In this article, although we operate with facts from the latest news of the digital world, we still do not predict the future and do not make statements. We want to discuss the possible integration of blockchain and social networks and share ideas and our vision with you.

Twitter positions itself as a platform for effective microblogging. It is also convenient to follow the news of projects and people you are interested in, exchange opinions, interact with your audience, and attract new readers. And the emphasis on the conciseness of the information provided (240 characters per tweet – and once there were half as many!) instead of extensive blogs and longreads, ensures an unceasing stream of posts in the user’s feed. Twitter has been working great since 2006, containing entire communities, from multi-million fans to small interest groups, and during this time the social network has not acquired any competitors.

But it is precisely in the management of communities of interest that Twitter’s main problem lies. In addition to football fans and cat lovers, there are phenomenally large communities of different political views on Twitter. And Twitter, as a platform that unites them, has the tools for interaction and influence.

As the well-known Elon Musk came to the CEO’s chair, contradictory details were revealed. One scandal, known as the ‘Twitter Files’, erupted when Twitter was accused of covering up information that portrayed the US President and his family in a negative light – such censorship was routine for the Twitter administration, according to public figures. Another popular story tells us that pro-Republican tweets were intentionally kept out of the feed, while posts with a positive view of their Democrat opponents were actively promoted. Which, according to activists, undoubtedly contradicts the idea of freedom of speech. The blocking of Donald Trump’s account by the decision of Twitter itself still causes fierce debate and reasoning about the permissiveness of large corporations.

Blockchain in this situation can be seen as a guarantee of honesty and freedom of speech. At the moment, the Twitter administration is monitoring the published information, including responding to requests and reports from ordinary users. Their capabilities are not limited to this, which means that their powers hypothetically allow them to engage in censorship. Decentralized voting technology is theoretically capable of turning censorship in social networks into moderation – that is, transferring control of information from the hands of the administration to the hands of the users themselves. The Aragon DeFi project once proposed something similar – they wanted to lay the foundation for a decentralized “trial” on Twitter, where chain participants voted independently and made decisions such as deleting offensive and compromising posts, adopting new provisions in Twitter policy, and so on.

So far, it’s too early to talk about the introduction of blockchain on Twitter. The social network is undergoing many changes due to a change in leadership and a redirection of internal policy. However, perhaps in the near future one of the social networks will become a pioneer, set a new trend, and social networks will never be the same again.

It is worth mentioning that in this article, although we operate with facts from the latest news of the digital world, we still do not predict the future and do not make statements. We want to discuss with you the possible integration of blockchain and social networks and share ideas and our vision.

Streaming services pay royalties on a pro-rata basis. This means that the share of a particular musician is determined by the number of auditions to their songs, and the total pool of funds is collected from advertising integrations and users who have paid for a subscription. This system, although it is a well-established mechanism and brings good profits to many famous musicians, is being increasingly criticized by independent authors. Their position is that the money is distributed unfairly. According to them, a musician’s share depends on many hidden reasons: whether they are signed to a major label, use the services of a smaller one, or do their own promotion; from the percentage given to the streaming service (it can vary and change); from the popularity of the music genre and hitting the top playlists. This creates an additional layer between the listener and the artist and, as a result, additional difficulties with the monetization of art.

Blockchain in this situation can be considered as a tool for direct interaction between the listener and the artist. For example, Audius has developed a project to track auditions using blockchain and monetize music content in their own currency, $AUDIO. However, this did not become a widespread practice due to the volatility of the cryptocurrency: it was impossible to predict the profit, and many musicians were simply not used to working with crypto assets. However, this was the first step towards the decentralization of copyright content.

How blockchain technology could change the music industry? Firstly, many original and independent bands would appear on the scene, aimed at their own audience and selling content regardless of popular trends. Secondly, many popular songs would continue to generate profit many years after their release, not for the labels, but for the musicians themselves and their relatives.

And now to TikTok. A song added as the background to a video can go viral, which means it can generate millions of new plays – which is incredibly motivating for musicians to write related viral songs, and music labels to collaborate with TikTok. Theoretically, blockchain technology would allow tracking listening, and monetizing every used audio fragment, from songs to a viral cat meowing. Cool? Cool.

And then someone, having acquired the most expensive mansion, handmade furniture, and incredibly beautiful dishes, decided to turn his attention to tulip bulbs. The fact is that some varieties of tulips are subject to mutation: they have an unusual color and shape. To possess such a flower was considered a sign of the finest taste, and, of course, wealth.

And then the prices for mutated tulip bulbs skyrocketed. Some copies could be easily exchanged for a mansion. According to the data now available, it was common to buy a tulip for 1,000 guilders, which was equivalent to 10 kg of silver or almost a kilogram of gold. For example, a skilled artisan earned about 300 guilders a year. People entered into contracts and receipts and also used bulbs (and contracts for them!) as a means of payment.

Why did gardeners across the country decide to grow tulips, and the rich decided to buy them? History tells us that in addition to the effect of luxury, there was some symbolism for the Dutch. This whimsical and changeable flower brought to the Netherlands from the East was considered a sign of beauty, and its owner had a refined taste.

However, in February 1637, everything changed dramatically. Gardeners and farmers in search of easy money switched from the production of vital goods to the cultivation of flowers, which led to a shortage of economically important goods, an instant loss of interest in insanely expensive tulips, and the financial bubble burst in just a few days. Historians do not have financial documents from those years, but given current knowledge, it can be assumed that manufacturers, investors, and even flower buyers themselves had a hard time when assets that yesterday cost ten kilograms of gold depreciated today.

During the period (already a very recent!) of growing interest in Bitcoin and the emergence of other cryptocurrencies, many began to compare the new industry with the very tulips from the Netherlands, thereby equating cryptocurrency with a financial bubble. Undoubtedly, this was due to fear and unbelief. Let’s explain to inquisitive gardeners and luxury collectors from the 17th century what was the problem with tulips and why modern cryptocurrency does not have such problems.

• Tulips, unlike cryptocurrencies, could not be a store of value. Obviously, flowers are short-lived, and unblown bulbs do not guarantee that a tulip of the desired shape and color will grow from them. It also follows that when growing bulbs, the farmer cannot be sure that his crop will cost a penny. With cryptocurrency, everything is exactly the opposite: by acquiring assets, you can be sure that these assets will remain so even after a long time.
• Tulips, like any product in the physical world, require transportation and special storage conditions. Tokens however are sent, bought, and exchanged in minutes.
• Tulips are also untenable as a means of payment: one flower cannot be divided into parts, because this will kill him. Cryptocurrency is easily divided into many parts, which makes it a convenient means of payment.
• Cryptocurrency is protected by cryptographic methods and works on the blockchain, which makes it almost impossible for any financial fraud. Stealing flowers is a million times easier than stealing a digital wallet!
• Cryptocurrency is not an end in itself, as it was with tulips. No one buys tokens because it is prestigious – cryptocurrency is a non-fiat currency, so its value is determined by the market, not the desire of the rich.

• In 2014, a Japanese-American physicist, Dorian Nakamoto, was found by the media interested in finding the real Nakamoto. Journalists were interested in his name, field of activity (Mr. Nakamoto worked in both secret defense projects and large financial companies), and libertarian views. When asked directly about the creation of Bitcoin during an interview, he evasively replied that he was no longer working on the project, but later said that his words were misinterpreted and that the scientist had nothing to do with Satoshi Nakamoto.
• Cryptographer Hal Finney was the first person to receive a transaction on a Bitcoin network. He claimed that he had only been in contact with the real Satoshi Nakamoto and presented their personal correspondence as evidence, but prompt journalists saw several more coincidences. In 2004, Hal Finney described a reusable proof-of-work technique that is now reminiscent of the well-known proof-of-work well before the creation of a Bitcoin network. Conspiracy theorists also linked the severe illness and subsequent death of the scientist in 2014 to the suspicious disappearance of Satoshi Nakamoto shortly before.
• And the most convincing candidate for the role of Satoshi Nakamoto today is Nick Sabo, a cryptographer in the US. In 1998, he first proposed the idea of digital currency, bit gold, long before the first Bitcoin conversation, but it did not work at the time due to many technical limitations. He later developed the concept of smart contracts. Analysis of writing code (yes, there is! Stylometry can be applied to any written text, even code) shows that Nick Szabo probably wrote code for Bitcoin algorithms. Moreover, it has been repeatedly noted that the Szabo and Nakamoto texts repeat the same characteristic: they both use double space. That’s it. Nick Szabo himself rejects such assumptions.