A group of international scholars discussed the current obstacles to NFT progress.
Luke Hespanhol: With the hype of NFT reaching its peak in 221, we see many individuals and communities taking advantage of this opportunity to improve their understanding of their art and culture. This includes some aboriginal groups and the so-called global south. Is there a risk of buying into a vague ecosystem that provides quick benefits in the short term, but ultimately strengthens the colonial structure?
Soraya Kouadri Mostéfaoui and Victoria Neumann: As Mustafa Ali said, "The computer phenomenon itself is inherent colonialism, because it is based on colonialism and continues to embody all aspects of colonialism. NFTs is no exception, and it certainly strengthens the legacy of colonial structure (social stratum).
marginalized groups may seek to use NFT because they are either excluded from or exploited by traditional markets. This is understandable because they want to earn a living and income for themselves. However, the economic model behind the blockchain and NFTs does not allow the exploitative structure of capitalism to be completely changed. Instead, they reinforced these structures.
Gustavo Romano: I see that only a few people can make a quick profit. NFTs, like social networks, helps to build a new capitalist pyramid in which a few influencers rely on many followers. Just like the dynamics of any pyramid, the later you join, the less likely you are to make a profit, thus feeding the pyramid and verifying its dynamics.
Eduardo navas: NFTS is the latest stage of dematerialization of economic exchange. The problem of blockchain can be traced back to the early barter economy. Who can execute and supervise its transactions? Blockchain technology may be decentralized at present, but the people who develop it as a form of exchange are part of or produced from the ruling class, so they have the appropriate knowledge to destroy it. They may have seemingly subversive methods, but in the end, blockchain technology and NFTs will be absorbed by the established system.
at such a moment, when major technological changes take effect, hopefully, people in a weak position can find ways to participate. This is conducive to cultural change and provides opportunities for the development of a more stable life and even wealth. However, it is meaningless if those who can join the war allow the pre-existing slavery paradigm to continue. No matter which paradigm appears, there will be a group of different groups fighting each other. When we look at human history, this is the essence of social network-the struggle still exists, but the participants will be different and more diverse. Groups will not simply be defined by race and nationality, but will follow a more complicated ideological division. This is already happening.
LH: Defenders of blockchain technology believe that it has potential benefits: autonomy, decentralization, democratic decision-making and scarcity-driven value generation. However, it currently relies on unregulated cryptocurrency transactions, opaque technology platforms, and computing power that is costly to the environment. How can we reconcile these different aspects?
EN: These aspects are irreconcilable. The problem is that humans continue to operate on the basis of one-way extraction of anything they claim to be property, including natural resources. But one-way extraction relies on the abstract premise of increasing the infinite potential of personal wealth, which further promotes greed. People need to go beyond monetary economics and think about environmental economics.
when countries decide to participate in the global economy and try to balance their social contracts with those of other groups through economic exchange, the tension between different cultures in the world arises. Blockchain is not a realistic means to destroy this tension, because it needs a lot of carbon footprint to prove electronic transactions.
GR: although the blockchain can inspire us to establish tools to promote decentralization and levelization, it is established to escape state supervision in an elegant way, not to pursue egalitarian social goals.
SKM & VN: The political value of distributed ledger technology (DLT) comes from Cyberpunk and cryptography, as well as liberal and anarchist communities. Take anonymity and decentralization as an example, which is a way to avoid interference and monitoring by the state and financial institutions. Although Web3 community and DAO (decentralized autonomous organization) may adopt democratic decision-making and equal words, in practice, it is difficult for them to implement it because of unequal participation. This inevitably leads to the re-introduction of hierarchy (class), which is beneficial to smaller active developers or those who hold the most tokens, thus producing more class-based elitism.
LH: NFTs gives value to intangible artifacts, otherwise they may be "right-saved" and freely shared. This is a typical colonial gesture, reaffirming the earliest formation of racial capitalism. How can we solve the problem of digital property relations?
GR: Tokenization, a new form, is closely related to the act or illusion of possession. Although it is almost absurd to talk about "possession" in the digital field, it does raise the issue of possession in the physical world. Why is it more important to give value to paper money than to tokens? Today, everything can be symbolized, and everything can gain value as a symbol. A century ago, Duchamp's ready-made products helped to criticize the fetishism of the art market and the compulsion of collection and possession. Few works are actually hosted on the blockchain, so whether you have purchased NFT or not, I suggest you "right-click and save".
EN: As material property becomes scarce, information property can be created, but it must become scarce in order to have any value. NFTs makes this scarcity possible by claiming that only some digital files are authentic. Those who buy such documents hope that the value of this intangible or information commodity can be maintained, or it is better to increase over time. Therefore, this is about property and about claimed territory.
However, although this issue can be framed according to colonialism, it is actually about global capitalism, which is a combination of different forms of territorialization. Asia and the Middle East are also participants in this process, and they have their own colonial history. Therefore, they cannot be essentially transformed into a single type of colonial ideology. On the contrary, today's colonial ideology is mixed. As a global culture, we are now dealing with the problems of territorialization (demanding an object), de-territorialization (preparing an object for a new purpose) and re-territorialization (guiding a de-territorialized object to a new purpose).
LH: In my opinion, the combination of NFTs and DeFi is very problematic. First of all, not all cultural assets can be traded financially, if they can. Do you think it is possible to decouple NFTs from trade?
SKM and VN: Turning anything that can be controlled, traded and capitalized into an asset is the foundation of NFT's technological science capitalism. Capitalization itself is a colonial practice, which uproots objects, practices and experiences from their embedded environment, not only endows goods with use value, but also takes investment and return as key objectives, so it is also exchange value.
