Jordan Hall is an early employee of mp3.com and later founded companies such as divex, Civium Project, and Game B, with 30 years of experience in the tech industry. He is a serial entrepreneur who has accumulated a deep understanding of collaboration through decades of continuous entrepreneurship. He has a unique perspective on how Web 3 can leverage more cooperation, reduce systemic risks, support public goods, and create a better world.
The guest enjoys discussing his way of thinking and likes to talk about context. As a reader who just wants answers, it can be hard to have the patience to listen to his lengthy reflections.
I like to take notes while listening, which is what I wrote when I first started listening to this episode of the podcast.
Later, I noted many timestamps, each followed by "I actually don't quite understand this part." Every time I see "speaker" in the Feishu notes, I want to shout out loud, let's just speak plainly instead of using "speaker." He really goes around in circles, and I have to keep thinking about what he is trying to express.
This is my first impression of Jordan: a bit verbose, and his speech is quite convoluted.
The process of organizing my thoughts was quite frustrating, but surprisingly, the whole painful experience didn't deter me. I even found this way of expression oddly endearing.
Then I heard why he wanted to create Game A (which should be a simulation game of social civilization). He actually wanted to use game simulations to find some answers. He wants to understand the essence of currency, why this unnatural, artificially created thing can last so long? How does currency operate? How does civilization function? What is the relationship between psychology, culture, and technology?
(In fact, the society we humans are in now is also a kind of large-scale simulation in a sense.)
I think this guy is pretty impressive; while others start businesses to make money, he does it to solve a problem that has troubled him for over a decade. Moreover, he has evolved from Game A to Game B, leveling up.
Then I listened to him discuss the issues of consciousness (conscious, unconscious) (I think this relates to emergence and free will), and he talked about Elon Musk.
It's interesting; he thinks Musk is very capable personally, but the achievements he has created have not propelled society to leap into another dimension. This is a way of pushing society forward through intensified competition. Taking blockchain as an example, everyone is designing how to increase TPS, but I think this intensification of competition does not solve the core issues and instead neglects problems on another dimension. It lacks a kind of wisdom that is good at discovery.
What is the wisdom of discovery?
The way Balancer's LBP resists front-running is a kind of wisdom of discovery that uses elementary school-level math like quadratic and cubic equations to solve the problem of key splitting.
Then he also talked about anti-competition. Personally, I think anti-competition is the highest ideological dimension of public goods. He believes that the ultimate social ideology is to use blockchain as a collaborative tool to leverage society's transition to an anti-competitive social form. Through tools, society can be free from competition and strife. Of course, achieving this is difficult, but there are already small concrete examples in society, such as converting physical books into PDFs and sharing them on the internet to achieve anti-competition. In the future, it may not only be the anti-competition of single items but will gradually evolve into anti-competition at the channel level, and ultimately perhaps at the level of capabilities and wisdom.
Of course, this is not an easy task. To prevent competition, one needs to think hard about abstracting the resources that everyone truly wants to compete for and then think hard about what kind of medium can allow everyone to have the opportunity to obtain this resource. This is a pursuit filled with goodwill.
Then, after I finished listening to the entire podcast and looked back at what I had written earlier, I replaced the word "guest" with "Jordan" throughout.
Jordan is someone who loves to explore why and hopes to reach the foundational layers of many things to understand what they are trying to express. Therefore, while listening to the podcast, many contents are hard to grasp, and the reason lies in the conflicts present. Some things that we take for granted are not so for Jordan; he digs deeper into them. This is years of thinking, a very unique perspective on problem-solving combined with profound contemplation, which often makes it hard to immediately understand what Jordan is trying to convey.
This also explains why many people in web3 are interested in complex sciences. It is a very crypto-native way of thinking. Crypto aims to solve grand propositions, but behind these grand issues are intricately connected aspects of society, even scaling down to each individual. It is not enough to solve a surface phenomenon or problem and call it a day; one needs to follow these threads down to the deepest depths.
What one might encounter along the way, whether one can truly dive to the deepest depths, whether one can return to the shore after diving, whether one can truly create some change, or even stir a ripple, no one knows. And even if one really finds that path, how many people are willing to take it?
