[p][r][o][p][e][r][t][y]
the creation and delivery of value
This work is the original authored material of Kimani Okearah and is to be cited and linked in any quote or reference, despite how anybody feels about the “performance standards” met by the language and teaching methods employed. This specific, antagonistic tone is part of the exploration. 🤣
[p][r][o][p][e][r][t][y] behavior is cognitive linguistic research under the academic umbrellas of the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, the University of California: Santa Cruz, and Kaw Nation of the author’s Afro-Indigenous American ancestry.
[property] becomes [p][r][o][p][e][r][t][y]
That’s one of several missions of a public notary service that layers simultaneous user transactions in stacks called “blocks” and keeps those in a programmable, permanent “chain” that presumably cannot be hacked. The record’s authenticity is maintained by countless users who all must be hacked at the same exact time to successfully change data that’s been recorded. Unless otherwise arranged, these chains are public, and all users can view all records.
I’m Kimani Okearah, a media producer and cognitive linguist with a recent profile disaffected by severe health complications. Part of having the issue I have is that I’m in too much pain, all the time, to transact time on a schedule. I can transact authority over my earned expertise, so I’m structuring co-publishing and co-production efforts on blockchain technology through Let Me Out Productions, The Top Brass DAO, and our “Impact Puzzles,” which can be easily rendered to the visible eye as:
[p][r][o][p][e][r][t][y]
Please note: I do not like typing, as my constant pain allows me a specific awareness. I realize I’m a bored ape (not the cartoon version), pressing buttons, while sitting on my own pressed button. With no audience to write about, I find my labored language to be the health-compounded culprit of my empty wallet and oft-pinched ideas. Be that as it may, I do have a responsibility to share some findings with my community in cognitive linguistics while seeking some economy through [p][r][o][p][e][r][t][y] sales for my team and myself.
Nobody seems to be behaving the right way with the non-fungible token.
Why are we gambling on notarized index keys on a public ledger, pray-tell?
The Problem
In cognitive linguistics, we explore the creation and delivery of meaning as a behavior. Language, itself, is an invented tool to perform a natural, necessary behavior. Linguistics, itself, is a behavioral science. “Itself,” itself, is a self-describing elf.
I celebrate Jakob von Uexküll’s explorations of meaning as perceptions, subjective to both the individual or species (umwelt), and subjective to a wider culture or creaturedom (umwelten).
Meaning is flat. It exists. There’s the creation of it. There’s the experience of it. The problem occurs when one party dictates their perspective on the meaning created over the objective truth, should there be one. That perspective disagrees with the objective truth of the meaning in the intended creation, forming a pedestal.
Value is a form of meaning. Value is flat. It exists. There’s the creation of it. There’s the experience of it. The same problem occurs.
•••••
Figure Key: ᶠᵛ = flat value | ᶜᵛ = compound value.
[e]ᶜᵛ [n]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [i]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [y]ᶜᵛ = (shareholders via account of secure deposits)
[creator]ᶠᵛ x [labor]ᶠᵛ + [resources]ᶠᵛ ᵒʳ ᶜᵛ = [property]ᶜᵛ
[property]ᶜᵛ is a “vertical” vessel for
[e]ᶜᵛ [n]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [i]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [y]ᶜᵛ = (shareholders via account of secure deposits)
•••••
How about combining [e]ᶜᵛ [n]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [i]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [y]ᶜᵛ with:
[p]ᶜᵛ [r]ᶜᵛ [o]ᶜᵛ [p]ᶜᵛ [e]ᶜᵛ [r]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [y]ᶜᵛ
for (all contributors via titled proof-of-development Impact Puzzle pieces)?
[e]ᶜᵛ [n]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [i]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [y]ᶜᵛ = (shareholders)
can develop and own [p]ᶜᵛ [e]ᶜᵛ [r]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ (proof-of-development titles)
while generating more revenue from [p][e][r][t]
than they would [property].
