We’re committing a portion of Anthropic’s shares to the Anthropic Public Benefit Fund, a new wholly owned entity dedicated entirely to the public benefit. It will start off with 5% of our shares. For every 50% increase in the company’s value over a set baseline, we can contribute up to an extra 2%, subject to our board’s discretion. In total, this means that roughly 20% of Anthropic’s shares are committed to the public good. Our co-founders have already pledged to donate 80% of their equity, and around half our employees are donating a portion of their equity as part of a donation matching program we’ve run since our founding. In the post below, we share more details about our new fund. anthropic.com/news/public-be…

we live in a world where a handful of corporations control how we communicate, banks decide who gets to participate in the economy, and governments can make entire populations financially invisible overnight. we've somehow accepted that our digital existence depends on a collection of very large computers owned by people we've never met, and we're just hoping they remain nice. and then we figured out how to build some of this differently. permissionless systems, verifiable ownership, infrastructure that doesn't necessarily belong to a single institution or state. obviously far from perfect, but the implications seem pretty extraordinary to me. especially now, when power is becoming increasingly concentrated and the ability to exclude people is becoming increasingly automated. yet most of our attention seems to go towards increasingly sophisticated ways of moving money around. billions in transactions, thousands of tokens, entire ecosystems built around making numbers go up. i'm not even against any of it. i love the absurdity, the art, the experiments, the completely unnecessary things people build just because they can. i'm participating in the nonsense too. but sometimes it feels like we've invented something with the potential to fundamentally change how people interact with power and decided the most interesting application is figuring out which cartoon animal will appreciate in value next week. i keep thinking about how much bigger the ambition could be. systems that don't really care where you're born, which passport you hold, or whether some institution approves of your existence; infrastructure that makes it harder to censor, exclude, erase, or confiscate. not because decentralization magically solves all these problems, but because having alternatives seems increasingly important. especially for people who don't have the luxury to treat these things as abstract philosophical discussions. i genuinely don't know how we get there, i don't know what the applications should look like, how we get people to use them, or how much of this is even realistic to achieve. maybe we're still incredibly early, maybe the financial speculation is a necessary part of figuring things out, maybe i'm underestimating how difficult it is to turn these ideas into something actually useful. probably all of the above. but i can't get rid of the feeling that we're aiming for something much smaller than what might actually be possible. there's an entire network of incredibly intelligent people working on cryptographic systems that would have seemed unimaginable not that long ago, and somehow a big part of the conversation is still about which number will go up next. i don't think the answer is to stop making weird things or pretend everything needs to serve some grand social purpose. please keep making the weird things. i just wish we were a bit more ambitious about what all this could eventually mean outside our own little corner of the internet. maybe i have no idea what i'm talking about. i just find it hard to believe that the finish line for permissionless, stateless infrastructure is a slightly more entertaining stock exchange.

THERE WILL BE SIGNS Next week, twelve sites across Marfa will become part of a system that began on a screen. Generative works become physical signs, symbols, and installations. They leave the computer, encounter a place, and begin to change through scale, material, light, weather, architecture, and whatever happens around them. And eventually, the physical world feeds back into the system. Code becomes image. Image becomes object. Object becomes site. Site returns to code. October 21–25, during Art Blocks Marfa Weekend. Born out of my 2026 @ArtBlocks_io × @OpenSea Marfa Artist Residency.

4/ New trait filters for series. The filter drawer shows every trait at a glance, each value with its own thumbnail. Counts update as you filter, and each trait sorts by rarity and value.

1/ The blur.io frontend will be deprecated on November 12, 2026. This deprecation only applies to the frontend. The Blur marketplace protocol will remain operational on-chain, and $BLUR will continue to control its fee switch.

The Living Timeline is live → 1,147 moments in generative art history → 71,000 BCE to 2025 → 35 machines, playable live in your browser → timeline.lerandom.art

convergence to the mean when everyone looks at everyone else to decide what to make, we eventually stop making anything of our own. we copy what works. borrow the language, the aesthetic, the features. we call it learning from the market, following best practices, staying competitive. together, everything starts to feel familiar. polished, interchangeable. nothing wrong. nothing alive. the mean isn’t necessarily bad. it’s where everything lands when we remove the reasons for it to be different. numbers are easier to compare than feelings, so we make things that produce numbers. we study what gets attention, then shape ourselves around it. eventually the feedback stops informing the work and starts authoring it. we’re no longer asking what we want to say. we’re asking what will be rewarded for saying. ai makes this loop frictionless. it can draw from more references than we could see in a lifetime. but access to every perspective isn’t the same as having one. it hasn’t lived a particular life that makes one detail unbearable and another beautiful. when we ask it to choose for us without bringing any intention of our own, we get something plausible, easy to approve. then we ship it, measure it, copy it, and feed it back into the next round. a tidal wave of mid. this changes not just the work, but the people making it. we describe ourselves in categories platforms can distribute and markets understand. designer. founder. creator. pick a niche. build a brand. be consistent. the parts that don’t fit become inconvenient, even when those contradictions might produce our most interesting work. we become easier to classify and harder to tell apart. i think we need to approach making things more like artists. an artist develops a perspective through the work. making, noticing, choosing, failing, returning. learning what matters even when nobody else cares. craft gives that perspective a form precise enough for someone else to experience. the life outside the work matters too. the places you’ve lived, the people you’ve loved, the things you’re embarrassed to care about. these aren’t distractions from having something to say. they’re how you come to have something to say. we understand this with music, paintings, photographs, movies. we expect a person to be present in the choices. we want to experience something we wouldn’t have encountered without them. software can do this too. a piece of software expresses beliefs about how life should feel. what deserves your attention. what you should be free to change. whether a task should feel like paperwork or play. even a small interaction can carry someone’s care, humor, or curiosity. but we rarely talk about software as a medium. we talk about it as an industry. markets to capture, workflows to optimize, competitors to catch up with. we add a feature because someone else has it, without asking whether it belongs. products accumulate the same parts and lose what made them worth choosing. underneath the branding, it’s all the same thing. artists learn from others too. the question is whether you’re absorbing those influences into a point of view, or using them to avoid developing one. what are you trying to let someone feel, understand, or do? why this particular shape? what have you noticed that the existing tools don’t seem to notice? those questions don’t have answers you can borrow from a competitor’s roadmap. if we can make almost anything, deciding what deserves to exist becomes more important, not less. speed gives us more chances to exercise judgment. it doesn’t remove the responsibility. i don’t want a world where every person becomes a more efficient distributor of the same ideas. i want people to use these tools to go further into what they actually care about. to make things specific enough that we can feel someone behind them. what is the point of everyone being able to make something, if we all end up making the same thing?