Oceans of Wisdom

my view is that we are already heavy 'meme' coded

(just making things up)

it all depends if the next $500M is going to come from top 5 normies holders or UAE

1/ supporting emerging artists 2/ the NFT classics 3/ crossovers - the ixshells of the world, that are legible to non-NFT art people

I think the winning approach is something like

is probably not ready to be a multi-decade steward of cultural capital ex-CPs and maybe, maybe stretch thinking a couple of others

the average PFP collection hodler

0.1% of it is in the existing NFT space and 99.9% is not

and cultural permanence

is that of the money that will fund digital art

and not somewhere else

look, my view and sorry for everyone else that I am going to say it here

1/1s too

not for me to decide

this is the purpose of this group

anyway we can discuss

to say we are doing something at normal museum curational standards but in this cool internet native way etc etc

it makes it harder to get an audience with samsung and the dubai digital museum

but I think if we curate them in day 1

and I think they belong

this is not my personal view of the 6529 complaints; I love them

is a meta-meme about ourselves

if the literally first thing we curate

so I think it weakens our story of we can do decentralized curation

bc the existing audience is tiny and the potential audience is the other 8B people in the world

my audience I want to impress is "people who do not already love the 6529 memes"

that is done decentralized

for me the message that I want to show is that we can run a serious museum collection that one day will be the top decentralized museum in the world

because it is going to just look like we are self-congratulating ourselves

but I am not sure we should start day 1 that way

their time can/will come I think

Same thing I think re Meme Cards, Pebbles, etc

i wonder if we should start so self-referential. I am not necessarily opposed in time, but I think we have a lot of 'brand' around meme-related stuff and I am not 100% sure I would start this way "day 1"

**Proposal: General NFT Collecting Scope** The 6529 Network Museum considers historically, artistically, culturally, or technically significant NFTs and blockchain-native digital objects to be within scope for the Museum’s collection. This scope includes, without limitation: 1. **PFPs and avatar projects** Collections that contributed meaningfully to digital identity, community formation, avatar culture, online self-representation, or the evolution of NFT-native collecting. 2. **Generative art** Algorithmic, procedural, on-chain, long-form, or otherwise system-based digital artworks, including both fully on-chain and partially on-chain works. 3. **1/1 digital art** Unique digital artworks issued as NFTs, including works by artists using NFTs as a native medium, distribution mechanism, provenance layer, or market structure. 4. **Editions** Limited, open, timed, or otherwise editioned NFT artworks, including works where the edition structure itself is part of the artistic, cultural, or distribution logic. 5. **NFT photography** Photographic works issued as NFTs, including both single-image works and editioned photographic projects, where the NFT meaningfully contributes to provenance, distribution, community, or artistic context. 6. **Meme-native and internet-culture works** NFTs and blockchain-native objects rooted in memes, remix culture, networked communities, viral images, internet-native symbols, or shared cultural references. 7. **Interactive, dynamic, and programmable works** NFTs that change over time, respond to data, include interactive elements, depend on smart contracts, or otherwise use blockchain infrastructure as part of the work. 8. **AI, computational, and software-based works** Works created with, about, or through artificial intelligence, code, software systems, autonomous processes, or computational media. 9. **Video, audio, literary, and mixed-media NFTs** NFT-native works using moving image, sound, music, poetry, text, performance documentation, or hybrid digital media. 10. **Virtual-world, gaming, and metaverse-native objects** Digital objects, wearables, land, environments, game assets, or artifacts that are historically or culturally significant to open metaverse development, provided they have sufficient curatorial relevance. 11. **Protocol-native and platform-native cultural artifacts** Blockchain-native objects that may not fit traditional art categories but are important to the history of NFTs, digital ownership, crypto culture, open networks, or the development of decentralized cultural systems. The inclusion of a category within scope does not mean that every work or collection in that category must be accepted. Individual works, collections, and acquisition programs remain subject to the Museum’s ordinary procedures for curatorial review, provenance, title, authenticity, custody, wallet security, legal compliance, donor acceptance, budgeting, and governance. The Museum may also establish specific safe-harbor categories or pre-approved collections from time to time. Where such a safe harbor has been approved, donations from that collection may be accepted without further collection-specific review, while still remaining subject to the Museum’s ordinary operational, legal, provenance, and custody checks. Acquisition programs involving NFTs or blockchain-native digital objects may be pursued, provided they are approved, funded, and executed through the Museum’s ordinary governance, budgeting, and acquisition processes. **Rationale** The NFT field is broader than any single format. Some of its most important works are generative art projects; others are PFPs, 1/1s, editions, photographs, memes, dynamic works, virtual-world objects, or artifacts that are difficult to classify using older museum categories. The 6529 Network Museum should therefore define its collecting scope broadly enough to recognize the full range of blockchain-native culture. NFTs are not merely a wrapper for digital images. In many cases, the token, contract, provenance, community, minting structure, edition logic, ownership history, and network context are part of the work’s meaning. At the same time, a broad collecting scope should not become automatic approval for every NFT project. The better structure is to distinguish between category-level eligibility and collection-level approval. Broad categories can be in scope, while specific works and collections remain subject to review unless separately approved as safe harbors. This approach gives the Museum flexibility, intellectual seriousness, and operational discipline. It allows the Museum to collect across the full history of NFT-native culture while preserving clear standards for acceptance, acquisition, and long-term stewardship.