The uniquely-programmable index key for public notary registration (“NFT”) can handle anything the registrant wants to program them to do. If they’re to serve as secure deposits of value in the ownership and compound value, created by others, of an [e]ᶜᵛ [n]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [i]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [y]ᶜᵛ, they must be registered as securities with the SEC.
This includes intending to create value verticals in “secondary position” trading, which a lot of groups try to sneak by using “art” and “meme coins.” The technology, itself, cannot provide fiduciary obligations to the units of account unless the index key is programmed to do so.
[p]ᶜᵛ [r]ᶜᵛ [o]ᶜᵛ [p]ᶜᵛ [e]ᶜᵛ [r]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [y]ᶜᵛ is not a secure deposit.
It is a purchase of a title to [rights, processes, and results], aka “Impact,” in the development of a deeded property — intellectual or otherwise.
Ahh. I just realized why all of the real estate agents love me.
It’s hard to sell [property]. It’s a lot easier to sell [p][r][o][p][e][r][t][y].
Self-Righteous Prescriptivism
Layer One in dictated meaning / value
Ah. That good, old, tasty syrup (“SRP”) to slurp up. To reduce the concept, we’ll call this “leverage-seeking” behavior. One adopts a self-righteous perspective to prescribe the meaning and value of others, meaning they seek leverage to control reality. They think they must control others to control reality.
Oftentimes, one will identify and weaponize a performance standard to create this leverage. To cement the performance standard that’s been weaponized, one must find enforcement from other parties.
Dno’t seke larveege oevr menanig by weizniponag pfconermrae sratdnads — jsut let it ccenont. Your brain will empathize and find it.
This is how we survive together. Don’t needlessly seek leverage in a way that governs your entire being and behavior, that’s called “prescriptivism.” It’s unnecessary.
Esoteric Fraud Culture
Layer Two in dictated meaning / value
An “esoteric” is the internal, shared, oft-obscured meaning of a group. The “fraud” is the falseness of that meaning. The “culture” is the group or the nature of the group. One person, or a group of leaders, loudly practicing SRP, will often form an ECF of some kind in the wake of their behavior. The ECF enforces the weaponized performance standards installed by the person(s) practicing SRP.
The leverage the SRP leader has formed for themselves spreads throughout the ECF. The original leveraged meaning may become bolstered by network effect, or it may be lost, altogether.
Performative Sanctimony
Layer Three in dictated meaning / value
The network effect of the Esoteric Fraud Culture is Performative Sanctimony. Individuals who feel a sense of belonging in the ECF begin creating their own internal performance standards to govern and seek leverage over.
The original leverage-seeking behavior, born from the SRP leader, is practiced outwardly and often theatrically as a display of loyalty to the ECF. In the instance that original behavior has been twisted by the “PerfSanc” network effect, it’s the twisted, derivative behavior on display.
Emotional Blackmail | Leveraged Violence
Layer Four in dictated meaning / value
The social result of this behavior stack is Emotional Blackmail or Leveraged Violence, depending on what’s being communicated. If a person is outside of the ECF, they’re made to feel a sense of shame about it. This results in Emotional Blackmail, which we’ll short-hand to “EmBm.”
Emotional Blackmail often holds hostage the creation and delivery of meaning.
Leveraged Violence (“LV”) often holds hostage the creation and delivery of value.
The problem is every human being on the planet has subconsciously prioritized “conquering” this behavioral stack for adrenaline and dopamine governance.
- A “rush” is a fleeting, temporary change in mood and/or behavior produced by your active experience or thought.
- A “pivot” is a lasting change in mood and/or behavior that can hold for hours before the individual feels “normal” again.
- A “governance” is a wide-arcing mood and/or behavior that presents as “default” in the observable reality of the human, but in actuality, it’s a chemical comfort produced by repeated experiences that fit a similar template.
We like to “feel better than” the next person, and it’s why we can’t share meaning or value efficiently. The performance standard will be weaponized to create authority, which will always result in a group of chimpanzees competing to throw poop at the thing the group formed self-righteousness against.
[intellectual property]
We’re going to use [property] for short.
