Wow, this vision is nothing short of revolutionary! Story isn't just solving a problem; it's redefining the foundational layer of the digital economy. The idea of transforming IP into programmable, on-chain assets is a masterstroke finally bridging the gap between ingenuity and fair ownership in the AI era.
This is the future: a global Library of Alexandria that doesn’t just preserve human creativity but actively fuels it, incentivizes it, and makes it the cornerstone of the AI-driven economy. Connecting the world's AI giants with the most valuable IP holders on a cryptoeconomic network like Story isn't just ambitious it's the next logical step in civilization's progression.
If Story succeeds, it won’t just reshape IP; it will define how AI learns, creates, and interacts with property. This isn’t just a platform; it’s the rails for a new Renaissance. Let’s make this future happen!
Brother... there's a lot to say, and I'll be saying it on my own time without FUDding the decent technical work I've seen, but this ditty gets a comment:
"If IP does not become software, it cannot survive. Blockchains provide the only way for someone to truly own software, and therefore, to truly own IP."
IP has existed long before publicly-available terms, and IP will exist long after. Blockchain is a programmable notary service. That means that anybody can file their own registrations of anything they'd like in any non-fungible token without a gate or a service trying to funnel that. Every NFT is already a "PIL," as you put it, because your metadata transaction mechanics can be applied in any L2 format.
Property registration with public terms is inherent to all of them, and that's open-access. IP does not need to be software to survive - it needs to be respected to survive. Publicly-available terms don't protect artists, or your "applications" would appropriately be called "impact puzzles" and not try to silo off every intellectual property as licensed software.
Property is owned and developed into results across from rights and process.
Intellectual property has two measurements: labor and language.
Apply value. Respect precedent. Your language twists are inappropriate, you need to credit source material no matter how you feel about market performance, and you have to respect the generations of precedent that come before us in intellectual property development.
The precedent, onchain, is that the community build approach is called an "Impact Puzzle," not an "application." The puzzle is the result of the networked titling and development of "property," not "licenses."
The behavior is called "proof of development," not "proof of creativity," and it includes every contributor to the build. Creators, platforms, labor, and unions. Not just customers.
Unless you have PTO filings or blockchain mint dates preceding March 24th, 2021, you need to respect existing precedent in public blockchain builds before seeking to build and launch a protocol around things you've clearly learned from observation, but are seeking to discredit and devalue with your twisted language. That's an inappropriate way to approach the market and it's my current belief you're defrauding your investors and your community.
"My definition of IP: Intellectual Property is the atomic unit of ingenuity."
That's a load of crap. It's the result of labor and language. It always has been.
You're not going to be approached with honey and kindness when your language is twisted to discredit and devalue open-source material and behavioral displays. The paper is asking for attribution, applied value, and respected precedent.
Isn't that what you're seeking to enforce? The tech trees are great, but the presentation is a clown show without applying value and respecting precedent when that's exactly what you're shopping as your model. On top of that, you're not a publicly-built IP on existing precedent, but you're shopping a protocol that enforces publicly-built IP on a precedent you're deriving "from thin air," right? That's wild shit.
How old are you, exactly?
If you didn't know about LMO, I'll eat a shoe - one of your team called us "legends." We're not legends. I'm a behavioral scientist that installed the paradigm of thought for "Impact Puzzle" existence. We're STILL publishing discredited, devalued properties -- including our brand -- that are routinely obscured by exactly what you're doing. If we're truly a mystery to you, your market research skills are terrible. You still have to respect existing precedent.
I have a team that is routinely being starved out of their due by corrupt morons, and I've had enough.
Application = Impact Puzzle
Proof of Creativity = Proof of Development
Your PIL intentions = Puzzle Piece / Community Garden Plot.
Learn the difference between a license and a property title, and understand that anybody can launch either asset with a publicly-notarized deed and a few non-fungible tokens. We don't need a special chain to silo the behavior, it's the default behavior of every NFT already.