In my view, this is a very difficult task, with every step being quite challenging. Even taking a step is hard because you don't know what lies ahead and how much resistance there is. Jordan said that if you want to change something, you need at least the same amount of force as that thing. This simple truth is known to anyone who has played on a seesaw. However, shifting the entire world into another dimension, the resistance of countless vested interests, and even the inertia of the exploited are enough to make one tremble. I don't know if it's because Jordan is an optimistic person or if it really is so, but Jordan believes that the collaborative power realized through blockchain can be leveraged.
This should be the most uplifting aspect of this podcast episode. Hearing this, you might feel that light can still shine through certain cracks.
While organizing these podcast contents, following these words, you seem to no longer be a listener but a witness, witnessing the birth of these ideas, witnessing the depth of thought, witnessing how ideas transform from one question into countless questions, ultimately forming everything. This is the charm of podcasts; they have a unique warmth.
Jordan is not a web3 entrepreneur; he is a game entrepreneur. But from his reasons for wanting to create this game, you can feel that he will inevitably encounter web3, converging on the same path.
This is a podcast worth listening to many times. There is actually a lot more content, and I have listened many times without fully grasping what Jordan wants to express. My summary (translation) is just from my personal perspective on understanding the podcast content.
Guest#
Jordan Hall is an early employee of mp3.com and later founded companies such as divex, Civium Project, and Game B, with 30 years of experience in the tech industry. He is a serial entrepreneur who has accumulated a deep understanding of collaboration through decades of continuous entrepreneurship. He has a unique perspective on how Web 3 can leverage more cooperation, reduce systemic risks, support public goods, and create a better world.
Jordan has been involved in capital, venture capital, and IPOs, and has also built connections with communities, which has sparked his interest in the more fundamental aspects of how currency operates. He believes that in the context of potential massive financial crises, resources should be allocated more effectively rather than through IPOs or venture capital. Financial crises have made the issue of currency more prominent; if one follows the old-fashioned methods of currency research, one can only glimpse the veil, while Jordan wants to explore what happened before the "first block" was created.
Jordan began accumulating his understanding of Bitcoin from Bitcoin Talk, where many discussions are interesting and contain unique insights into the underlying principles.
Game B is a game aimed at reducing the systemic risks of human nature, attempting to connect countless individuals in a more harmonious and sovereign way.
Jordan is dissatisfied with how money shapes people's choices and actions. Changing money at its core is key to changing the world.
Bounty for this episode: $225.00
Course representative: TiTi
Review: yihan
Typesetting: Pig
🗣️ Q&A#
Q: What do you hope to change through money? Or why did you create Game B? Are there any new discoveries about Game B recently?
J: Earlier, I mentioned the essence of currency; I want to understand why currency can persist. Digging deeper, how does currency operate? How does civilization function? What is the relationship between psychology, culture, and technology?
Peeling back layer by layer, the main question is: do you think the current situation needs to be changed? Or do you want to change the status quo? And you need to analyze where you want to go? Where are you currently? From a realistic perspective, what is the most likely achievable outcome?
Thinking about these questions from a foundational perspective ultimately led to the idea of Game A (simulating social civilization through games) forming in 2010. Yes, there was Game A before Game B. All civilizations are actually similar. Perhaps the forms of civilization are diverse, but they are essentially expressions of a series of underlying characteristics. Game A represents a social civilization with certain conservative characteristics.
Returning to the question of where we are, the development of civilization is actually nearing its end. When you try to solve this problem, you can observe that these issues are caused by a series of underlying dynamic phenomena, meaning that a series of superficial problems are caused by some underlying issues. If these underlying problems are not addressed, sooner or later, these problems will reappear.
In Game A, a series of fundamental characteristics lead to a series of dynamics, and these dynamics lead to a certain endgame. Are there other influencing factors? Game B starts to look for answers in reverse—what are these characteristics? After multiple experiments, around 2012, Game A inevitably and autonomously came to a halt.
Why is the evolution from Game A to Game B achievable? This question should be approached from the following two questions:
- What does the scenery of the new world look like? What are the new peaks? (What is the concrete beautiful blueprint that can be realized?)
