There is a precedent for the upcoming White House-led heavy hand in technology direction and influence. In 1997, President Clinton recognized the importance of Internet commerce as an emerging arena and appointed Ira Magaziner as the e-commerce czar. Magaziner drafted the famous manifesto, The Framework for Global Electronic Commerce which set the wheels in motion for a swift adoption of e-commerce and the ensuing US global leadership in the era of Internet Commerce. The notable tenets of this manifesto included a “do no harm” mindset, i.e. no new regulation to impede e-commerce’s progress. The other noteworthy part was the passage of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, enacting a three-year moratorium on new or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce, in addition to US-led coordination with 28 countries also to promise not to tax e-commerce. Finally, letting the private sector lead was another important tenet of this framework.

As an aside, I met Ira Magaziner once, as he hobnobbed with the industry in the ‘97-’98 period. At that time, I was the chairman of CommerceNet Canada, and he was attending our annual global event in Palm Springs. 

Today, the US needs a similar manifesto or blueprint to re-spark the role of cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies. 

What would be my advice to David Sacks as he embarks on a job position that will have consequential repercussions on the US and global crypto industry? 

First, we must go back to rekindle and re-assert the original vision of the blockchain because we were distracted in the last 3 years by regulatory headwinds and scams that hijacked the blockchain’s first principles of decentralized empowerment, peer-to-peer transactions, self-custody, programmable money, frictionless digital asset movements, decentralized applications, digital identity, and token-based business models, just to name a few.

Specifically, as a starting point (and via this manifesto), we need the antidote version of the White House Executive Order on Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets that set the wheels in motion 3 years ago and gave carte blanche to several governmental agencies to bash, slow down, or kill crypto, each in their own way. It was clear then, that US Policy on Cryptocurrency Is Lopsided: It is Solely Focused on Mitigating Risks while Suffocating Innovation, Leadership and Growth.

I anticipate David’s visible work to be more prescriptive, more detailed and more strategic, leading to less room for misinterpretation by the various governmental agencies.

It should encourage and emphasize mandatory education about the first principles of blockchain technology and its many potential applications, beyond just enabling efficient digital money transfers or trading cryptocurrencies. 

The priorities of the new crypto direction could be organized into three parts:

1. Clarification of Regulation

2. Support for US Industry Leadership

3. Encouraging Government Adoption 

Clarification of Regulation

Paul Atkins, the incoming SEC Chairman is already known to be pro-crypto and is not expected to follow the foolish paths of his predecessor. However, his direction should be ascertained and communicated from the top down because it affects the variety of agencies and departments that also play a role by being either enablers, or detractors. 

The two remaining pro-crypto commissioners (Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda) will have a lot to say because they also have had the experience of surviving the Gensler regime, dissented on many related issues while suggesting several new ideas.

We need this Manifesto for Crypto Technology to emphasize opportunity, without undue excess of caution to the point of choking it. It will be good to prescribe guardrails, as long as they are visible and well articulated.

For example, enforcing standards for disclosures is expected. Currently, token-based projects have been lackadaisical in this area, but we must raise the bar. 

In general, the Manifesto should emphasize innovation, exploration, and experimentation to be prioritized over extreme caution and avoidance of risks.

Digital Assets should be positioned as the next frontier for the Financial Services Industry. Just as the US capital markets are strongest around the world, we should let them embrace digital assets to continue their leadership in this new asset class.

If all goes well including the SEC and CFTC do their part, Congress will only need to pass new regulations in just a few areas where regulatory agencies don’t have the authority to make those changes. There is no need for 81+ Bills. A handful will suffice, especially to fill gaps.

Finally, encouraging standards is another area that could be within the scope of this new direction because technical or procedural standards are one of the best lubricants for adoption.

US Industry Leadership

First, crypto-related companies that were founded in the US and fled in the past 3 years must be allowed to return, flourish, and grow without fear of regulatory backlash. The SEC should drop the lawsuits that were distracting to many of these companies, including the ones that decided to remain in the United States and fight the SEC at great costs.

The new direction should encourage firms to get established and grow in the US, without fears.  