EN: When a person's online activities are valuable, all cultural assets can be traded in finance. The urgent task should be to provide people with the necessary education and let them have the right of agency in the information economy, in which their data are collected and sold without knowing it.
Guy Debord once said: "Spectacles are the capital accumulated to become images", and art has started the trend of dematerialization. Today, however, we see that capital has taken on a symbolic digital image or NFT in itself by taking advantage of the digital tsunami. For Debord, "situation" is a means to escape from the logic of wonders, while the invisibility of events is a way to oppose the market-oriented objects. But now the market has gone beyond the object and turned to providing collectible moments for sale.
LH: How can we create value for the creators and provide them with real, not just aesthetic, autonomy? What fair and culturally sensitive mechanisms can we use?
GR: Today's blockchain technology is institutionalized distrust, based on fear of being cheated and fear of others. The question is, can we imagine and build a system based on positive relationships? For example, smart contracts, which are based on the mechanism of ensuring the improvement of assets under the condition of realizing collective interests, can not only prevent fraud, but also promote general welfare. Unfortunately, this is quite incompatible with the infinite accumulation of capitalist logic. In this logic, the goal is always to "live better" rather than "live well". This is a concept deeply rooted in Andean culture, which refers to the harmonious balance between the interests of individuals, communities and their natural environment.
EN: Aesthetics is more meaningful than people realize, and it is the real driving force of the global economy. For example, when you look at the stock market, most "retail" stockbrokers buy and sell not the actual value of a company in terms of its balance sheet and growth potential, but the story-the myth that makes the company a common people. This makes the global stock market more volatile.
We tend to think that aesthetics is mainly related to visual art or general art, but aesthetics means sensory perception. If people are aware of the process of wealth production, aesthetic autonomy can become what you call real autonomy. Therefore, artists need to know the exact process behind their own brand creation, not only to maintain it-if they can achieve economic autonomy-but also to ensure that they will not damage their creative motivation after achieving economic stability.
SKM & VN: We believe that a mechanism like NFT should work with relevant groups, consider them and consider them from their perspective. In fact, this mechanism should amplify the previously unheard-of voices of marginalized communities, so as to incorporate their values and needs into developing technologies, instead of expanding the legacy of Eurocentric colonialism by continuing to suppress unheard-of voices.
Some blockchain communities are now paying content creators in a more transparent way. For example, 3 Speak-based on Hive blockchain protocol-video content creators get paid by clicking and liking, but there is no underlying advertising algorithm. Hive has developed applications for the entire Web3 ecosystem, including games and NFT markets, as well as social media websites and video platforms.
Similar blockchain initiatives promote tokenized communities, which adopt the liberal principles of ownership and transaction as the basis of social interaction in digital space. Like and browse, as well as personal donations, and then contribute income, all people (including the audience) can see, and pay in encrypted currency. According to the cognitive model, this may become a problem for the environment and miners, but at least it promotes the dialogue on income model and profit sharing, and enhances the confidence of content creators who demand fair sharing. These dialogues need to be expanded from the perspective of colonialism.
LH: A truly decentralized system is more inclined to achieve * * * knowledge than supervision. Therefore, if an ecosystem is colonized by exploiters, the knowledge achieved may actually benefit only a few big players with huge voting rights. Similarly, without supervision, nothing can prevent cultural assets from being stolen and listed as non-financial assets in many markets. How can we ensure the accountability for cultural abuse?
EN: Even decentralized systems tend to be colonized, and the inducement for the emergence of the Internet is the Cold War. It was the national security of the United States that led to the establishment of ARPANET. In its early days, the Internet was a space to be filled. But once this is done, restrictions and new contracts are introduced. This process is still going on, but it really needs supervision. Supervision is not the same as colonial ideology. It is possible to conduct inclusive supervision so that everyone has a fair chance to participate. However, to do this, we need to really change the way we think about the economy other than money.
SKM & VN: Even outside the blockchain, we are not responsible for cultural abuse. Regulation is still an open issue, and we are currently operating in a paradox, because both regulation and non-regulation serve the same interest groups, and marginalized voices are rarely heard by regulators or policy makers, which will only expand colonial practices.
LH: The history of colonialism is full of examples of direct exploitation and "good intentions" causing great damage. Given this colonial background, how do you assess the risks of new technologies such as NFTs?
GR: If we continue to move towards the tokenized meta-universe vortex-in this surreal world, the danger of becoming a digital avatar will come from not being tokenized, and being excluded from the surreal world is the simulacrum that no longer exists in it: reality.
SKM & VN: Oppression and discrimination are everywhere, and what changes are involved. A young artist in Europe may use NFTs with the same motivation, but an artist from the global south. For the former, the stakes are high and the risks are low, while for the latter, the stakes are low and the risks are high. Therefore, the degree of oppression and discrimination is inconsistent, which strengthens the colonial phenomenon. Every new technology will prolong the colonial era by exploiting those who depend on it if it does not actively guide the anti-colonial practice.
EN: Colonialism is an ideology of power and a filter for deploying power. NFTs and metaverse are both extensions of this power ideology. In order to get rid of it, we must understand how colonialism remoulds itself in new forms. If we don't do this, we will always treat the symptoms rather than the root cause.
LH: Is the attempt to decolonize blockchain, NFTs and Web3 just an act of replacing another architecture with a neo-colonial one?
SKM and VN: Although Web3 is still emerging, it is difficult to predict how the negotiations on decentralized infrastructure will be enabled or dismantled.