In
early
2022,
Arun
Sundararajan
wrote
a
Harvard
Business
Review
case
study
about
how
established
brands
could
utilize
non-fungible
tokens,
aka
NFTs,
right
before
the
crypto
market
tanked.
In
the
piece,
the
Harold
Price
Professor
of
Entrepreneurship
at
New
York
University’s
Stern
School
of
Business
tried
to
make
sense
of
the
then-crypto
craze,
mentioning
that
tech
firms
like
Twitter
and
Facebook
(now
X
and
Meta,
respectively)
were
allowing
more
user
customization
through
NFT
avatars.
This
is
an
excerpt
from
The
Node
newsletter,
a
daily
roundup
of
the
most
pivotal
crypto
news
on
CoinDesk
and
beyond.
You
can
subscribe
to
get
the
full
newsletter
here.
“Designed
right,
NFTs
could
build
on
the
expansion
of
conspicuous
consumption
seeded
by
social
media,
allowing
us
to
showcase
our
non-digital
lives
in
our
digital
spaces
more
expansively
and
more
authentically,”
Sundararajan
wrote,
arguing
that
NFTs
were
“going
mainstream
in
2022.”
Little
did
Sundararajan
know
that
in
just
a
few
short
weeks,
the
bottom
would
fall
out
under
the
entire
crypto
market,
and
NFTs
would
plummet.
Meta
would
soon
discontinue
NFT
functionality
on
its
Instagram
and
Facebook
apps,
to
refocus
on
“areas
where
we
can
make
impact
at
scale”
during
its
“year
of
efficiency,”
after
the
company’s
pivot
towards
the
metaverse
hit
a
wall.
This
was
not
the
first
time
Facebook’s
crypto
plans
were
foiled.
In
fact,
there
could
be
a
whole
HBR
edition
about
the
pitfalls
of
established
corporations
experimenting
with
crypto
based
on
Facebook’s
failed
blockchain
efforts.
Its
Libra
stablecoin
plan,
hatched
in
2019,
envisioned
a
radical
alternative
global
currency
before
it
was
ravished
by
regulators.
Then
the
company
pulled
the
plug
on
Diem,
a
significantly
scaled-down
stablecoin
effort,
after
putting
a
significant
amount
of
resources
into
developing
a
new
blockchain,
wallet
and
programming
language.
If
there
is
any
company
likely
to
remain
arms
length
from
blockchain,
even
as
the
market
appears
to
rebound,
it’s
probably
Meta.
This
isn’t
to
say
Meta,
which
is
as
opportunistic
as
any
corporation,
will
always
steer
clear.
But
it’s
hard
to
imagine
it
advancing
crypto
adoption
much
these
days.
Especially
considering
Mark
Zuckerberg
recently
announced
he’s
directing
the
largest
social
media’s
vast
resources
towards
the
development
of
artificial
general
intelligence
(AGI).
See
also:
Diem:
A
Dream
Deferred?
|
Opinion
All
of
this
is
why
it’s
odd
to
hear
that
Meta
is
being
questioned
by
Congress
about
its
crypto
activities.
In
a
letter
to
Meta
CEO
Mark
Zuckerberg
and
COO
Javier
Olivan,
Rep.
Maxine
Waters
(D-Calif.)
expressed
concerns
over
a
couple
of
blockchain-related
trademarks
the
company
filed.
Stranger
still,
the
trademark
applications
are
from
2022.
So
why
did
Waters,
who
led
resistance
to
Libra/Diem
in
2019,
send
the
letter
now?
Waters,
a
ranking
member
of
the
powerful
Democratic
House
Financial
Services
Committee,
believes
the
live
trademarks
represent
Meta’s
“continued
intention”
of
expanding
its
role
in
the
digital
assets
market.
This
would
belie
statements
Meta
representatives
made
during
a
committee
meeting
last
October,
that
“there
is
no
ongoing
digital
assets
work”
at
the
company.
It’s
as
if
any
amount
of
crypto-related
R&D
at
Meta
is
a
matter
of
national
interest.
According
to
Waters,
Meta
will
soon
have
to
respond
to
the
U.S.
Patents
and
Trademark
Office
—
which
sent
the
company
five
Notice
of
Allowance
(NOA)
documents
indicating
Meta’s
five
blockchain
trademarks
meet
registration
requirements
—
answering
whether
it
intends
to
use
the
trademarks.
The
company
has
until
Feb.
15
to
respond
to
the
first
of
five
NOAs
it
received,
and
so
the
timing
of
Water’s
questions
seem
fair.
She
essentially
wants
to
know
in
advance
how
Meta
will
answer.
And
yet,
the
letter
also
has
a
broader
scope
—
asking
if
Meta
has
any
designs
on
crypto
at
all.
Waters
asked
specifically
about
whether
Meta
has
future
stablecoin
plans
or
partnerships,
is
“planning
to
launch
a
payments
platform”
and
whether
“Meta’s
technology
is
enabling
cryptocurrency
creation,
mining,
storage,
transmission
or
settlement.”
It’s
as
if
any
amount
of
crypto-related
R&D
at
Meta
is
a
matter
of
national
interest.
The
broad
inquiry
might
be
justified
given
the
broad
nature
of
Meta’s
applications,
which
include
ideas
for
digital
asset
wallets
and
hardware,
chain
validation
tech,
“blockchain
as
a
service”
advertising
and
even
seemingly
a
dating
app
with
“a
specific
branch
tailored
for
investors.”
See
also:
Reflecting
on
Facebook’s
Hilarious,
Well-Deserved
Crypto
Failure
|
Opinion
But
having
a
trademark
or
patent
approved
doesn’t
mean
a
company
will
actually
put
it
to
work.
There
are
plenty
of
applications
that
are
filed
as
a
defensive
maneuver
or
even
just
to
create
the
illusion
of
progress.
In
an
industry
like
crypto,
which
was
born
out
of
the
larger
open-source
community,
the
projects
that
put
an
emphasis
on
intellectual
property
are
often
the
least
exciting.
Waters,
being
one
of
the
first
legislators
to
speak
out
against
Libra,
and
knowing
the
power
regulators
can
wield,
must
recognize
that
these
trademarks
aren’t
really
an
indication
of
activity.
If
she
was
concerned
about
Meta
getting
involved
in
crypto
again,
it
would
be
far
more
telling
if
the
company
had
filed
any
applications
after
2022.
But
a
cursory
glance
shows
it
hasn’t.
There
is
a
Straussian
reading
of
Waters’
letter
that
isn’t
asking
questions
of
Meta’s
crypto
activity,
but
making
a
statement
to
Meta
and
beyond.
Big
tech
may
not
be
fully
on
board
with
crypto
again,
amid
a
rising
market
cycle.
But
even
if
it
were,
it’s
being
watched.
CORRECTION
(JAN.
23,
2024):
Clarifies
that
Meta
must
respond
regarding
trademark
applications,
not
patents.
Also
corrects
name
of
Democratic
House
Financial
Services
Committee.