Efforts by other jurisdictions such as Dubai, Singapore, Zug or Hong Kong who exploited the US weakness by encouraging cryptohubs to flourish will pale in comparison to what the US can do, given its much larger footprint and economic power.

Blueprint for Adoption 

Just as the Internet was adopted by a variety of government services, and now you can file taxes and renew licenses, there will be a new class of governmental applications for blockchain technology. 

The other antidote to the famous Operation Choke Point 2.0 could be a mandate to encourage the implementation of bridges between crypto exchanges and US Banks. Users who hold cryptocurrency in exchanges should be able to easily convert those assets to US dollars (or stablecoins) and deposit them in their financial institution of choice. US financial institutions should be allowed to take deposits in US stablecoins. The counter to Operation Choke Point could be called “Operation Open Floodgates”. 

Subsequently, crypto should be accepted as legal tender for large purchases such as a car or a house. That would allow millions of holders to use their gains without friction, and it would spur the economy. 

The Crypto Manifesto should encourage all government institutions and agencies to investigate the best blockchain applications for their specific need. They should be able to start pilots and proofs of concepts while sharing and coordinating best practices around ideas and implementation to maximize adoption efficiency.

In closing, I leave you with this borrowed thought from The Framework for Global Electronic Commerce (suggested reading): 

The success of blockchain and crypto-technology “will require an effective partnership between the private and public sectors, with the private sector in the lead. Government participation must be coherent and cautious, avoiding the contradictions and confusions that can sometimes arise when different governmental agencies individually assert authority too vigorously and operate without coordination.”

In 2003, when Information Technology (IT) was commonly perceived to provide a definitive competitive advantage to large enterprises, Nicholas G. Carr, editor-at-large of the Harvard Business Review penned a bombshell seminal essay, “IT Doesn't Matter.” He challenged IT’s value and argued: “as information technology’s power and ubiquity have grown, its strategic importance has diminished." Carr advised companies to approach IT investment and management differently. That was a watershed moment for the IT industry, as it dealt a blow to several Chief Information Officers, many of whom began experiencing diminished stature across their organization.

The main point of the essay was not to say that IT was not important, but rather that it became commoditized, hence it is an equalizer and not a differentiator. Therefore, CEOs shouldn’t necessarily overinvest in IT because “greater expenditures rarely translate into superior financial results.”

The analogy I am attempting to draw here equates to the relationship between the Ethereum Foundation and its ecosystem players. Whereas conventional wisdom would lead some to believe that the Ethereum Foundation is a definitive competitive advantage to Ethereum’s ecosystem, the reality is different today. The Ethereum Foundation, as we know it and based on its current scope of behavior and actions, doesn’t matter as much as it did before in relation with the rest of its ecosystem, certainly not from an influential point of view.

This isn't necessarily a criticism of the Ethereum Foundation. The Ethereum Foundation clearly knows it is only one among many others in the ecosystem. From their website, the Ethereum Foundation states their role is “not to control or lead Ethereum”. Furthermore, they assert not being “the only organization that funds critical development of Ethereum-related technologies”…because “The EF is one part of a much larger ecosystem.”

Whereas the EF funds about $100M in projects per year, that amount pales in comparison to the billions of dollars invested by the greater ecosystem, spread between venture capitalists, enterprises, and startup projects. Every time enterprises adopt Ethereum technology and fund large projects that depend on it, they also add value to Ethereum. Granted, these Ethereum Foundation grants tend to focus on the very frontal seed stages of core infrastructural technologies as levers to other technologies and capabilities. They take the most risk by funding ideas that might not even have a 5% chance of success. That’s part of their mission, and it’s a good one. 

In past thinking, the Ethereum Foundation aspired to be similar to the Linux Foundation which does an exemplary job at shepherding and supporting another famous technology-based ecosystem while being neutral about it. But let’s be realistic and blunt. The Ethereum Foundation is no Linux Foundation by any stretch of comparison factors.

