MetaMask founder exposes the chaos of Web3 with the meme coin, revealing a disconnect between technical protocol and societal expectations

MetaMask co-founder Dan Finlay recently conducted a meme coin experiment to test consent and trust issues in Web3. Through an issuance of two tokens, Consent and I Don’t Consent, Finlay found that many vague rules not only lose user trust, but also demonstrate numerous risks and contradictions in the current meme coin ecosystem.

Controversy over consent on social platforms

Finlay’s idea for the meme coin experiment came from observing social media. He noticed significant differences in how Twitter, Bluesky, and Farcaster treated AI and data consent issues:

Twitter: The discussion on artist rights is gradually decreasing, mainly focusing on AI researchers.

Farcaster: Technology-oriented, emphasizing fast application and development, and not very patient with ethical discussions.

Bluesky: Attracting many artists and morally concerned users, but lacking a practical discussion foundation.

Bluesky was recently exposed for using user posts as a data source to train AI models without user consent. This has led to dissatisfaction among many users, leading Finlay to draw parallels with the meme coin market, believing that the two share similarities in the ambiguity of “consent”.

Issuing meme coins, exploring the boundaries of consent and trust

Therefore, Finlay issued two meme tokens, Consent and I Don’t Consent, on-chainissuance on both Ethereum and Pump.fun, using these two tokens to observe the current Web3 transaction behavior and community response. Finlay stated that the market has begun to trade these two completely useless tokens frantically, and the token price even surged to $100,000 on Pump.fun within just one hour.

Finlay pointed out that this rapid expansion of value also brings negative impacts. Some investors, knowing that these two tokens are useless, begin to assign meaning to them. Subsequently, Finlay tried to sell off a portion of the tokens for testing, but this led to misunderstandings and threats, with some people pleading with Finlay to devise long-term plans for these two tokens.

Finlay’s issuanceToken Consent and I Don’t Consent Web3 and AI on Pump.fun share the common problem of ‘ambiguous consent’.

Finlay discovered that the only clear ‘consent’ in the meme token market is that investors use money to buy Tokens without knowing the actual uses or meanings of the Tokens. Finlay questioned, ‘In such a vague market environment, what is the meaning of this ‘consent’?’ He referred to this phenomenon as the ‘paradox of consent.’ Finlay further pointed out that similar problems exist in Web3 and AI, that is, the ‘consent in technical protocol is disconnected from the consent expected by society.’

Call for clear rules and security as the foundation

Through this experiment, Finlay emphasizes that Web3 and AI platforms need to find a way to solve the consent issue. He believes that not only investors, but all participants should be aware of how their invested funds or data will be used, the potential consequences, and what the rules of the market are. The platform also needs to design protective mechanisms to safeguard user rights.

Finlay said, “This is not a call for morality, but a call for creating better products. Applications do not need to be a toxic waste, and communities do not need to be filled with threats and chaos.”

(Meme coins have become a contemporary manifestation! Binance Research analysis: Financial nihilism attracts young people, 97% volume 歸零)

This article reveals the chaos of Web3 with memes coin by the founder of MetaMask, where the technical protocol is out of sync with societal expectations. It first appeared on Chain News ABMedia.