[language] x [labor] + [resources] = [property]
Problem:
The concept creator(s) provide [language].
The hired team and appropriate collective bargaining provide [labor].
The customer provides [resources].
The customer owns most, if not all, of the [property], and now bears the label of “investor.”
The customer has created Leveraged Violence over the time, liability, and skill provided by creator and labor.
They are dictating the value of the [language] and the [labor] to be flat while the [property] operates as the vessel for compound value.
Think of any episode of Shark Tank from the perspective of the “Shark” customer, trying to “leverage violence” over the time, liability, and skill provided. This is not to demonize the individuals on the program — we’re discussing a flaw in human cohabitation and collaboration on meaning. Everybody is “guilty,” so-to-speak.
In the case of Shark Tank, the [property] is often wrapped as an Entity — the organization pursuing business with their [property]. Entities are designed to seek investors in this specific way, and investors want their businesses pursuing “gains” on their behalf.
Those gains come from:
- Market success, at first. Once that reaches a peak value…
- Labor, next. Once Labor has been trimmed and squeezed…
- Quality is the final deterioration.
Once success, labor, and quality have produced the highest volume for the investor, the properties die, then the Entity dies. Wash, rinse, repeat. They call this a “vertical,” and the corrupted vessel is the [property]. Some things last, but most platforms, these days, are grifting their investors with a [property] that has no hope of scaling and sustaining. This is complicating debt cycles and resulting in more leveraged violence, which trickles down to everyone.
To fully adopt a paradigm shift to escape leveraged violence in the economy, one must separate [e][n][t][i][t][y] from [property]. “Mondelēz International” is both an [e][n][t][i][t][y] and a [property]. “Oreo” is one [property] the [e][n][t][i][t][y] manages. Please note that I’m not accusing the good folks at Mondelēz of anything at all, and I’m discussing an existing example of human behavior.
Inherently, “Mondelēz International” has leverage over the time Labor provides to Oreo, yet all contributors share authority over the quality of the product. Logic presents that accounting for the authority over the quality of the product with sustainably-appropriate distribution of [p]ᶜᵛ [r]ᶜᵛ [o]ᶜᵛ [p]ᶜᵛ [e]ᶜᵛ [r]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [y]ᶜᵛ would greatly-increase the quality across from the vested interest of all contributors, no matter what the product is. If the product quality is maximized, so is it’s market presence and inherent value to the community.
Logic also presents that adopting the accounting behavior of [p]ᶜᵛ [r]ᶜᵛ [o]ᶜᵛ [p]ᶜᵛ [e]ᶜᵛ [r]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [y]ᶜᵛ includes the opportunity to sell [p]ᶜᵛ to a customer for development into a co-published, co-produced, or market sovereign result within a predetermined set of rules, rails, terms, conditions, and down-line licensing.
Solution:
| [language] x [labor] + [resources] = [p][r][o][p][e][r][t][y] |
The concept creator(s) provide(s) [language].
The hired team and appropriate collective bargaining provides [labor].
The customer(s) provide(s) [resources].
Everybody owns the [p][r][o][p][e][r][t][y] they develop.
Musical Bears: A Let Me Out! CryptoBears Musical
The author’s great-grand-uncle started his career in independent, lo-fi musicals shared by the troupe…
We’ll get through the bear market by singing on it.
#1 • Here First Bear
Development status:
- Fashion/Merchandise Co-Publication | complete
- Song on Bear | incomplete
- New Bear for the Puzzle | incomplete
- Lore Maintenance | partially-complete
- Total Net Profit Position, post-sales tax, developed by the customer: $62,290 from fashion, alone
Relationships:
- 0x_be76 is the owner and the developer. They own their fashion designs, their song, if it’s original, and their lore.
- Let Me Out Productions is the publisher, retaining irrevocable license to use the provided designs, the resulting song, and the resulting lore for our end of the collaboration.