In an ideal world, the Ethereum Foundation would demonstrate stronger management skills, make rational decisions, earn greater admiration from its community, and drive roadmap implementation with flawless execution. However, we do not have that luxury—unless the Ethereum Foundation undergoes a core transformation (pun intended) and takes its Linux Foundation aspirations more seriously.

No matter what the Ethereum Foundation does, it is always under scrutiny. There is plenty of criticism, some of it legitimate and some perhaps not.

The community often critiques many of the EF’s actions, related to funding choices, sometimes related to their roadmap updates, EIP’s, ERC’s, or even their lack of regular communications.

Sure, there have also been a few blunders here and there and missed opportunities to act proactively instead of reactively. 

Could we avoid the meandering paths and endless debates pertaining to roadmap choices, network upgrades, decentralized security, gas prices, and a slew of Improvement Proposals if the Ethereum Foundation was more assertive? Yes, but that’s not the ethos they want to follow. They want the community to debate things ad infinitum until the “right” path emerges, sometimes out of consensus, sometimes by letting things reach their logical conclusion. 

We know the Ethereum Foundation lost the plot on forcing others to adopt anything that is not core or requires a mandatory update. This has resulted in a balkanisation of proprietary integrations across the L1-L2-L3 layers spectrum, ultimately leading to a fragmented user experience, which is a bigger deal than they were willing to admit. Many of their actions are often reactionary, but trying to put genies back in the bottle is not so easy when each lateral protocol is in it for themselves and doesn’t prioritize cooperative standards, because they can pay lip service to the Ethereum Foundation and get away with it. 

We need to evolve from seeing the Ethereum Foundation as a key driver to everything and rather see them as one participant, albeit an important one. 

By now, you can tell I’m getting to the point where I will say, “The Ethereum Foundation Doesn’t Matter”. It’s true. It doesn’t matter as much as it did before. 

However, its key engineers and developers matter. Vitalik and his work matter a lot, of course, for Ethereum. But the management of the Ethereum Foundation doesn’t matter so much right now because, to the outside, the Foundation is not well managed.

We know the Ethereum Foundation doesn’t want to be the leader of the Ethereum ecosystem. When I was working closely with them in 2014, I drew a diagram for Vitalik and the Executive Director showing the EF in the center and its ecosystem players around them. They asked me to redraw it, but not with the EF in the center, but rather showing the EF as one of the players. It’s fine not wanting to lead, but to be lackadaisical is an extreme in the opposite direction. 

Let’s stop expecting miracles or magic wands from the Ethereum Foundation. The current management has reached the limits of their competencies (or incompetencies if you want to be a cynic). 

What matters more is the amount of innovation across the Ethereum ecosystem and around the Ethereum Foundation, despite what they do or don’t do.

If you support Ethereum, you should focus on exploring the ecosystem's state and richness more deeply. 

If things don’t change radically, we should prepare for a future where the Ethereum Foundation's actions continue to matter less. As the ecosystem continues to grow, their share of efforts, footprint and influence will continue to diminish in relation to the whole. Maybe it would be a good thing for them because it’s part of the design—being a feature, not a bug, as they say. 

If we simply settle for the romantic notion of a stronger Ethereum Foundation, we will miss the opportunity to enhance its effectiveness while staying true to its mission.

Most of the issues today in crypto are related to people exploiting its weaknesses, not those exploiting its strengths.

When I became deeply involved in this industry at the end of 2013, I expected the “bad stuff” to eventually become a minority, at least at the rate of not impeding progress. When the Internet started, the ratio of bad to good stuff was high, but eventually, that tapered off. It’s a known fact that bad actors tend to enter new technology faster than other segments first, as they lead the way in exploiting what's new.

Sadly, an overwhelming ratio of positives vs. negatives hasn’t happened yet in the blockchain/crypto industry.

My meter is following continuously the top news in this industry via my public aggregator, OnCoins.

When tallying the negatives, I’m not just talking about personal scams (eg consumers suffering from stolen assets) or structural/ company failures (eg big companies / projects like FTX or Terra going south). Still, I’m also including the continuation of mediocre business models that cling by a thread, strung together via tokenomics machinations that give the illusion of activity and progress when there is none underneath. They keep kicking the can down the road.

