Finding Meaning In (A) Trust
Anymore, using the word “trust” seems a statement on an identity crisis turned morose. There’s grown some social signal in its use that has brought the shrug a new sense of meaning. The way that fits into thoughts found here is bookended by two tweets. The first is this…
Assuming this is the subject here, what it’s contending is — all property has origins in the story of its ownership, and the provenance that creates is especially cogent when it comes to the Intellectual Properties of creators.
From the outset, this assumes there are builders and there are buyers. The stories of the former are evidenced by creations; those of the latter are in the receipts of transactional accounts. Each owns tangible property until it enters the intangible arena where trust in the context of its story is what we’re dealing with here.
So as a practical exercise, for seeing trust as this archetype intangible asset, there is the Living Trust — a story that contains stories that give value to intellectual property. By putting all created property owned or made where what it becomes from here on out is for the benefits of what now identifies as a legacy, consolidates it all into the context of metadata. How that transforms what had been developed previous to the emergence of Crypto and the digital economy affecting trust, into an origin story of funding a Living Trust, is what is going to be analyzed.
All the properties funding this Living Trust are either intangible, as intellectual properties, or are tangible products derived from the development of one of these intangibles. Assessment systems will find no inherent value in them because there are no markets for them. Identifying these properties with a Living Trust to explain their value in a context of making them fit into Crypto is for building a definition of trust around the value of provenance that is stated in a public, Internet medium.
Crypto presents the opportunity to experiment with giving a second life to undeveloped and underdeveloped intellectual properties. For those inclined to create in the conceptual realm, these are the best of times to be thinking like this… especially if, as with myself, there is stuff sitting around, waiting to be monetized.
Most ideas, if original, were ahead of their time. It’s not hard to come up with something the world just isn’t ready for yet. By that standard, there’s plenty of fits into the revolutionary space of Crypto. I chose to examine this with musings on Medium and Steemit about my patents and product developments from the early 1990s, when ICO white papers in the mid 2000-teens looked eerily similar in their intellectual underpinnings.
But it’s what’s in that article the tweets that bookend this piece reference that makes the Living Trust a call to action. Across the board, a common echo of a precognitive relationship with the back story of origins in everything that is happening right now in Crypto space is more than timely; it is transformationally timely. The Living Trust connection for analyzing the purpose of Crypto could well be the metaphor that is the umbrella that all those “deep dives” have been seeking.
Seriously — substitute the words Trustee for a Creator DAO; IP for GPT-3; the back story for the Blockchain. You have a trustless Trust living as your transformer. This is an intelligent, not artificial intelligent, association that links two realities that are due to get a lot more attention real soon.
The next tweet was signaling this by saying:
That says, if you trust in everything you do is growing a legacy, the story of your Living Trust is in the story you allow it to grow into.