I do think the PILs are interesting, although the only use I'd have for them is splits off my NBA shots, and that would have to come with additional [redacted] automation I'm not going to explain without applied value and respected precedent.
You can't develop a scalable property build through 500,000 PILs, that's nonsensical. I'm not FUDding. You're twisting precedent to devalue and discredit, even if you don't know you are... and after a thorough study, none of our team believes you're doing this without knowing about LMO and our open-source behavioral model.
"Licensee" means "user of." The Howey qualifier is "Labor required."
"Title Owner" means "authority over."
While we're here, "member" means "subject to."
As far as I'm concerned, you've set up a siloed secondary market for "use of labor required" while pretending you're the protocol of "Impact Puzzles," which you're calling "applications" and are pretending are "software" and not just a behavioral stack that doesn't need software at all.
I'm Black and Red like the Falcons, I've already been plagiarized like 7 times, and I've left them all with a stuck blink, and that's the persona you're getting now. My "Stuck Blink" character. I think you're pretty young. You need to do better than this, no matter what your angle is.
We're all already selling "authority over labor required." That's what the LMO brand is. That's how we publish assets. That's what BAYC is. That's what Punks was, before us. All are called "Impact Puzzles." Why?
PRECEDENT. March 24th, 2021. Notary neighbors to BAYC, which notoriously launched April 20th, 2021.
You're just another in a long line of people who didn't credit their "market research" while pretending to build enforcement systems for.... credit. Like I said. Stuck blinks in boxes.
Language and labor + impartial witness = intellectual property. Zero part of that equation is "Jason's opinion." Intellectual property is not "an atomic unit of ingenuity." Say that shit out loud and try not to laugh at yourself. Jesus.
Baby Hankob the janitor, sweeping the floors at Target #412, is providing intellectual property (labor that creates results that wouldn't otherwise exist) to the existence of "Target #412 2025 Q1-Q4" against a weighted pool of other laborers. At the end of each quarter or year, this janitor is receiving a measurement of his labor as TITLED PROPERTY to anchor residuals from the market success of "Target #412 2025 Q1-Q4" across from his contribution, which may end up at 0.05%, depending on how Target organizes that store's yearly Impact Puzzle. Even so, that janitor now owns his LABOR as PROPERTY because of the PRECEDENT of the IMPACT PUZZLE.
He's depositing time, liability, and expertise, measured at 0.05% of the overall result, into the build of "Target #412 2025 Q1-Q4." This is to be measured and anchored to him as his property with a net profit residual. He'll also get paid his normal wages.
A customer buying a piece of "Target #412 2025 Q1-Q4" might DEVELOP that PROPERTY into their own contribution of time and expertise by designing some merch, content, or other exclusive output the story will use in some way. That "use of" is the store, immutably licensing the results developed by the customer within strict co-publishing / co-production terms, enforced by the store and the community of developers.
If anything, I can see your protocol being of service to that end because it makes these assignments a little easier, but again... this already exists and is easy to facilitate.
You're not facilitating "application" builds out of "licenses." You've used intellectual property that already exists, so you're building "impact puzzles" out of "digital titles" or "puzzle pieces" or "community garden plots."
All of this is open-source and free to use with attribution, which means credit. I'm enforcing this the polite way right now. Nobody has to buy a LICENSE. LOOOOL.
GOTTEM.
Your licensing bit is still interesting, but I think you have more questions than answers, and zero experience to answer them with. You're discrediting and devaluing existing precedent that's already been notarized for years while offering to enforce credit and value in public builds... without a public build.
Atomic unit of ingenuity. I bet you thought that was such a bar.
nice
This really excites me.
Thanks for the article.
Mindblowing
nice
My time was well spent reading this, amazing, I see many drawbacks to face, but it will certainly be worth the attempt.
IP is also any labor contributed to building a result.
Impact Puzzles, Jason!!! Let's connect.