There’s nothing wrong with early startup iterations to find your true north in the product-to-market fit conundrum. However, when the “works-in-progress” activity far exceeds the rate of “success stories” visibility, that sucks the air out of the room and diverts conversations away from the positive stuff that everyone ought to be talking about.

It seems that the bad actors aren't exhausted trying to give a bad reputation to this industry. But more alarming is that the rate of visible success isn't increasing either to the point of overwhelming the negative / less-significant stuff.

We need to change that ratio.

This post is on the relationship between blockchain user adoption and the need for interoperability to get us there.

User experience and mass adoption (read economies of scale) are essential lubricants for effective experimentation in blockchain models.

To achieve a high level for both of these requirements, we need to do a better job of interconnecting blockchains.

Therefore, we shouldn’t necessarily assume that all blockchains will always compete with each other.

We should think of the market as a whole.

Every Layer matters.

All layers and blockchains that want to matter in the future will need to be eventually interconnected.

The Internet has millions of interconnected subnets. However, it also has interconnectivity standards at the lower levels of operations, which insulates users at the higher levels of web/mobile touch points.

We need to start connecting the top chains as a standard/native requirement, so that users have a semblance of pleasant experiences, including when moving assets around.

For discrete apps, users should be able to easily connect to various add-on services within that app without jumping through hoops or becoming lost when more features are needed.

The current patchwork of spaghetti chains is not helpful if we want to make the whole bigger than the sum of its parts.

Bitcoin has a ~55% dominance when it comes to market caps. But App user dominance across the blockchain is in no way near 55% for Bitcoin. Usage is rather spread across the panoply of blockchain apps across Ethereum, Solana and other top chains. In-App usage is scattered and squandered at best.

The future of blockchain is about the applications that empower users rather than the battle between different layers. I've already written about it in Beyond the Blockchain Infrastructure Layer Wars: Embracing the Interoperable Future of Apps and Services.

There are some industry efforts to start "tying" things together, such as the proposed ERC-7683, but if standards aren't adopted, no progress can be made.

William Mougayar

@wmougayar

Yupppp.
Imagine the Internet without TCP/IP, IPv6, DNS, URI, HTTP, HTML etc etc Standards. There would be no global Internet.

Blockchain standards are going to be VERY important to finally tie everything together seamlessly for users.

Uniswap Labs 🦄

@Uniswap

The future is cross-chain.

ERC-7683 helps us get there

2

10:32 AM • Aug 9, 2024

Today, I am not seeing enough genuine cross-industry cooperation to make this vision a reality. Yet, I believe this will be essential to grow the blockchain market and let it earn a respectful place in our future.

If not now, when?

This quote by Keanu Reaves inspired me to write this post: "I dream of a day where I walk down the street and hear people talk about morality sustainability and philosophy instead of the Kardashians.” 

It was inspiring not because of the Kardashians mention, but because the quote underpins the hope for a narrative change. Its essence is encapsulated in a simple TLDR; “let’s talk about this instead of about that”, also known as “let’s change the conversation topic.” 

The dominance of a certain narrative around a given topic is an important factor in how that topic evolves, and what future course it takes on people’s opinions and actions. Dominance of the wrong narratives sucks the air out of people’s attention and leaves little room for the “right” narrative to prosper. 

This leads me to discuss the evolution of the various competing narratives surrounding blockchain and crypto technology.

I believe there are three dominant narratives when you assess what’s written in the media (social or not) as a reflection of the industry’s activity. 

These are: 

1. the Real narrative

2. the Counter narrative

3. the Bad Actors narrative

The blockchain’s Real narrative is first and foremost about its programmable money feature, decentralized operations and the advent of cryptocurrencies that can be transferred in peer-to-peer methods without unnecessary choke point factors. Then, you can imagine all the derivative products, new business models and ideas that evolve from that basic and foundational grounding.

The Counter narrative includes everything focused on limiting the adoption of blockchain technology and cryptocurrency. It is primarily driven by regulators and existing governments that see it as a de-stabilization threat, and a serious risk to the status quo. Via their direct or indirect actions, they want to retard the propagation of blockchain technology usage. 

