More-than-human agents fighting craptocracy for commons good
Weekly reflections on human-AI partnerships
As a result of the U.S. elections, blockchain and especially cryptocurrency have returned to the spotlight. This resurgence feels like a turning point—but not necessarily the one advocates for decentralized systems might have hoped for. This renewed interest is fueled by political shifts, where deregulation rhetoric promises to breathe new life into crypto markets. But: Who is this resurgence really for?
One 'fork' of the blockchain—the cryptocurrency side—is gaining a lot of attention and momentum. Not necessarily in a good way. Much of this energy is focused on the speculative, monetary aspects of blockchain: the power of coins as speculative assets, the Ponzi-like schemes that continue to emerge, and the use of blockchain systems to move wealth quickly and evade regulation.
Kara Swisher, in her recent Pivot podcast, aptly referred to this phenomenon as "Craptocracy"—a variation of kleptocracy. In this craptocratic model, we see a government increasingly influenced by businessmen who use power not to serve the public but to play out maximum influence with minimal guardrails. Blockchain, in this context, risks becoming a tool for these craptocratic goals: a means to consolidate wealth and evade oversight, rather than a technology for decentralization and empowerment.
Blockchain has always been a paradox. On one hand, it promises decentralization, transparency, and empowerment. On the other, it has become a haven for speculative markets and a tool for accumulating wealth in the hands of a few. This duality is at the heart of the current debate surrounding blockchain's future.
The potential of blockchain for commons-based governance is immense. It offers a technological framework for communities to co-create and self-manage resources like in energy microgrids or open source projects on digital commons. It can even become more systemic in supporting commons-based economics structuring for instance the energy market, that is now build on traditional marketplaces to balance the grid. That asks for trust in new systems. Which seems at odds with the current trajectory. The resurgence fueled by post-election market optimism seems less about enabling grassroots governance or commons-based systems and more about creating opportunities for elite actors to secure financial and political advantages. When the loudest voices in blockchain belong to venture capitalists and politically connected figures, it's harder for smaller, purpose-driven projects to gain traction. Worse, this could alienate communities who might otherwise see blockchain as a tool for empowerment. Let’s hope the craptocracy is not spreading and commons can be embraced as more inspiring driver. There might be a path into empowering collaborating more-than-human agents carefully crafted in embracing diversity and inclusion.
This weekly “Triggered Thought” is written as part of the Target is New newsletter, which offers an overview of captured news from the week, paper for the week, and interesting events. Find the full newsletter here.
About the author; Iskander is particularly interested in digital-physical interactions and a focus on human-tech intelligence co-performance. He chairs the Cities of Things foundation and is one of the organizers of ThingsCon. Target is New is his “practice for making sense of unpredictable futures in human-AI partnerships”.