- How can we cross the canyon to reach the other side? (How to achieve it?)
Q: Can you give a specific example? In the Game A system, how did disaster inevitably occur, leading to self-termination?
J: The Roman Empire is a great example. Here, the empire refers to a culture achieved through coercive means of integration or unification. There are many forms of coercive means; military force is one, and currency is another form of coercive means for cultural integration. A fundamental characteristic that drives the operation of Game A civilization is this. If the script of the empire continues, theoretically, anyone on this planet would be in trouble. You either become raw material, becoming someone else's lunch, or you need to play a similar game.
Today, it is precisely because there are conflicts between empires—the American Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Chinese Empire—that boundaries exist, allowing the world to be established.
But think about the deeper meaning contained within, such as the concept of coercive means. If there is a group that likes to use coercive force, their nature is to compete for resources. Suppose they are currently competing through force. The problem is, how far can this method of competition through force go?
We are in a kind of temporary equilibrium, formed by the ability of empire expansion, current technological capabilities, and the defensive capabilities of technology.
From a technological perspective, if any changes occur, the Nash equilibrium will be broken, and then armed forces may intervene, and society will begin to shift. This is the ultimate state of this dynamic.
If we move the clock forward, the last important stage before the final state is military. Armed forces actually imply many things. War accelerates technological development. If we are in a situation of escalating military competition, as long as any kind of conflict is introduced into this environment, that conflict will begin to spread like radiation until, at some future point, civilization comes to an end.
Let me add some thoughts about the environment. There are three types of environments: physical environment, culture, and individual inner world. These are actually three different levels. Introducing external factors into the environment is essentially introducing conflict into the environment. The game ultimately leads to destruction, and the forms of destruction corresponding to the three different levels of the environment are ecological destruction (which inevitably brings to mind the Maya Empire), civil war (cultural integration through war as a coercive means), and personal psychological collapse (unable to maintain normal operation internally and unable to interact with the external world). Since individuals are always in relationships, different individuals influence each other, thereby affecting the entire environment; thus, the ways of failure can take many forms.
Q: What do you hope to change through money? Or why did you create Game B? Are there any new discoveries about Game B recently?
J: The connection is very close. I believe we are at the tail end of an important juncture, and the consequences are quite severe. How can we continue to move forward? What can we use as a lever to continue moving forward? I want to return to what we previously discussed about currency. This is actually the best time to talk about currency. I think it is important that we need to be conscious of currency. Until recently, almost everyone has started to become aware of currency, including those within the currency system, such as the Fed. Currency is a function designed by the universe that we must participate in, just like rain falls from the sky, but we do not see it as something intentionally designed. Of course, if you are among those participating in crypto, you may have a different understanding.
It is clear that humans designed currency (the crypto guy's perception). Its terminology can be referred to as tokenomics. And it has become a norm that we must follow in our real lives. We should not only think about how to design tokenomics but rather how to design tokenomics more ingeniously. I call it alchemy—consciously designing different types of social technology systems that guide groups to make choices.
If you look at my previous discussions about games and history, many of the incentives are actually unconscious, and it is these unconscious incentives that lead to the end. But if we start to become conscious, if we can understand what the problems behind these issues represent and make serious decisions, that is a completely different situation. This is the essence of Game B: realizing that we can design our own blueprint.
Q: It sounds like the agency of these issues is an important turning point for human nature, allowing people to become more conscious. But not everyone works at the Fed; not everyone can be an agent of these issues or work in institutions that can touch these issues. Perhaps we now have open-source programmable currency that allows us to program our values into our currency, but what does this consciousness really refer to? How can we create a more Game B system?
J: Two points:
- Everyone has agency.
- You can be aware that you have the possibility to think about how to design. These are two different modes; the first mode is more important. We need agents to design our landscapes. The second mode is, what is this? (What is the landscape/blueprint of your future? What does it look like?) How should we approach this? What role does tokenomics play in the entire design?
Game A is a passive participation, while Game B is active. Game B begins to realize that one can participate in the design. I think the decisive moment for web 3 is when individuals and groups in web 3 start to realize what is cool and when they can materialize these things.
We should not just blindly explore how to obtain more tokens, right? The pursuit of acquiring more tokens is a Game A pursuit and a regression of our noble aspirations. What are we really doing? The essence of the shift (migration to the next world) is to obtain more tokens? Everyone here should know that technology is accelerating in a curve; if you look at the later stages of neoliberalism, you should know that some things are hard to correct, and there are many inertias (so the earlier you correct, the less resistance you will face during the correction). Moreover, there are various forces in the world pulling in different directions.
If you want to correct, you need at least as much force, or even more. It is somewhat like a metaphor for post-globalization. Global neoliberalism has been developing since the 20th century; it has certain power and sedimentation. If you want to change or overthrow it, you need at least equal power. The power of technology, especially technology powered by blockchain, has this power. The collaborative power embedded in technology is something that the current reality cannot achieve. The current technological environment (or the role of technology) is more like a fax machine, merely transferring the real world into the digital world. This is not much different from bureaucracies using email; it is just digitized. But fully digitizing the real world is powerful; the power it contains might be at a level of 10:100, which is enough to push things forward.
Our current situation has not yet achieved the complete digitization of the real world. If we truly have the ability to create something that can fully transfer the real world into the digital world, that would be a leap, as these infrastructures themselves hide tremendous power. More importantly, and what web 3 focuses on, is how to design more consciously. You can think about what we are designing these digital things for, what our purpose is, what we want to achieve, and what its value should be (rather than simply replicating the real world).
The ultimate goal of Web 3 is not to create more money; creating more money is not even a blurred image of the ultimate goal. The final form should be to design an infrastructure that allows people to collaborate together. The energy of the leap hidden here far exceeds the level of pure military power. If this is a consciously designed system, then it marks a new era, a Game B level era.
Q: When you look at web3, are people really doing the right things? It seems to be filled with NFTs? What are some of your observations on this? How can we encourage builders to adopt more Game B thinking?
J: The vast majority are actually in an unconscious mode. Or in other words, they are just innovatively exploring. From a messy exploration to the token level, then exploring DeFi, it feels like just having touched the ground and then starting to develop upwards. This is an inevitable process, and there is nothing surprising about it.
What I find hopeful is that the development process is actually moving towards exploring deeper, more fundamental characteristics. This gives a sense of hope for the future. Taking NFTs (non-fungible tokens) as an example, the development of NFTs is very interesting; it has largely grown driven by the unconscious.
Naming this behavior contains a lot. We are backwards in our thinking fundamentally. We distinguish tokens into fungible tokens and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). But what I want to say is that it should be the other way around.
In a healthy, thoughtful universe, the first impression of seeing a token should be an intuitive reaction of indivisibility. I think this might be because the characteristic of divisibility is not commonly used. What does this mean? The following example might seem strange, but I think it can express what I want to convey to some extent.
If you look at the etymology of the word token (by the way, I think a lot can be gleaned from naming. For example, Ethereum sounds very extraterrestrial; it is a term that only insiders understand). Similarly, token should be considered one of the words with some sacred meaning. It is a very Anglo-Saxon, super dramatic word; thinking of this word brings to mind a shaman sending something very sacred and symbolic into the real world. Humans name anything they can perceive; it is as if this is human nature. We see a tree and name it a tree, we see an oak and name it an oak.
We produce some sounds, sounds that have no direct connection to the real-world tree, yet we associate the two. Naming something should be very sacred, right? But naming it token seems not good at all; it could have had a better name that captures its essence.
This is completely unreasonable. Moreover, it is unique; if we talk about attributes, it should belong to the non-fungible category. Oak is a reference and is a unique reference, yet this unique word is used to refer to the essence of a thing. Using notion to refer to mind is good, very essential, very Platonic. The same goes for the word token. We identify its unique characteristics in the universe and apply this unique label—token—in our daily communication.
Uniqueness and non-fungibility are the same. Just like an oak and a poplar are different, their essence is non-fungible.
Fungibility is a very strange thing. Fungibility is like I need to pretend they are the same; I need to shift from qualitative mode to quantitative mode. For example, when I start asking how many oaks there are, it actually represents the beginning of ignoring the uniqueness of each oak.