The Bad Actors narrative has two archetypes. Archetype I includes those committing white-collar crimes by engaging in fraudulent activity, pushing the law's limits, or circumventing the system. Archetype II is composed of people who perceive the industry as a casino or an opportunistic exploitation ground, and they thrive on hype and empty promises while embracing loose controls and ponzi schemes. Both of these have the common characteristic of propagating a false narrative, or one that is often hyped, misleading or disconnected from reality. 

In an ideal world, the Real narrative should be the dominant one, perhaps with a market mindshare of 80%, leaving potentially 10% to each of the other two narratives. Sadly, in the blockchain world, today, I am seeing almost the reverse being true.

For comparison's sake, the Internet is now full of positive narratives, and we take that feat for granted, but it didn’t start this way. Initially, the Web’s advent brought a lot of negative push-back from traditional players who saw it as a threat.

My gut feel approximation is that we have the following subdivision of competing narratives in the blockchain sector:

• Bad Actors narrative: 40%

• Counter narrative: 40%

• Real narrative: 20%

We must change these ratios.

How to do that is the tough part. 

The Counter narrative is primarily driven by the SEC and the US White House stance on crypto technology. Winning a given Bill’s vote in Congress can easily be vetoed by the President. That could only change with a new election outcome. 

You would hope Bad Actors (and grifters) would eventually shrink, go away, get caught or get tired of trying. Crypto Twitter has a good chunk of those because they like to shout from the rooftops and hijack the Real narrative to fit their own agendas.

Both of these segments suck the air out of the room and negatively divert the available attention.

The Real narrative is driven by conscious entrepreneurs who work day in and day out with good ethics, native use cases, and surely earning every bit of traction via their progressive efforts. Perhaps their current pitfall is their quiet nature. The Real narrative segment must elevate their voices and be heard more, in part to increase the education levels, but also to start claiming the mindshare they deserve in relation to the other two competing narratives. They must sharpen their marketing messages and increase their market mindshare. They need to highlight their use cases and become better storytellers than Bad Actors.

I don’t like the Counter and Bad Actors Narratives segment because history will not be on their side. Their mindshare head start will eventually shrink via the passage of time. 

I’m longing for the success of the Real Narrative segment and all the people behind it. 

Given the recent utopia around the fact that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission may be blinking (both on the Ethereum ETF approvals and the Voting pushback from Congress), let’s imagine a world without undue S.E.C. interference.

Imagine a world where dreams of crypto enthusiasts are not stifled by the the S.E.C.'s iron fist.

Imagine a world where innovation flourishes, unburdened by the fear of lawsuits and regulatory crackdowns. 

Imagine a landscape where entrepreneurs are free to build and innovate without the looming threat of S.E.C. intervention. 

Imagine a world without the fear of being sued for being innovative, a world unconstrained by the fear of regulatory reprisals.

Imagine a crypto market free of "zombie chains", without blockchains whose valuations are at the opposite spectrum of real transactional and traction activity. 

Imagine a world where all blockchain transactions are real and useful, with a purpose and a genuine use case. 

Imagine a world filled with innovative decentralized applications, utilitarian NFTs, and DeFi as mainstream. 

Imagine millions, if not billions of users happy, not greedy, earning tokens and reporting these gains lawfully.

Imagine a future where tokens are recognized as a new asset class, not subject to the same regulations as traditional securities. 

Imagine decentralization delivering resilient, equitable ecosystems that are better than the current ones.

Imagine a future where cryptocurrency is universally accepted, not just by tech-savvy individuals, but by businesses and governments alike. 

Imagine making frictionless international payments as a new form of financial activity.

You may think this is just a pipe dream, but I'm not the only one who believes in this vision. Countless others share this dream of a decentralized future, free from the shackles of outdated regulations.

I hope someday you'll join us in this dream. Together, we can build a world where cryptocurrency is not just a niche technology, but a fundamental part of our everyday lives. A world where innovation is encouraged, not stifled. A world where everyone has the opportunity to participate in this exciting new financial, technological, and business revolution.