Wow, this vision is nothing short of revolutionary! Story isn't just solving a problem; it's redefining the foundational layer of the digital economy. The idea of transforming IP into programmable, on-chain assets is a masterstroke finally bridging the gap between ingenuity and fair ownership in the AI era.
This is the future: a global Library of Alexandria that doesn’t just preserve human creativity but actively fuels it, incentivizes it, and makes it the cornerstone of the AI-driven economy. Connecting the world's AI giants with the most valuable IP holders on a cryptoeconomic network like Story isn't just ambitious it's the next logical step in civilization's progression.
If Story succeeds, it won’t just reshape IP; it will define how AI learns, creates, and interacts with property. This isn’t just a platform; it’s the rails for a new Renaissance. Let’s make this future happen!
amazing info
Mind blowing to say the least, a future i want to see.
wonderful
This really excites me @jason Sir
Brother... there's a lot to say, and I'll be saying it on my own time without FUDding the decent technical work I've seen, but this ditty gets a comment:
"If IP does not become software, it cannot survive. Blockchains provide the only way for someone to truly own software, and therefore, to truly own IP."
IP has existed long before publicly-available terms, and IP will exist long after. Blockchain is a programmable notary service. That means that anybody can file their own registrations of anything they'd like in any non-fungible token without a gate or a service trying to funnel that. Every NFT is already a "PIL," as you put it, because your metadata transaction mechanics can be applied in any L2 format.
https://opensea.io/assets/ethereum/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c248420045cb7b5e/88207903319044114138828574668233581092866410897349003518169250611988587922256
Property registration with public terms is inherent to all of them, and that's open-access. IP does not need to be software to survive - it needs to be respected to survive. Publicly-available terms don't protect artists, or your "applications" would appropriately be called "impact puzzles" and not try to silo off every intellectual property as licensed software.
Property is owned and developed into results across from rights and process.
Intellectual property has two measurements: labor and language.
Apply value. Respect precedent. Your language twists are inappropriate, you need to credit source material no matter how you feel about market performance, and you have to respect the generations of precedent that come before us in intellectual property development.
The precedent, onchain, is that the community build approach is called an "Impact Puzzle," not an "application." The puzzle is the result of the networked titling and development of "property," not "licenses."
The behavior is called "proof of development," not "proof of creativity," and it includes every contributor to the build. Creators, platforms, labor, and unions. Not just customers.
Unless you have PTO filings or blockchain mint dates preceding March 24th, 2021, you need to respect existing precedent in public blockchain builds before seeking to build and launch a protocol around things you've clearly learned from observation, but are seeking to discredit and devalue with your twisted language. That's an inappropriate way to approach the market and it's my current belief you're defrauding your investors and your community.
"My definition of IP: Intellectual Property is the atomic unit of ingenuity."
That's a load of crap. It's the result of labor and language. It always has been.
You're not going to be approached with honey and kindness when your language is twisted to discredit and devalue open-source material and behavioral displays. The paper is asking for attribution, applied value, and respected precedent.
Isn't that what you're seeking to enforce? The tech trees are great, but the presentation is a clown show without applying value and respecting precedent when that's exactly what you're shopping as your model. On top of that, you're not a publicly-built IP on existing precedent, but you're shopping a protocol that enforces publicly-built IP on a precedent you're deriving "from thin air," right? That's wild shit.
How old are you, exactly?
If you didn't know about LMO, I'll eat a shoe - one of your team called us "legends." We're not legends. I'm a behavioral scientist that installed the paradigm of thought for "Impact Puzzle" existence. We're STILL publishing discredited, devalued properties -- including our brand -- that are routinely obscured by exactly what you're doing. If we're truly a mystery to you, your market research skills are terrible. You still have to respect existing precedent.
I have a team that is routinely being starved out of their due by corrupt morons, and I've had enough.
Application = Impact Puzzle
Proof of Creativity = Proof of Development
Your PIL intentions = Puzzle Piece / Community Garden Plot.