- Total Net Profit Position, post-sales tax, developed for publisher: $56,061 from fashion, alone
Terms:
- All developments in fashion, art, new bears, and lore must be appropriate for Ages 11+, which is determined by Let Me Out Productions until the community grows to over 1,000 developers.
- 1:1 proof-of-development ratio, meaning ownership of the pieces is completely decentralized.
- The developer owns their music masters unless it’s a parody or a cover, in which case the development must fall under the umbrella of standard fair use.
- The developer is asked to provide room for the publisher collaboration sell out it’s limited edition marketplace before deciding to expand any independent fashion to the market with their bears.
- The new bear the developer provides to the puzzle will issue them 15.75% of the product net profit from wares co-published featuring their development.
[p][r][o][p][e][r][t][y]
Sing on a bear. Develop your [p]ᶜᵛ
Let Me Out Productions | The Brand Puzzle
Hi Devin
Our first [p]ᶜᵛ was notarized to Ethereum via OpenSea’s Shared Storefront Contract on a “soft-mint” on March 24th, 2021. The [p] is the title to rights, processes, and the results developed from them in our “Let Me Out Productions” brand puzzle. We’re a co-publishing brand co-publishing itself with expanded co-publishing. How fun!
- 16% public development. 80,000 pieces on a 200-piece sliding release window. Each piece is hand-crafted by the Founder of the platform or a [p] owner/developer. Their ᶜᵛ is 50% of the primary sale of the new [p] piece they’ve provided, 5% of every sale after with enforced secondaries, and 15% of the net profit earned from any publisher merchandise sold with that art.
- 84% private development (420,000 pieces, distributed at development benchmarks).
- This is a 1:5.25 “Proof of Development” ratio, meaning for every [p]ᶜᵛ purchased and developed by a customer, [r]ᶜᵛ [o]ᶜᵛ [p]ᶜᵛ [e]ᶜᵛ [r]ᶜᵛ and 1/4th of [t]ᶜᵛ are distributed to laborers working for the core brand.
- Should U.S. American governance allow, a developed [p]ᶜᵛ should anchor net profit from and wider | [p]ᶜᵛ [r]ᶜᵛ [o]ᶜᵛ [p]ᶜᵛ [e]ᶜᵛ [r]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [y]ᶜᵛ | performance as a whole. The only reason this may not occur is because the title may effectively be promoted as a “secure deposit of value” in the labor of others. We feel that effort + titled property = justification for net profit distribution across from purchased equity. It’s a worthy debate.
Example: #71 • Red See
Development status:
- Develop an Impact Puzzle | first puzzle launched! ✅
- Develop a new piece of the LMO Brand Puzzle in format| in progress
- Own, access, and govern the Top Brass DAO | this developer is active ✅
- Limited LMO Content access | ✅
- Exclusive Airdrops and SWAG | first airdrop is underway
- 0.0002% ownership of “Let Me Out Productions” | ✅ certified developer
- Official Merchandise Collaboration | in progress
- Right to Identify / Affiliate as Part-Owner / Member of Top Brass | ✅
- Storyworld “Red See” for Puzzle development | ideas are brewing
- Collection Benchmark Achievements | one piece collected so far
- Custody Insurance | ✅
- Personal Agency Deed Template & Enforcement Support | ✅
- Exclusive Right to Pitch-to-Hire LMO as Primary Publisher | ✅
- Shared rights to de-facto, minted, and registered marks of trade | ✅
- Full Non-Disclosure Agreement in deed for creative support | ✅
- Total Net Profit Position, pre-tax, developed for customer: $1,440,000 from their Impact Puzzle projection (Item 1 only) if executed and sold out, which is up to them with zero strings attached to Let Me Out Productions.
Relationships:
- 0x_5c04 is the owner and the developer. They own the Impact Puzzles, Storyword plans, and the merchandise designs they develop in the collaboration. Most of the other results are co-published, co-developed, achievement-focused, and/or they professional anchor/augment brand affiliation.
- Let Me Out Productions is the publisher, retaining irrevocable license to use the provided merchandise designs for our end of the collaboration. Terms and conditions may apply to airdropped material, as well.