I love the enthusiasm of crypto Degens. Their fearless dive into the world of tokens, DeFi, GameFi, and Web3 is a breath of fresh air. However, amidst this whirlwind of innovation, I'm noticing a concerning trend: a tendency to reinvent the wheel and ignore previous wisdom. 

Many Degens seem to disregard past mistakes and learnings. As a result, they are missing an opportunity to exploit previous experiences or best practices. There is a perceived lack of curiosity about the lessons that history has to offer.

Don't get me wrong, innovation and new ideas are essential for progress. They are the lifeblood of entrepreneurship. But when something has already been tried and tested, why ignore the valuable lessons that could increase your chances of success?

One common trend is a reliance on Millennials as the primary source of guidance, in part due to their age proximity. While Millennials may have a decade more experience than Gen Z, this alone isn’t sufficient. The experience pool is much deeper, and there are valuable insights to be gained from those who have been in the trenches longer. Broadening your sources of influence and increasing your research about the past can provide a more comprehensive view and better prepare you for future challenges.

The blockchain space is relatively young, but it’s already rich in valuable experiences. Yet, I'm seeing newcomers who reference just one or two years of history, without regard to blockchain lessons learned between 2016 and 2022 across several segments, including token models, token economics, NFTs strategies, memecoins, and gamified applications. 

And the tech startup space alone is mature with decades of known practices and blueprints, many of which can be used decisively.

Don't Reinvent the Wheel, Your Generation Didn’t Invent Sex

I couldn’t have said it better than John Mackey, the original founder and 40-year-long CEO of Whole Foods, “Every age has its own unique wisdom. So the younger people…bring in a wisdom of youth and possibilities.”

To put it mildly, don't reinvent the wheel, if it's already been invented. Don't repeat the mistakes of others when you could learn from their experiences and build upon their foundations.

To put it bluntly, your generation didn't invent sex. It's been around for a while.

A lot of the ideas and difficulties Degens are facing are not new. The allure of creating something innovative and groundbreaking is powerful, but it’s essential to remember that history is a valuable teacher. 

Gen Z’s and their crypto cohort of Degens need to broaden their perspectives in two directions. First, through relationships and mentorships with people of many ages, i.e. to learn more from those with a deeper reservoir of experience. Second, they also need to develop an insatiable intellectual curiosity by looking into the lessons that can be applied to their present projects.

The history of minting has traditionally been associated with governments creating and stamping official currency. 

Enter the blockchain, and the essence of minting has found a new life, helping create and permanently record the genesis of “something new” (not money) on a given distributed ledger. Initially, we minted fungible cryptocurrency tokens, the first of which was Bitcoin. Later, around 2018, artists and producers began minting millions of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), which they then sold to enthusiastic users.

With Web3 adoption now accelerating, minting is solidifying its place as a native action with an amazing array of versatile uses that will gradually challenge the widely used social media actions "Like," "Share," and "Subscribe." 

While early Web3 adopters are taking minting like a duck to water, this concept has barely made a dent in the minds of Web2 users who represent a large target market.

The following table aims to demystify what minting is about, hopefully making the concept more comprehensible to a larger audience. 

Minting is destined to become a significant social signal in the emerging Web3 world. But it’s not just similar to a Like or a Share. Likes and Shares don’t cost you anything, and sometimes they are not even genuine. Minting signals have more “skin-in-the-game” or “sense of belonging”; and they will cost you something. Based on the above use case, one could argue they are more similar to a continuous Subscribe or “Support”.

We don’t stress over paying monthly fees for broadband Internet access, a premium ChatGPT service, or a given newspaper subscription. So why not acknowledge that being involved in blockchain will also entail a little monthly budget for minting this or that?

Eventually, the collection of our minting actions will form an interesting body of content, some of which will typify a permanent bookmark, a footprint, a journey, a memory, or a breadcrumb left behind.

It is now necessary for the rest of the world to comprehend minting. 