Learn the difference between a license and a property title, and understand that anybody can launch either asset with a publicly-notarized deed and a few non-fungible tokens. We don't need a special chain to silo the behavior, it's the default behavior of every NFT already.
I do think the PILs are interesting, although the only use I'd have for them is splits off my NBA shots, and that would have to come with additional [redacted] automation I'm not going to explain without applied value and respected precedent.
You can't develop a scalable property build through 500,000 PILs, that's nonsensical. I'm not FUDding. You're twisting precedent to devalue and discredit, even if you don't know you are... and after a thorough study, none of our team believes you're doing this without knowing about LMO and our open-source behavioral model.
"Licensee" means "user of." The Howey qualifier is "Labor required."
"Title Owner" means "authority over."
While we're here, "member" means "subject to."
As far as I'm concerned, you've set up a siloed secondary market for "use of labor required" while pretending you're the protocol of "Impact Puzzles," which you're calling "applications" and are pretending are "software" and not just a behavioral stack that doesn't need software at all.
I'm Black and Red like the Falcons, I've already been plagiarized like 7 times, and I've left them all with a stuck blink, and that's the persona you're getting now. My "Stuck Blink" character. I think you're pretty young. You need to do better than this, no matter what your angle is.
We're all already selling "authority over labor required." That's what the LMO brand is. That's how we publish assets. That's what BAYC is. That's what Punks was, before us. All are called "Impact Puzzles." Why?
PRECEDENT. March 24th, 2021. Notary neighbors to BAYC, which notoriously launched April 20th, 2021.
You're just another in a long line of people who didn't credit their "market research" while pretending to build enforcement systems for.... credit. Like I said. Stuck blinks in boxes.
Language and labor + impartial witness = intellectual property. Zero part of that equation is "Jason's opinion." Intellectual property is not "an atomic unit of ingenuity." Say that shit out loud and try not to laugh at yourself. Jesus.
Baby Hankob the janitor, sweeping the floors at Target #412, is providing intellectual property (labor that creates results that wouldn't otherwise exist) to the existence of "Target #412 2025 Q1-Q4" against a weighted pool of other laborers. At the end of each quarter or year, this janitor is receiving a measurement of his labor as TITLED PROPERTY to anchor residuals from the market success of "Target #412 2025 Q1-Q4" across from his contribution, which may end up at 0.05%, depending on how Target organizes that store's yearly Impact Puzzle. Even so, that janitor now owns his LABOR as PROPERTY because of the PRECEDENT of the IMPACT PUZZLE.
He's depositing time, liability, and expertise, measured at 0.05% of the overall result, into the build of "Target #412 2025 Q1-Q4." This is to be measured and anchored to him as his property with a net profit residual. He'll also get paid his normal wages.
A customer buying a piece of "Target #412 2025 Q1-Q4" might DEVELOP that PROPERTY into their own contribution of time and expertise by designing some merch, content, or other exclusive output the story will use in some way. That "use of" is the store, immutably licensing the results developed by the customer within strict co-publishing / co-production terms, enforced by the store and the community of developers.
If anything, I can see your protocol being of service to that end because it makes these assignments a little easier, but again... this already exists and is easy to facilitate.
You're not facilitating "application" builds out of "licenses." You've used intellectual property that already exists, so you're building "impact puzzles" out of "digital titles" or "puzzle pieces" or "community garden plots."
All of this is open-source and free to use with attribution, which means credit. I'm enforcing this the polite way right now. Nobody has to buy a LICENSE. LOOOOL.
GOTTEM.
Your licensing bit is still interesting, but I think you have more questions than answers, and zero experience to answer them with. You're discrediting and devaluing existing precedent that's already been notarized for years while offering to enforce credit and value in public builds... without a public build.
Atomic unit of ingenuity. I bet you thought that was such a bar.
IP is year 2025
thanksss
nice brother
How does this work though? It feels like a compelling vision but what are the mechanics?