- Total Net Profit Position, post-sales tax, developed for Let Me Out Productions: $5,000-$50,000 from the merchandise collaboration, whenever the owner finishes their development in that Impact Tier. That’s it.
- When their PAUCA Impact Puzzle is successful, Let Me Out Productions enjoys the brand benefit of structuring their co-production, which should lead to other developers wanting to purchase pieces of Let Me Out Productions.
Please support our first developer by collecting a piece of Pan-African United Community Advocacy (“PAUCA”), the second-ever brand co-published as an Impact Puzzle on the LMO Structure for Tokenomics.
- PAUCA Impact Developers will develop a new Impact Piece to add to the puzzle. These pieces are called “Legacy Pieces,” and are sold at a higher value than the Standard Pieces PAUCA offers. The standard mark-up for a developer-contributed Legacy Piece (750 Matic/Polygon) is 15x the price of the original piece purchased (50 Matic/Polygon). Impact Owners retain 50% of primary sale revenue of their specific contribution and 5% of secondary sales (when royalties are enforced. PAUCA does not guarantee enforcement of royalties on secondary trades). Merchandise Revenue Share: Impact Owners are entitled to 35% of PAUCA’s net merchandise profit, per unit sold with their provided Legacy Piece as the primary design.
- Impact Owners may curate, price, and design up to four (4) pieces of merchandise using their Impact Piece. The collaboration features a Product Cap: PAUCA will sell a maximum of 10,000 units per merchandise piece created in a limited edition sale, splitting the per-unit product net profits 50/50 between PAUCA and the Impact Owner. 50% of the product net profit will be assigned to the Impact Developer who provided the merchandise design effort. 50% will be assigned to PAUCA. In the event the merchandise is produced by a Legacy Piece, 50% of the product net profit will be assigned to the Impact Developer who provided the merchandise design effort. 40% product net profit will be assigned to the Impact Developer who provided the artistic effort in the Legacy Piece. 10% will be assigned to PAUCA. Regarding Vendors: PAUCA reserves the right to work with any vendor the brand leadership chooses to work with, and PAUCA reserves the right to change vendors at any time for any reason. In most cases, a piece of merchandise launched with one vendor will typically remain with that vendor. Items available to create with the PAUCA logo may vary, depending on the merchandiser. Impact Owners are encouraged to launch their own link aggregate website that features their legacy piece and their merchandise.
- Impact Owners can submit up to 3 pages of content for publication in the bi-quarterly PAUCA Impact Newsletter, subject to editorial and quality standards. The newsletter features a Revenue Share: Impact Owners receive a share of 35% of advertising revenue specific to the publication they are featured in, with 60% allocated to PAUCA and 5% to a community-governed treasury. The PAUCA community can publish their own newsletter and seek advertising relationships in the event the brand is no longer publishing a central publication.
- Each year, Impact Owners are granted waived tabling/presence fees at one PAUCA community bazaar event, with opportunities to reserve a table in advance at most events if they are also a PAUCA member, committing to a monthly due. The PAUCA community can host their own bazaar events in the condition the brand is no longer producing them.
- 16% public development. 16,000 pieces in an as-developed release window. Each piece is hand-crafted by a community member, donating the art, or a [p] owner/developer. Their ᶜᵛ is 50% of the primary sale of the new [p] piece they’ve provided, 5% of every sale after with enforced secondaries, and 15% of the net profit earned from any publisher merchandise sold with that art.
- 84% private development (84,000 pieces, distributed at development benchmarks).
- This is a 1:5.25 “Proof of Development” ratio, meaning for every [p]ᶜᵛ purchased and developed by a customer, [r]ᶜᵛ [o]ᶜᵛ [p]ᶜᵛ [e]ᶜᵛ [r]ᶜᵛ and 1/4th of [t]ᶜᵛ are distributed to laborers working for the core brand.
