MetaMask co-founder Dan Finlay recently conducted a meme coin experiment to test the consent and trust issues in Web3. Through the experiment of issuing two tokens, Consent (agree) and I Don't Consent (I don't agree), Finlay found that many vague regulations not only lost the trust of users, but also showed that the current meme currency ecosystem still has many risks and contradictions. .

Consent disputes on social platforms

Finlay's idea for the meme coin experiment came from his observation of social media. He noticed that Twitter, Bluesky and Farcaster have big differences in how they treat AI and data consent issues:

  • Twitter: Mainly dominated by AI researchers, discussions on artist rights have slowly become less frequent.

  • Farcaster: Technology-oriented, emphasizing rapid application and development, and has little patience for discussions of ethics.

  • Bluesky: Attracts many artists and ethically concerned users, but lacks a pragmatic basis for discussion.

Bluesky was recently revealed to have used user posts as a data source for training AI models without the user’s consent. Many users were dissatisfied with this matter, which reminded Finlay of the meme currency market, believing that the two are similar in the ambiguity of "consent."

Issuing meme coins to explore the boundaries of consent and trust

Therefore, Finlay issued two meme coins on the Ethereum and Pump.fun chains respectively, namely Consent and I Don’t Consent, and used these two tokens to observe the current transaction behavior and community reaction of Web3. Finlay said that the market began to trade wildly for these two completely useless tokens, and the token price even soared to $100,000 on Pump.fun in just one hour.

Finlay points out that this rapid expansion in value also has negative consequences. Some investors knew that these two tokens were useless, so they began to assign meaning to the tokens. Finlay then tried to sell some of the tokens for testing, but this led to misunderstandings, threats, and people begging Finlay to make long-term plans for the two tokens.

Finlay issues tokens on Pump.fun Consent and I Don’t Consent The common problem between Web3 and AI is “consent ambiguity”

Finlay found that the only clear “consent behavior” in the memecoin market was when investors paid for the tokens without knowing the actual use or meaning of the tokens. Finlay questioned: "In such a vague market environment, what is the meaning of such 'consent'?" He called this phenomenon "the paradox of consent." Finlay further pointed out that Web3 and AI have similar problems, that is, "there is a disconnect between consent in technical agreements and consent in social expectations."

Calling for clear rules and safety guarantees as the basis

Through this experiment, Finlay emphasized that Web3 and AI platforms need to find ways to solve the consent problem. He believes that not only investors, but all participants should clearly understand how the funds or data they invest will be used, the possible consequences, and what the rules of the market are. The platform also needs to design a guarantee mechanism to protect the rights and interests of users.

Finlay said bluntly: "This is not a demand for morality, but a demand for making better products. Applications do not need to become a puddle of toxic wastewater, and the community does not need to be full of threats and chaos."

(Meme currency has become a contemporary science! Binance research analysis: Financial nihilism attracts young people, and 97% of the transaction volume has returned to zero)

This article, the founder of MetaMask uses meme coins to expose the chaos of Web3, and the disconnect between technical protocols and social expectations. First appeared on Chain News ABMedia.