Every entity in the universe is unique, and nothing can replace it. Only when one wants to maximize something does one convert it from non-fungible to fungible. Context is an individual under infinite wholeness, endowed with uniqueness through the token; this is more essential and more Game B.
Making things more fungible is a foundational characteristic of Game A, which is somewhat superficial. But I am not trying to express that this is bad; it is a very natural thing. This is human nature. A cyclical process, a thermodynamic entropy cycle. Indeed, we are exploring NFTs. But we are actually playing under the logic of fungibility, which means we are trying to monetize.
On the other hand, because it is more foundational, we can only see very essential things, which is somewhat hasty, isn't it? Because of resonance, we are attracted. Resonance is beautiful. Resonance is not driven by essence but ultimately leads to essence. Through resonance, we are rediscovering ourselves and awakening ourselves. Many people say this is actually a kind of medieval thinking, a mythical way of thinking, which has a very fitting relationship with "existence."
This is good, isn't it? So I propose, why don't we enter a conscious state? Why can't we think a bit clearer? We should think more seriously about what we are really doing! We have this ability, and it will make us more efficient.
Anti-competition & Public Goods
Moreover, this is actually related to public goods. There are distinctions between competitive, non-competitive, and anti-competitive goods. Public goods belong to the non-competitive or anti-competitive category. For example, let's take a book as an example. (The book is titled "War in the Age of Intelligent Machines" by Manuel DeLanda.)
This book, this physical object, is competitive because I have this book and you do not. If I spill coffee on it or burn it, it no longer exists. This experiment has two main characteristics: one is that unless the book is physically transferred, it cannot be shared; the other is that once it disappears, it is gone from this world forever.
But if I view it as a public good, then its competitiveness disappears. For example, if I put it in a library, then everyone has the opportunity to access it. This object can fully utilize its availability.
Anti-competition is another dimension. If the content of the book is put into a PDF, that content can be widely shared. Every person in the world can see this book without any restrictions.
If we place ourselves in the characteristics of anti-competition and build something that can collaboratively counter competition, that would be a completely different trajectory.
Why do I give this example? This is the concept of consciousness, which needs to be strategically laid out from the foundational level and requires sufficient thought (to find what is truly needed and through what medium it can be de-competitive).
If it is just a book, then the content of the book is the essence. I want to understand what the book is trying to convey. The physical entity of the book is not what I care about. But when I think about what content the book wants to convey, I realize there are even more foundational things. It makes me think about what the medium of thought actually is. It's like, I can give you a fish, I can teach you how to fish, I can teach you how to self-learn fishing.
The important thing is meta-learning. When I am in a situation, I can connect with that situation and learn the characteristics of that situation (summarized as grasping the core points of the current environment); this is true sovereignty.
Collaboration
Competition can make one person superior to another, but the power of collaboration surpasses that of any individual. Elon Musk is a typical example; with SpaceX, Tesla, etc., he likes to suddenly appear in a field, start researching the characteristics of that field, and identify some very essential things. This can bring about some changes, but they are not revolutionary; they do not lead to evolution. His designs do not belong to the realm of consciousness. He is still at the level of defeating competitors.
Individual participation in collaboration has certain limitations. In the early stages, the power of collaboration is certainly lower than that of individuals. Because collaboration takes time to become familiar with each other. But if we learn to cooperate with each other, the power of collaboration will far exceed that of individuals.
The wisdom of collaboration is composed of numerous nodes, each of which can present its maximum capability, and in collaboration, it can also present its maximum capability (these are two characteristics). With these two characteristics, the greatest possibilities can be realized. This is what Game B ultimately seeks to explore. This is the final form of this world.
What we aim for is not to make individuals wiser in collective cooperation. Rather, under this collective, each individual participating in Game B can live according to their own values. This is a more sovereign, relaxed, expressive, and effective way of living. This is the best way to counter the risks of competition.