thanks boss

not splitting - anyone can use full TDH per proposal

my first minted NFT

it solves two interrelated but different things: 1/ sending something to the museum wallet does not equal accession to the museum; if I send a picture of @[BatSoupYum]'s feet, it does not automatically become part of the collection Remember what happened when people started sending rando NFTs to MoMA's wallet. Those NFTs are NOT acceded to the MoMA just because they are sent there, anymore than leaving your painting in the lobby of the MoMA adds you to the permanent collection 2/ it sends a message to potential funders, contributors, minters, etc that this is in scope

**Proposal 3: Rare Pepes** The 6529 Network Museum considers the original Rare Pepe collection to be within scope for the Museum’s collection. Donations of original Rare Pepe cards may be accepted without further collection-specific review, subject only to the Museum’s ordinary procedures for provenance, title, authenticity, custody, wallet security, legal compliance, donor acceptance, and any artwork-specific review required by Museum policy. **Rationale** Rare Pepes are a foundational early example of blockchain-native visual culture. They sit at the intersection of memes, digital collecting, internet-native authorship, community curation, scarce digital objects, and early NFT-like infrastructure. For a museum concerned with the history of open metaverse culture, blockchain-native art, and networked digital expression, Rare Pepes are not merely collectibles; they are primary historical artifacts. Rare Pepes are also directly relevant to the 6529 ecosystem. The Meme Cards are modeled in various ways on Rare Pepes, among other precedents. The relationship is not one of simple replication, but Rare Pepes clearly helped establish several ideas that later became important to The Memes: the card format, serialized meme-native works, community recognition, collection-building around cultural symbols, and the idea that memes can function as durable cultural objects rather than disposable internet ephemera. Approving the original Rare Pepe collection as a standing eligible category gives the Museum a narrow and defensible safe harbor. It recognizes the historical importance of Rare Pepes without requiring the Museum to approve every Pepe-related or meme-related project in advance. This approval should not be read to imply that all Pepe derivatives, meme coins, later derivative projects, or meme-based NFT collections are automatically within scope. Those may be reviewed separately through the Museum’s ordinary processes. Acquisition programs involving original Rare Pepe cards may also be pursued, provided they are approved, funded, and executed through the Museum’s ordinary governance, budgeting, and acquisition processes.

exactly

guaranteed

the purpose of the museum is to make the world's best decentralized museum, right?

"why are you supporting the Picasso cabal and not emerging artists"

i mean, I consider these to be the most simple decisions we have to make, the lowest stake decisions we have to make and every time the last 2-3 weeks I have said this, there has been mostly static

like if someone wants to give me a Picasso, I am not going to get out in the street and protest against them

the 50% of the mint is what pays for developers, AWS servers, tax accountants, etc etc and will continue to do so when decentralized

is a completely different issue

if anyone is going to give to us or mint for it and so on

i am asking us to decide if we in principle would be in favor of a rare pepe or ringer or glyph being in the network collection

i want to separate out the issues