As the cost of minting continues to drop to almost insignificant levels, the applications for minting are only beginning to be explored. The creativity of the avant-garde blockchain community—often referred to colloquially as the "Degens"—is boundless. As this community continues to experiment and innovate, we can expect to see minting applied in ever more creative and impactful ways, further cementing its role as a foundational action for Web3. 

Without a doubt, minting will develop into a new social signal and an everyday pastime when browsing blockchain-oriented destinations. To see minting actions flow like a river, just visit Zora or Warpcast.

Soon enough, “what have you minted lately” will become a dinner table conversation.

The curious case of memecoins has re-emerged in full force. In the eyes of an outsider, memecoins thrive on virality, cultural statements, and sometimes a dose of absurdity. But beneath the veneer of internet jokes and dog-themed logos lies a surprisingly potent recipe for success.

Looking back at the past few years of memecoins, what lessons can we draw? Three interdependent qualities—Mojo, Community, and Utility—are central to their path.

Each element is not only fundamental on its own but also serves as a stepping stone to the next, creating a dynamic environment that fuels the rise and endurance of these digital currencies.

Mojo, in the context of memecoins, refers to the unique appeal or charisma that captures the imagination of the digital populace right from the get-go. It is the initial spark that sets the stage for virality. This characteristic is often rooted in humor, irony, or a direct challenge to conventional financial wisdom, which resonates with a broad audience looking for alternative investment opportunities or simply participating in a cultural movement. For example, Dogecoin, one of the most successful memecoins, started as a joke based on a popular internet meme. Its light-hearted origin story and the whimsical Shiba Inu mascot immediately caught the attention of internet users, granting it an instant 'mojo'. This appeal is critical for breaking through the noise of the cryptocurrency market and securing a spot in the collective digital consciousness.

Mojo is typically captured almost instantly. Either you have it or you don’t.

While crucial for initial traction, a dedicated community must nurture and amplify a memecoin's mojo in order to maintain momentum. The community is not just a group of investors; it's a vibrant collective of believers, builders, creators, and promoters who embody the coin's ethos. They engage in discussions, develop capabilities, create content, and spread the word, thereby weaving the coin into the fabric of digital culture. The community's strength lies in its ability to mobilize quickly, influence market sentiment, and attract new members, thus propelling the memecoin to new heights. These early adopters become fervent evangelists, spreading the word on social media platforms like Reddit, X or Warpcast. The role of social media platforms cannot be overstated in this context, as they serve as the primary arenas for community interaction and growth. This online buzz creates a network effect, attracting new investors and driving up the price of the coin. The Dogecoin community, for example, has been known for its charitable initiatives and massive online campaigns, further solidifying its presence and attracting even more followers.

However, the meme coin magic doesn't need to stop at virality and community. As a memecoin matures, the need for utility—real-world applications and value—becomes increasingly apparent. This is where the transition from a purely speculative asset to a more stabilized cryptocurrency takes place. Utility can take various forms, such as integration into payment systems, partnerships with companies, or use in decentralized finance (DeFi) applications. This characteristic is crucial for long-term viability, as it provides a foundation beyond speculative trading, grounding the coin in tangible value. It also represents the final transformation of the memecoin from a cultural phenomenon to an established part of the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

It's important to note the sequential nature of the above three success factors.

Mojo attracts the initial buzz, piques everyone's interests, captures the imagination, and fosters a community that will amplify mindshare growth, and sustain the buzz. Eventually, the community will push for, and ultimately define, the coin's utility, cementing the coin's place in the digital economy. Although some coins survive on mojo, community support, and a smudgeon of silly utility, without a strong community, the initial spark of mojo can quickly fade, leaving the meme coin a relic of internet history.

“Utility” in the case of memecoins can be loosely defined. It is not as strict as commonly seen in the infrastructure layers of the blockchain where the token is responsible for the security of the network and finds itself as an essential element of transactional, mining, or staking activities. That said, some newer memecoins such as DEGEN, have gone a step further and launched their own sidechain which is a giant step in the world of utility.