Returning to the topic of Web 3, the current issue is not theoretical but practical. The theory has reached this point; the question is how to realize it. How can we create a collaborative framework that can practice these principles? Allowing individuals to slide into another track? I believe Web 3 is gradually becoming more conscious from an exploration of NFTs that lacks awareness. Web 3 has begun to think about how we should create. You know, asking the right questions is key.
How to get everyone on board is also crucial. This is a question about learning. We need to help people learn how to navigate themselves in the new environment. Therefore, the question of how to learn is not simply a UI issue. We need to teach everyone to identify new needs in the new world.
Q: This reminds me of the theory: education is actually anti-fragile. If more people understand the importance of public goods and can discuss them, it actually builds a certain degree of anti-fragility for public goods in the world. But once we finish teaching people how to learn, what else can we focus on?
J: Two dimensions. We want to help people liberate themselves from two aspects: first, to prevent them from wasting attention, rescuing them from it (passively wasting attention, such as being forced to do work they dislike); second, to rescue people from foolishly wasting attention. For example, spending countless hours scrolling on Twitter is a very foolish waste of attention.
How to use your attention. We want to create an environment where I want to find individuals who can leverage attention most easily; Vitalik's attention should have a greater leverage effect than that of ordinary individuals. Furthermore, I want to work with them in an educational development project so that their attention can be directed more effectively to this place.
Practicing Anti-competition
Punk 6529's Twitter is an example of anti-competition. He is actually thinking about very deep issues and expressing them in a very precise and clear way, with good intentions. Expressing in this way on a public platform to those who want to listen seriously is a high-level leverage. It can be called the public goods of public goods.
Q: Is there anything I haven't asked but you want to express?
J: I have been in this field for a long time. I am now in my fifties. I entered the tech field when I was eight or nine years old, observing the cyclical operation of different things. My deep feeling is sadness. We have missed countless opportunities (for the cyberpunk form I could have achieved personally).
Super strange, until recently, p.Mark has also started to pay attention to these things. He said that the current cyberpunk is different from the one I experienced when I was young. I said, I hear your voice. The cyberpunk of my youth is different from what is developing now. What I want to say is:
let's not do that this time. Like, let's do that. Let's dial in.
We are currently moving in a direction of division, but we can stop this direction of development right here. If we can pull back, that would be a wonderful thing.
No matter how many meaningless experiences we have gone through, the most important thing is to wait until we embrace the beautiful day. If achieving it is the ultimate goal for each of us.
📝 Postscript#
The essence of this podcast episode should be the new utopian imagination constructed by Jordan—a collaborative machine that achieves anti-competition through the power of blockchain technology. Why does it feel exciting? Because this is a further liberation based on the existing vision of web 3. One of the goals of web 3 is to redefine a more reasonable distribution mechanism, to redefine the rules. Anti-competition liberates people from the struggle for distribution.
For a book, the content of the book rather than the physical entity of the book is the more essential thing. But when I think about what content the book wants to convey, I realize there are even more foundational things. It makes me think about what the medium of thought actually is. It's like, I can give you a fish, I can teach you how to fish, I can teach you how to self-learn fishing. This is true sovereignty.
There are many other thought-provoking contents in the podcast. For example,
The empire refers to a culture achieved through coercive means of integration or unification.
The ultimate end of coercive culture is extinction.
Here, "empire" is one of the underlying characteristics abstracted from civilization in Game A, and Game A demonstrates to us that "the ultimate end of coercive culture is extinction" through its civilization's self-termination.
For example, a very important word that runs through the entire podcast—conscious:
Currency is like a function designed by the universe that we must participate in, just like rain falls from the sky, but we do not see it as something intentionally designed. We need to be conscious of currency.
This is the first time the podcast mentions consciousness. One meaning of consciousness is whether we ignore the counterintuitive aspects of daily life and whether we are aware of things we take for granted. For example, whether we realize that currency is not innate.
Naming is also at this level.
Words are largely lagging behind thought.
We see an apple and say this is an apple; we see an oak and say this is an oak, but we rarely ask why it is named this way. Why is naming important? Naming is reference; it is the unique reference of that thing, and this reference should be the most essential because naming relates to every aspect of our lives. The most fundamental layers of our speech, writing, and thinking are composed of countless names. Countless names emerge in fragmented or complete forms, forming thought, text, and language. Naming is the first layer of manifestation/consciousness of the emotions of everything around us before it becomes language.
