The promise of Web3 is always the same: democratization. However, is decentralization always synonymous with creator empowerment. Binance’s TCOM platform hopes to democratize community-driven IP creation in the anime and manga realms. Created on top of the BNB Chain, it looks to immerse fans in new ways. They’re looking to disrupt Web3 content licensing and seek permission to remix classics like Astro Boy, granting permission and rewarding participation through airdrops. It's all very exciting. But before we get carried away with the hype train…

Whose Voices Truly Get Amplified?

Think about it: community governance isn't always equitable governance. Any time you have a popularity contest—which is what community voting devolves to, at times—the loudest person, most well-connected person wins. Will TCOM’s community actually prioritize and support these diverse voices and underrepresented cultural perspectives? Or will it just add more firepower to those same dominant narratives that are already flooding our information landscape?

I’m speaking very specifically here about artists immersed in, for instance, Irish folklore, or native artistic expressions. Will TCOM empower them with the tools and resources they require to succeed? They have to traverse a platform that is deeply rooted in Japanese anime/manga. Will their unique cultural IPs be given a fair shake in a community that may not immediately grasp their significance? Are there language barriers? Cultural biases embedded in the voting process? It’s one thing to claim you’re democratizing—and quite another to truly be inclusive. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Web3 isn’t different.

Derivative Works, Real-World Headaches

TCOM promotes the production and dissemination of user generated secondary content. Its core principles are remixing, building off of existing IPs and shared licensing. Sounds fun, right? At what point does that remix go too far? What if a community develops something that violates the spirit of the original creation? It might even become something truly objectionable! Who's responsible then?

Binance’s assertion that their blockchain offers a secure climate for such behavior is unacceptably disingenuous. Stable does not equal safe. This goes far beyond just the loss of feelings; it’s a loss with very tangible legal ramifications. Intellectual property law is a minefield, and even veteran attorneys can have trouble avoiding it. Tossing community-driven creation into that already super complicated equation is a game-changer. Regulators are having a hard enough time with Web3 innovation outpacing them. Are they truly prepared to address the challenges posed by on-chain licenses and the inevitable risk of IP conflicts in a worldwide ecosphere? I doubt it. This is where the utopian vision of decentralization meets the brick wall of reality.

Decentralization Isn't Always Democratization

The greatest shortcoming of the Web3 environment is the notion that decentralization inherently leads to democratization. It doesn't. Power dynamics are very much alive, they just look different. Are certain voices disproportionately influential on TCOM? Or, as I like to ask, are there whales out there who can really influence votes with their stock? Is the platform really so immune to exploitation after all? Or does it just create one more echo chamber that enriches the rich and sidelines the poor?

TCOM has been chosen to join Season 9 of Binance’s Most Valuable Builder (MVB) program that provides project mentorship and funding. Great! Who gets into the MVB program? Are these criteria for selection loaded against projects that do not yet have the benefit of a considerable head start, political support, or spotlight? It's a classic example of the Matthew effect: the rich get richer, and the well-connected get even more connected.

TCOM presents creators with unprecedented new ways to make money. They have to be careful about the genuine dangers of market volatility and shifting user attention. It’s no longer enough to just provide new monetization models, you need to prove that those models are sustainable and equitable. If not, you’ll find yourself just reproducing a different type of digital sharecropping. In such a future, content producers would be completely subject to the whims of the platform and the volatile market.

  • Potential Problem 1: Cultural Appropriation.
  • Potential Problem 2: Legal Uncertainty.
  • Potential Problem 3: Unequal Power Dynamics.

Binance’s TCOM has the potential to be a major force for IP creation, but only if it goes beyond rhetoric to truly take on these challenges. It isn’t enough to just create an online platform and wait. Lead the way in developing an inclusive, universal approach to design. Of course, protect makers’ rights and create a governance model that is truly democratic, not just decentralized. Otherwise, TCOM risks becoming just another example of Web3's broken promise: a new world that looks a lot like the old one, just with more blockchain. The opportunity is here. So let’s keep our fingers crossed that Binance—and Tezuka Productions, for that matter—don’t screw it up.