0xbe957a47…3e57sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#24,228,177·view on Etherscan
@0xa47f...eC67
For this proposal I’ve intentionally scoped distribution to publishing & archival so the ask stays tight, but “publishing essays” is not the end state I’m aiming for.
Beyond Verse, distribution is designed to travel through the critics own ecosystems (Substack, Outland, academic and institutional contexts), where long form criticism actually circulates via citation, teaching and republication. I’m also exploring more creative on chain presentation formats and live/public conversations that extend the essays beyond a static page. All without expanding the scope or budget of this prop.
Happy to share more in DMs, but wanted to clarify that the intent is maximum downstream reach, even if the on chain scope stays deliberately focused.
Re Verse. The omission wasn’t intentional, but it also wasn’t about obscuring anything. My focus in the proposal was on the contributors and the work itself, and I treated Verse as a familiar delivery partner rather than the subject.
Verse and the podcast are public, and I’ve shared links in replies where relevant. Happy to surface them again if useful.
>
>
> I'm probably missing something here, but it feels odd that there is “partnership with Verse” in the title and “Verse will serve as the platform partner...” in the text, yet there is no link to Verse anywhere in the proposal.
>
> I'm also not personally a fan of art criticism in general, but I would vote FOR if the distribution plan were more creative. How can we get maximum impact beyond publishing the essays? Feel free to DM me if you end up working on a revised version. Good luck!
>