Round 2 is complete and PaperclipDAO has obtained a Cryptopunk and some Meebit to boot! We acquired CryptoPunk #3744 (long known as the “Paperclip Punk”) and a portion of a Dissected Meebit from Calvin Liu who gets a 1/5 SE Earthen Concept Art Card and 400 $CLIP in return. Calvin, welcome to PaperclipDAO! 🖇
We weighed several factors in making a final decision on which trade to accept. We care about more than just the economic value of a trade; we value the culture, story, and journey of the NFT as well. In Round 1, we picked the future. But the past always has a way of coming back around… And the 2 (ok 1.02) historic LarvaLabs NFTs we acquired bridge the past to the future beautifully.
This decision wasn’t easy; we received incredible offers and, as in Round 1, were sad to part with all the memorable NFTs that we couldn’t accept. Check out the full Round 2 offer thread to see all the amazing offers.
We weighed several factors in making a final decision on which trade to accept. We care about more than just the economic value of a trade; we value the culture, story, and journey of the NFT as well. We also had to make a hard call about whether to honor the past or push towards the future. Our final poll after hours of discussion was a dead heat:
It wasn’t easy, but we ultimately decided to go with a trade that highlighted the future of NFTs.
In 2005, blogger Kyle MacDonald started with a paperclip and traded it for a pen, the first in an incredible series of trades that ended with him trading for a house. Items he traded for along the way include a hand-sculpted doorknob, a snowmobile, a year’s rent in Phoenix, and an afternoon with musician Alice Cooper.
It’s an amazing story and even an archetypal one---an old Buddhist folk tale tells of a man who traded from a single piece of straw until he had a rice field. The Legend of Zelda’s “trade up” quests took inspiration from this classic story, as have others.
With the incredible diversity of NFTs available today a similarly magical tale is possible. So let’s create it. Come trade with us and let’s tell the story of some amazing NFTs along the way.
You might know this nice fable recounted by David Foster Wallace in a famous commencement address:
There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”
When you first read this, you might think the point of the story is that the young fish are basically idiots who don’t understand something obvious. So maybe, here in an essay proclaiming to be about NFTs, it might seem like we are setting the stage for a lesson like “lots of people don’t know what NFTs are even though it’s simple: NFTs are just ____________.”
Public Goods Problems and Coordination Problems describe some of the most fundamental and important challenges we face both in Web3 and the wider world. While they are related concepts, they are theoretically distinct. Is this a distinction without a difference? In this note we explore why game theorists and even behavioral economists (like one of your co-authors) make such a distinction. We will describe what the difference is and why it might matter.
Let’s begin with a simple example:
Suppose you’re at a concert and everyone is comfortably sitting down and enjoying the performance. Suddenly people several rows in front of you start standing up to get a better view, which makes everyone behind them need to stand. Now, while you’re still comfortable in your seat, you can’t see anything. So you give up and stand too.
The First Industrial Revolution (“IR 1”) is the famous one, occurring a little before the year 1800. It connected people with railroads and steamships and yet, despite its fame, it brought almost no growth:
Look how flat the curve is before ~1850. That curve is a measure our ability to do more with less, to meet our human needs without simply forcing everyone to work harder. And
so it's interesting that IR 1 didn't really improve our lot, at least not for decades and decades after it occurred. What happened?
Let's observe that the curve actually changes with the appearance of a wave of major inventions that had quite a different character. Broadly speaking, we can say that whereas IR 1 brought us together with connecting inventions like the steam engine, the second wave had great livability innovations in areas like heating, sanitation, electric lights, elevators, motion pictures, etc.
The first Zero-Knowledge Analysis NFT was just auctioned off using the SplitStream mechanism. This NFT was from Harry Crane and Ryan Martin's independent data analysis of Planck's test of Seth's Appetite Theory. Half of the funds were then Split to the citations with one of those cited works (so far) splitting further. This is the SplitStream!
SplitStreamees, claim your funds here:
We have proposed a novel model for funding open innovation called the SplitStream. In addition to describing the model, we are also testing it live on a piece of open innovation in progress. Specifically we are auctioning off an NFT of an Independent Data Analysis from our test of Seth's Appetite Theory. This was conducted in part using a novel cryptographic method for open science called "Zero-Knowledge Data Analysis."
The two professors of statistics who ran the independent data analysis, Harry Crane and Ryan Martin, have produced an elegant violin plot of the results to be auctioned off. You can see (and bid on!) this auction directly below this paragraph, but you are welcome to keep reading beyond if you'd like to better understand the SplitStream and, thus, where the proceeds will be going.
Believe it or not, humanity is completely capable of ignoring a $1,000,000,000,000 bill sitting in plain sight. It happened in 1747, when James Lind ran a controlled scientific study — maybe the first ever — and discovered that citrus fruits cured scurvy.
In Lind’s day, scurvy killed more British sailors than "shipwreck, storms, all other diseases, and enemy action combined”. Which is to say that Lind's cure was not just going to save countless lives; it was an incomparably powerful military technology. The stakes couldn't have been higher. And yet, despite having been proven with the most advanced scientific methods the world had ever seen, it was promptly lost for many decades after.