I think there are other ways to solve some of these problems of virtual ownership in walled gardens, federation, etc. but they're all forms of PR/diplomacy (rel

I think there are other ways to solve some of these problems of virtual ownership in walled gardens, federation, etc. but they're all forms of PR/diplomacy (relations and protocols between virtual worlds, between creators and platforms, and platforms and customers) Pretending like a technical solution requiring no central authority is the way forward will never fly because no walled-garden owner will adopt such a scheme that cedes so much control; that doesn't let them enforce tariffs, community restrictions, bans, etc. on its own customer base. It's the digital world and tools it comes with, and a creative player base, that draws people to the walled garden. Not technical capabilities or experiments in federation or an ICO. That's all promises with no substance. People get attracted and want to experience ... stuff. Stuff they can play with and tweak and build. But it can't be all up to them, there has to be something already there to experience and as a point of reference. I.e. ... Little Big Planet. It's why it was successful. Powerful creative tool and community technology, but it's also an engaging all-ages experience made in said tools.