- Should U.S. American governance allow, a developed [p]ᶜᵛ should anchor net profit from and wider | [p]ᶜᵛ [r]ᶜᵛ [o]ᶜᵛ [p]ᶜᵛ [e]ᶜᵛ [r]ᶜᵛ [t]ᶜᵛ [y]ᶜᵛ | performance as a whole, especially in a not-for-profit structure like PAUCA.
Press Pass (Season One)
Co-Publish the LoreGame by doing the same thing I did for years and years.
- Make-up a character you own.
- Role-play them into the lore of professional sports in a co-publication.
- Shoot meme content about the lore you’ve created in a co-production.
Scalable purchases encouraged and available, peaking at Executive Producer packages.
Conclusions
The determination of meaning and value is subjective. This fact may anchor our conditional reality to the point where there is no observable, objective truth.
Do we all really have to run around like dipshits, seeking leverage over every little thing?
Is that dominant? Or is that pathetic?
[language] x [labor] + [resources] = [property]
Dominant.
The concept creator(s) provide [language].
The hired team and appropriate collective bargaining provide [labor].
The customer provides [resources].
The customer owns most, if not all, of the [property]. Dominant.
Nah. That’s pathetic nonsense. Wake up. We have the responsibility to share value the same way this sentence shares my intended meaning.
| [language] x [labor] + [resources] = [p][r][o][p][e][r][t][y] |
Collaborative.
The concept creator(s) provide [language].
The hired team and appropriate collective bargaining provide [labor].
The customer(s) provide(s) [resources].
Everybody owns the [p][r][o][p][e][r][t][y] they develop. Collaborative.
Final Thoughts
What are we doing when we purchase a non-fungible token?
- We are purchasing a fixed point with a measurable distance on an impartially-witnessed ledger.
- That fixed point is programmable, meaning it can be used to anchor the appropriate market conditions of the titles for permission-less development and commissions. We are agreeing on the termed rights, processes, and results upon purchasing the title.
- We are often securing a title to a piece of property to develop. The title will not increase in value in a passive way. The developed results are often licensed, in some way, to the publisher if Impact Puzzle precedent is followed. You’ll see some cretins out there trying to offer the non-fungible token as a license to use property, pretending it’s the same thing as a title one owns. This is fraudulent advertising and a (“use of” [property]) behavioral challenge to U.S. American (“authority over [p][r][o][p][e][r][t][y]”) behavioral precedent in public notary puzzles.
- Given the above context, never gamble on a non-fungible token increasing in value based on the labor of others. If you develop strong results across the community, the market will likely respond in-kind.
Advice:
- Stop pearl-clutching over the blockchain. It’s a public notary service, by-and-large, that stacks registrations in blocks and keeps them in a chain. These are peer-to-peer authenticity network that most-often run on hyper-efficient background apps that validate transactions against a significant staked value, positioned by the validator, against their integrity.
- I personally recommend rainbow.me as a wallet to get started, as it looks and feels like CashApp. Individuals and platforms are welcome to co-own, co-publish, and co-produce with us. Some results are sovereign, but anything Let Me Out Productions is involved with is shared as [p][r][o][p][e][r][t][y].
- As far as “what happened to us” with our being market pioneers preceding the public notary gambling craze, encouraged by every exchange and NFT marketplace… That’s a story for another day. The short version is… we were used as toilet paper to create the performance standard for both gambling and a bunch of nonsensical derivative takes on our work. Part of that result comes from my “surfing the lo-fi” by [rejecting performance standards] as a unit of behavioral meaning, which I’d hoped would find celebration instead of persecution. My peers will celebrate — that’s how cognitive linguistics works. 😉
- The gamblers say “Ape in.” Co-Owning Developers, Publishers, and Producers say “Tape in.” Like a VCR.
- Please donate to the purchase of [p][r][o][p][e][r][t][y] for community members who can’t afford it, especially if you’ve learned something from this piece. All titles are purchased with a cash-anonymous Let Me Out wallet so any knowledge of charity is kept between parties of transfer. This is done so every property owner in our community feels equal to participate, regardless of how they came in.
