Blogging + Cryptocurrencies + Academia = Fishbowl Echo Chamber

Gif by Alex Boya

Abstract

An assessment of a thought experiment exploring public history blogging on a cryptocurrency platform. Participants included graduate school students at Temple University, in Philadelphia. The cohort posted on Steemit as a proof of concept for blockchain tools to be included in the digital strategies of arts and culture non-profits. The experiment proved inconclusive due to time constraints and misaligned funding priorities.

Introduction

What does a graduate level course in public history and urban topics in non-profit ecosystems have to do with crypto currency and blogging? That's what @phillyhistory set out to discover in the spring of 2018. Together we explored topics from a century ago, aspects of public history and public trust, and the impact of technology, identity politics, and economics on the non-profit sector of the United States.

This entire process was then charted on the Steemit blogging platform to model how posts about non-profit related culture and arts topics can generate cryptocurrency value that can over time be leveraged for other means.

Method

Each week we were required to post twice around a variety of topics. The 15 or so users in our cohort then pooled our earnings by transferring our SD to @phillyhistory where they would eventually be dispersed to an appropriate 501 c3 non-profit with a Steemit account. After four months the cohort would allocate the funds to an appropriate recipient determined by the structure put forth here by the cohort.

PS it's in every single footer of all our posts.

Background

In an effort to shake up the routine and introduce students to emerging technologies and structures of content @kenfinkel introduced the blockchain blogging platform Steemit to two Temple University graduate courses in Spring 2018. The project was also incubated by @sndbox who acted as sponsoring whales, upvoting our posts, and providing additional support.

Results & Analysis

• Scope Management: Assuming that the value of Steem would rise and we would have the equivalent of $30,000 of funds to dispense was hopeful, at best. The equivalent of roughly $7,000 that we eventually amassed would now go to maybe one organization if we could select/find one. Picking "the most deserving" non-profit to allocate our funds to was the most distracting and time consuming part of the experiment. Had an organization like the Wagner Free Institute been selected from the outset, there would have been more focus and success in terms of non-profit cryptocurrency (aka Steeemit) adoption.

• Time Management: Is four months a long enough period of time to conduct this experiment? Did we need 12 months to accrue enough SD and build our audience? Is 2 posts a week too little to earn SD? Would we have been better served to contact potential recipient organizations earlier in the process rather than 2 months into our experiment? Once we reached out to non-profit orgs. did we give them enough time and information to make an informed decision? How we managed time throughout this process added a layer of uncertainty to the results.

• Audience: The word crypto currency scares people and or confuses them. We saw this among classmates and most of the non-profit organizations that we approached with this project. Uncertainty intimidates people as do disruptive technologies, and both of these factors were in play here. Writing for the web is also a specific type of endeavor and maybe that impacted the number of upvotes. From generating meaningful content to finding the right partners to leverage our work, the different rhythms of each participant made the choreography of the experiment a bit choppy.

• Platform considerations: Steemit is better than Blackboard, Moodle or Canvass which are the standard academic classroom management tools. Steemit took the classroom dynamic from the behind the walled garden and made it a fishbowl for the entire community to see into, if they found our work interesting. I like the idea of people learning from our process of learning. Rather than just our classmates gaining some insight, we now have contributed to a larger thread of thought and interaction. Steemit provides better transparency than the traditional LMS. However, as noted in many other posts, the GUI and overall UX is pretty clunky.

Conclusion

In some ways the money aspects of the project hijacked the process. We spent more time figuring out who to give "our play money" to and discussing the ethics of our project than really pushing the experiment further. I agree whole heartedly with @connellgregg that a more collaborative approach and one longer in timespan would enhance the project impact immensely.

Also the role of incubator and Steemit whale, @sndbox, was instrumental to this endeavor. Without their upvotes our posts would have had less valuation. Their participation was essential.

Overall, I found this experiment in digital humanities to be quite illuminating. Not only do I now have a better understanding of cryptocurrencies in action, I also have a wider perspective about how a blockchain structure can impact a variety of different sectors and mediums. Through the Steemit feed (and slack) I was able to keep up with peers' posts to gain a wider perspective of our experiment. The collaborative nature and experimental tone of the process made for an overall enjoyable user experience.

Hat tip to @cheider for the idea and the link to this lab report template.

AND BIG UPS to @kenfinkel for leading this journey.

^{100% of the SBD rewards from this #explore1918 post will support the Philadelphia History Initiative @phillyhistory. This crypto-experiment conducted by graduate courses at Temple University's Center for Public History and MLA Program, is exploring history and empowering education. Click here to learn more.}