Hey @pranay, sorry for the late reply. Was a busy time here in Berlin, putting together stuff for DAPPCON over the past couple of weeks.
In regards to your comment: The application of blockchain technology to digital arts is something that I’ve seen come up in conversation often, and it is a very intuitive connection of the idea of authenticity and the blockchain’s public ledger. However, I am personally weary of where this could go. I think the ability to create digital scarcity requires some good thinking about what we want to make scarce and what we want to make abundant.
Imagine for example applying blockchain-based digital scarcity to memes. That could take us to a scenario where some sort of token-based transaction (translatable to fiat or a local platform currency) is required in order to look at a meme or to let’s say repost it. As a user, I think that would totally take out the fun and the very inherent nature of memes, which in my opinion is to propagate as quickly as possible through the paths of least resistance (screenshotting for immediate replication is a great example). I would argue that a similar situation is found in communities like devianart, where users thrive off informal collaboration (ie in order to create styles) and video game communities where people make outfits for their characters out of pure curiosity and creativity. The longevity of some of these works could be at stake if their diffusion relies on an economic transaction.
In short, i believe some things should be left out of token economics and remain simply as “social capital”, which is a space where they already very successfully thrive.
My interest in cryptoeconomics is more in line to utility tokens or “platform token models” where users partaking have the possibility to accrue some value through their work which I don’t think has to necessarily done through scarcity.
Vitalik made a similar comment here: