The Value of Integrity and Trust in a Trustless System

Do we have a duty of care to the NFT Space?

Having now been in the NFT space for a short while, one of the most important things I have learnt about the space is that security is important, as is trust. Often have we all heard about scammers tricking people into connecting to a dodgy site, allowing permissions without checking what they’re about, even having their details stolen through elaborate social engineering schemes. We are all aware of these scams and as an industry are getting better at pointing these out to newer entrants. They work because we take responsibility for being sovereign, for having control of our crypto / NFTs, and we work on trusting that the code that is executed is fair and does what it is meant to. And there is nothing in this text to suggest otherwise. The code does indeed do what it is told to do.

All the NFT projects I have been involved in have had communities and moderators/ community managers and founders who have been very vocal about security. All very good things and definitely important, especially with those new to NFTs. They have earned my trust for watching my back. And I have been grateful for that.

But this also got me thinking about other points of trust, and specifically one point of trust that is (maybe now was) integral to the whole success or failure of a project. Specifically, I’m talking about trust in a team.

The obvious starting point here is to look at whether the team behind a project are who they say they are, whether they have the necessary vision or experience to sell you their roadmap and whether they are generally of good character/ have ideals that match their investors. When thinking about a team, we often look at whether they are doxxed, if they have backgrounds in the NFT space, whether their real-world experiences are able to translate to Web 3, their vision and passion for the project, and a host of other meaningful metrics. Having transparency is important, and having project teams who can explain aspects of the project, the roadmap and the thinking behind why certain decisions are made are those that are more likely to be afforded trust from those seeking to invest in their work.

But beyond the basics, something that has been a bit more important to me recently has been whether the team is doing what it says it would do. Do they say one thing for marketing and do another when it comes to action? I won’t ever be here criticizing the hard work that teams put into a project. I get it, there are a lot of things to get done, and a lot of blood, sweat and tears that go into making a project what it is and tough decisions sometimes need to be made. That’s all a given. But do they live by their mantras and follow through with delivery?

Recently, there was a fairly well publicised mint for an existing project. One that is trusted within the NFT world. It was successful, and celebrated by many. But who were those that celebrated? I cannot say I was one of them. I appreciated what they did from a pure power and pull point of view, but there were things I could not follow.

The most baffling part that I still do not understand is how a project got that far out of touch with reality that they did not actually realise that what they were saying was completely not what the vast majority of people were feeling. What they said they would do was the opposite of what happened.

To explain what that means, here were some examples of marketing terms used as goals of the project (and I’m paraphrasing — but using the same terminology):

• To increase diversity
• To educate and onboard people
• To increase representation, inclusivity and equal opportunities

While these are all desirable and altruistic ideals, you probably do not want to follow those goals up with words that say that people will have access to a gated community that is only accessible by holding a token. Oh, and by the way, that token, it is being given out for free to existing holders of an earlier edition (ok, seems fair). Oh, and for anyone new, you can win a presale allowlist spot (ok, sound good). Oh, and for those who don’t get one, you will be able to mint one in a Dutch Auction. Oh, by the way — the allowlist spot will allow you into our gated community for a price that is equivalent to the yearly income (in USD equivalent) in only about 67 countries and monthly income in roughly 34 or 35 countries. And if you miss out on that opportunity which we are so generously giving… you can also just buy one in our Dutch Auction that starts at 10 times that value and which will sell out at about 3.33 times our allowlist price.

Okay — so I’m triggered, but who wouldn’t be when you’re asking people to give up what could potentially be their livelihoods to be part of your exclusive world? What this type of behaviour does is reinforce that the world is an elitist place where wealth breeds wealth (which I have no problems about), and the dream of someone who wants to pull themselves up and rise out of the situation they are in, is nothing but that- just a dream. Nothing has changed. Good luck, get rekt.

No-one is asking for a free pass, but as a project, you have the responsibility and power to show restraint. You can do things better. If you truly want to give people the things you claim to care about, you would not be doing things the way they were done. At the end of the day, the team has the power to make decisions that reflect what their brand is all about. When your brand is widely trusted by the public, and when you play your cards close to your chest, continuing marketing in the way I’ve described earlier right to mint date, you have a responsibility whether you like it or not, to show restraint and execute on what you preach. To be a champion of the NFT space. To lead by example.

Unfortunately, that did not happen. What happened was a draining of liquidity in a market that had already been stalling. What happened was that those who were well off were able to get into this gated community. The country club and NFT space collided. So much for diversity, inclusion, equal opportunity and increased representation. Our space took a giant leap backwards. When this project had the opportunity to flip the thinking of so many about our space, it further emboldened critics by making what some could accuse of being a blatant cash grab.

For those who were lucky and financially able to participate, I tip my cap to you and congratulate you on your good fortune and foresight. You did not necessarily create the rules, you just played to them and were able to do so. And just observing how that investment has largely turned out, I’d say most would be happy with it. But I’m not here for that. I’m here to talk about trust. And how that trust that was generated over time has (in my eyes) at least slightly been eroded. Do we as a community believe in what people say anymore? Do we even care if stated goals are ignored? Maybe we don’t care as long as the price goes up. Are we ok with the NFT space being viewed as a cash grab space, where people feel excluded? I do not have the answers, but I do believe it is something that we need to reconcile before the masses arrive.

As someone who has never created anything in Web 3, I cannot speak to what the founders/ executive team members were intending for their collection. For someone on the outside looking in, I can say is that it looks great, but at the end of the day, the fence has doubled in height and a moat with crocodiles has been constructed on the other side of the fence. Oh… and while we are at it, its raining on all of us as the non-NFT world hoses us down and paints us with the same tarnished brush as a result of the actions of a few. At least we have some people safe, out there exploring the galaxy.

Would love to hear your opinions on the matter. Have I missed something? Do we need to think about trust in new ways? I can be reached on Twitter @cryptobear55 or via comment below. Thank you.