This paper explores how so-called ‘Web3’ blockchain projects are materially and socially constituted. A blockchain is an append-only distributed database. The technology is being hyped as applicable for a whole range of industries, social service provisions, and as a fix for economic disparities in communities left behind by mainstream financial systems. Drawing on case studies from our ongoing research we explain how, despite being virtual, Web3 projects are dependent on clearly defined spaces of production from which they derive their speculative value. We conceptualise this relationship as Crypto/Space, where space and blockchain software are mutually constituted. We consider how Crypto/Spaces are produced in three ways: 1) how project developers are adopting a parasitic relationship with host locations to appropriate energy, infrastructure, and local resources; 2) how projects enable ‘virtual land grabs’ where developers are engaging in land acquisitions, and associated displacement of local people, with no real intention to use the land for the declared purpose; and 3) how blockchain technology and speculative finance imaginaries are inspiring new anarcho-capitalist crypto-utopian ‘Exit zones’, often in the Global South. Far from being a zero-sum virtual game world, we argue that cryptocurrency projects are parasitic, often requiring predation on poor and otherwise marginalised communities to appropriate resources, onboard new users and enable favourable regulation.
The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the experiences of safety and security management students, enrolled in an undergraduate course in the Netherlands, and present quantitative data from an online survey that aimed to explore the factors that have contributed to students’ satisfaction with, and engagement in, online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. The main findings suggest an interesting paradox of technology, which is worth further exploration in future research. Firstly, students with self perceived higher technological skill levels tend to reject online education more often as they see substantial shortcomings of classes in the way they are administered as compared to the vast available opportunities for real innovation. Secondly, as opposed to democratising education and allowing for custom-made, individualistic education schedules that help less-privileged students, online education can also lead to the displacement of education by income-generating activities altogether. Lastly, as much as technology allowed universities during the COVID-19 pandemic to continue with education, the transition to the environment, which is defined by highly interactive and engaging potential, may in fact be a net contributor to the feelings of social isolation, digital educational inequality and tension around commercialisation in higher education.
MULTIFILE
