critical concern involves identifying the standard used for tracking all related activities. Minting in three editions potentially complicates the integrity of the intellectual property by fractionalizing it, a concept challenging to fully grasp. This situation raises numerous questions, primarily focused on two aspects: tracking licensing and royalties, and maintaining flexibility to adapt the minting scheme for market fit, acknowledging that our initial approach will certainly require iterative adjustments. Additionally, the context greatly influences the minting strategy. For instance, a journalism-focused Creator DAO may prefer open editions to facilitate broad access and collection by readers, contrasting with a Collector DAO oriented towards limited edition art, where exclusivity and rarity of a unique artwork become paramount.
We prefer the possibility of enabling creators and collectors, bound in community dialogue, to determine their preferred approach according to their local needs. Opting for a singular NFT leans towards the traditional model emphasizing rarity, scarcity, and the distinct value and cultural prestige associated with possessing that unique item. Conversely, an unlimited edition model offers a more accessible approach, focusing on broad public access and distribution rather than the exclusive stewardship of a rare artifact. A limited but finite edition introduces complex, somewhat uncharted questions regarding intellectual property, value, and price discovery, which we expect to delve deeper into with the governance and economic schema discussions in the second installment of this research, forthcoming.
For layer five, providing various options from the outset is prudent, given our acknowledgment that achieving a “correct” method is unlikely. Permitting multiple methods is driven by the anticipation of reciprocal exchange, wherein collectors should perceive a return on value to encourage ongoing creation. If this exchange fails to incentivize continued creative output, it falls short of its goal. Collectors' motivations can be somewhat nebulous, often driven by a mix of cultural and financial values, typically blending both. Hence, the formation of collector communities may vary based on these divergent incentives.
At one juncture, we considered the feasibility of establishing multiple collector communities for a single Creator DAO or conversely, numerous creator communities for various Collector DAOs. This notion seems to extend beyond a straightforward reciprocal relationship, veering towards a form of pluralistic competition. Reciprocity does not necessarily imply a binary, closed system. Instead, the possibility exists for multiple Creator DAOs to engage in reciprocal relationships with multiple Collector DAOs, and vice versa, opening the door to a more interconnected and dynamic ecosystem of exchange. Layer five is crucial for establishing these reciprocal relationships.
At this point we will pause and resume this conversation in the next article detailing layers five, six, and seven of the CCR stack. We recognize the complexity anticipated in layer six, encompassing diverse social, cultural, and economic dynamics that warrant thorough exploration. The concerns of minting and the dynamics of how the Creator DAO’s artifact will be distributed to the newly formed Collector DAO will determine the constraints of layer seven, concerned with the thresholds of engagement with the broader public. Our still highly speculative layer eight may serve a broader context for economic theories and the overarching ideologies motivating the activities of our purpose-driven decentralized autonomous communities, presenting yet another dimension of complexity. Thus, let's pause here for now.
Footnotes:
[1] This might be an argument for pushing DUCEs on-chain earlier than later, the community might gain ownership of the IP with the minting of this DUCE, it would be time stamped to avoid disputes over ownership.
[2] We don't necessarily associate Darwinian fitness with a “winner-takes-all” position, but in a more statistical manner. The colloquial understanding of Darwinian fitness as synonymous with "survival of the fittest," ie natural selection, implying only those individuals best adapted will survive, is what we are responding to here, although the details are certainly beyond the scope of our conversation in this article. There's a rabbit hole to explore regarding Darwin's original conception of "fitness," conceived as an organism's capacity to integrate into their contextual environment, to fit in and to be well fitted, and the appropriation of this term to be applied towards a sociological bias towards economic competition by Herbert Spencer, among others.
[3] This leads us to ruminate about the lifecycle - or morality - of DUCEs. Perhaps they are “permanent,” thus live forever, and consequently cannot be removed from the repository, or perhaps they age in a way to become less prominent in the repo. We might consider how DUCEs in various stages of development - for example, curation DUCEs versus atomic DUCEs - might mature or decay in distinct ways according to member attention.
This research has been made possible by the vital support of DAOhaus.