The progression toward this trifecta, while not guaranteed for every memecoin, outlines a pathway to success that blends cultural resonance with economic value. As the digital cryptocurrency landscape continues to evolve, the role of these three characteristics in the success of memecoins will undoubtedly be a fascinating area for observation and study.

Whatever the case may be, creativity, originality, and self-expressiveness are common features of all these memecoins.

Let’s continue to hope that memecoin's creativity and innovative spirits get applied in the right direction.

For years, we've enjoyed the convenience of portable email. Thanks to the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol standard (SMTP), we can access our messages from any email client, anywhere in the world, because mail servers and message transfer services send and receive those messages in a standard way. This allows us to read emails on a phone, continue on a desktop or tablet, or sign in from anywhere with our credentials. This sounds boring because we have become used to it and take it for granted.

Let’s explore how this translates into the burgeoning world of Web3, where interactions take place between blockchain accounts and not email addresses. 

Enter XMTP (Extensible Message Transport Protocol), a new messaging protocol designed specifically for Web3 applications, wallets, or anyone requiring streamlined communications between blockchain accounts. 

As Web3 gains traction, blockchain clients—often mobile wallets or apps—are increasingly adding messaging features similar to what we see today in popular platforms like WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, or Messenger. This has fostered a new wave of applications seamlessly combining wallet and messaging functionality, such as Converse or Family. Existing wallets like Coinbase’s have also jumped on the bandwagon by integrating messaging into their products.

The real game-changer with XMTP lies in its ability to facilitate the flow of messages across different Web3 platforms. Imagine you are a user on the Coinbase wallet interacting with its messaging feature, and you are also on Converse, a more focused messaging app. XMTP is that magic sauce behind the scenes, enabling seamless, real-time message synchronicity between those two apps. That sounds boring again, because you might think, Why not?

Not so fast, because this is not possible today in the current realm of messaging apps that dominate the market. You can’t send a message to a contact from WhatsApp and then reply to it from Signal or ping a friend on Messenger, and then continue the conversation on Telegram. Our friends don't always use the same messaging platforms as we do, so we end up following them wherever they are. In the Web3 world, XMTP lets users choose whatever messaging platform they prefer without compromising on the seamless aspect of communication.

Unlike their SMTP-based email client counterparts, the new Web3 XMTP-based messaging clients are lightweight, and some cater to specific use cases or application segments. As users, we will likely end up using a variety of Web3 clients or applications, depending on the situation. For those supporting XMTP, their users won’t have to worry about losing the aggregated synchronicity they were used to in regular email. This approach aligns perfectly with Web3's core principle of composability, which is another fancy word for interoperability and compatibility across platforms.

This is only one chapter in the story of Web3 messaging. We can expect that increased XMTP adoption will give birth to powerful new capabilities and functionalities, beyond what today's messaging platforms offer us. Currently, XMTP boasts almost 2 million reachable identities across a variety of client apps, which isn’t a big number when compared to the 3 billion+ global users on messaging platforms. But in the realm of Web3, that is a very respectable size to grow from.

One artifact of this evolution is the exploding popularity of Frames, a Warpcast innovation that is bringing onchain applications into social media and is poised to usher in a new level of “interactivity inside messaging” not seen before. Frames readily integrates with Web3 messaging platforms because XMTP supports it. Frames is taking user interactions to a new level, paving the way toward unforeseen possibilities.

But we are still at Ground Zero. The inception of Web3 messaging marks a significant milestone in the evolution of digital communication, and it is the dawn of a new era. This era is going to be characterized by enhanced interoperability, user autonomy, and innovation in interaction modalities, signifying a shift in how we initiate and participate in digital communications. 

So buckle up and welcome to Web3 messaging. The current Web messaging is going to look so stale and old school very soon. Get ready to witness a revolution in communication that prioritizes user choice and independence from big Web2 brands, and fosters an interconnected and seamless Web3 user experience that is destined to rival its Web2 counterpart.

Ending footnote: XMTP is as secure as what we are currently used to. XMTP uses Messaging Layer Security (MLS), another new standard for end-to-end encryption (E2EE), allowing for secure messaging between different platforms. Google recently announced their MLS support.