Jordan's view on the naming of token is as follows:
In a healthy, thoughtful universe, the first impression of seeing a token should be an intuitive reaction of indivisibility.
"Healthy and thoughtful," this phrase is worth pondering. The implication of this sentence is "unhealthy and unthoughtful." But this is an inevitable result, isn't it? If the foundational naming is not essential, or even contrary to feeling, then this actually represents a kind of disconnection and conflict. Just like someone holding something engraved in blue but writing in red. Such disconnection, combined with the habitual acceptance of disconnection and lack of thought, will long-term damage a person's ability to think. In other words, we may be in an unhealthy environment for a long time without realizing it.
Jordan discusses naming when talking about NFTs. He believes the development of NFTs is an unconscious movement towards deeper directions. He actually agrees with NFTs. On the surface, NFTs seem very illogical, and their prices appear unreasonable, but NFTs are actually a form of unconscious correction. More accurately, it should be a subconscious correction. This means that the unconscious behind it is actually subconscious.
NFTs have effectively separated the characteristics of tokens; perhaps it is not separation but rather that the subconscious has perceived the indivisibility of tokens and thus separated or reclaimed that indivisibility. The conscious level feels the vague indivisibility but does not realize that this division is actually caused by the mismatch between essence and reference.
Current NFTs are still in a stage of not realizing their reasons for existence; they are merely a subconscious eruption. "We are exploring NFTs, but we are actually playing under the logic of fungibility, which means we are trying to monetize." When the foundational reasons begin to emerge and the true reasons for existence are found, perhaps NFTs will usher in a new era, a new era that can reverse the development of blockchain.
This is also the second layer of consciousness, needing to clearly know where you are going and to materialize the future blueprint. It is certainly not an overnight process; it is a slow exploration process. But during the exploration, pay more attention to the next layer, ask questions, ask the right questions, and maintain an open mind towards seemingly unreasonable occurrences; this may be the subconscious prompting us.
We are continuously following the latest developments of the GreenPill crypto thought. Among them, the podcast "GreenPill" is hosted by Kevin Owocki himself and is also a sub-column of Bankless Youtube. Continuously tracking and co-learning from the "GreenPill" podcast is also keeping up with the latest frontiers of the renewable crypto thought.
Podcast link for this episode
Subscribe to the podcast 丨https://availableon.com/greenpill
The Network State website 丨https://thenetworkstate.com/ (including books and podcast resources)
Discussion with Chapman on Evolutionary DAO
Roaming Public Goods with Vitalik
Discussing Sybil Resistance with Upala Founder Petr Porobov 丨 Green Pill Podcast #36
As a Workstream project initiated in the Uncommons community, "GreenPill Podcast Co-learning" adopts a co-creation format, encouraging more people to get involved. Specifically, we are recruiting the following roles:
Course Representative
Listen to the podcast, produce notes after listening, and publish them on the Uncommons community media account.
What we want is not translation! But expansion and summarization based on content understanding.
Share your notes and understanding in the co-learning session.
Bounty will be distributed based on podcast duration, at 3 USDT per minute.
Typesetter
Typeset based on the content produced by the course representative and column information.
15 USDT per article.
If you are interested in the above roles, please sign up on our Dework page:
https://app.dework.xyz/greenpill
If you are interested in our Workstream, please copy and open our Notion page:
https://greenpillcn.notion.site/GreenPill-62cbfc461cb44fd0a55f62a8104928bc
Our related output content will continue to be published on the Uncommons community's relevant media platforms, so please stay tuned.
Uncommons is a public sphere where a collective of Commons Builders explores Crypto Thoughts together.
Uncommons is a public welfare community spontaneously organized by Web3 enthusiasts, social builders, and internet citizens dedicated to public goods construction, formerly known as the GreenPill Chinese community.
Notion community collaboration document: https://uncommons.notion.site
Telegram face-to-face digital garden: https://t.me/theuncommons
Twitter Global Publicity: https://twitter.com/Un__commons