Affective Accounts

Affective Accounts is a speculative cryptocurrency from a counterfactual world in which there has been a shift towards a bottom up collectivisation of noetic knowledge prompted by a confident and empowered panglobal body (i.e. the UN). The film does not explain the nuts and bolts of the proposed system but remains a piece of media from within the counterfactual world. It is a ‘hearts and minds’ promotional film from the global body targeting the general public.

As it’s made by this pan global body there’s an aesthetic critique of some of their shortcomings. The compromises of indecision-by-committee are writ large in 3 simultaneous subtitles and the aloof impersonal language of the script. The corporate visual design and superficial rending of ’emotions’ are familiar yet uncanny to our contemporary general aesthetic landscape.

Everything it proposes is possible using elements of existing cryptocurrencies. The most farfetched aspects of the concept are the social and political will to create such a thing.The basic premise is you use smart contracts to price in the affective views of the public to a product or process. The proof of work would be similar to curecoin or foldingcoin, that is using folding@home, distributed citizen science medical research platform, to make the whole system provide a social good.

The coin architecture uses smart contracts akin to Ethereum but with group consensus dynamics like District0X meets Decred.

Through the strength of their designs Stackoverflow or Wikipedia are the predominant knowledge aggregation systems. The frontend combines this kind of social-reward knowledge-sharing structure with a much more media rich and temporally aware ecosystem, sort of Instagram Stories meets Graph Queries.

However is a dys/utopian idea from a counterfactual reality. Being dys/utopian it knows it can’t actually exist and makes a point of being a contradiction.The Theortical background draws from Bernard Steigler, the kind of positive accelerationism seen in Inventing the future, Jane Bennett’s reading of Walt Wittman’s use of affect, Felix Guattari and Frederico Campagna. Campagna presents the house of technics, the same as Steigler’s gramatised world of computational capital. He see the magical, a plain in which all things have ineffable dimensions, as an exit from this situation.

This is where the project walks a tightrope, if affect is the ineffable frontier of experience, how can grammatising, digitising and vetting it be possible or desirable? This is the contradiction.
My view is that this system provides all the tools to perceive complex inter-relations, record affective responses and socially reward honesty and real work but does not interfere with what goes on in the middle.In constantly pushing at the boundary of this contradiction, we are hopefully pushed in a new direction.