ADVERSARIAL CERTIFICATION — How Mattereum Asset Passports Express Doubt and Disagreement
By Dr JAMES HESTER FRSA, Head of Ontology, Mattereum
Mattereum recently had the opportunity to launch an Asset Passport and NFT for a rather extraordinary object: a plaster cast of a footprint, in the possession of Mattereum team member Ian Simmons, which was allegedly made by a chupacabra. This renowned cryptid is famed for preying upon goats throughout Central and South America, and its existence has long been a matter of debate.
Of course, this particular footprint, though by tradition left by this elusive creature, is also well understood as being more likely that of a Florida Puma. So while it may not be definitive proof of the chupacabra’s existence, it is a fascinating piece of cryptozoological memorabilia that speaks to how stories about such creatures continue to stir the imagination.
The project also presented a unique opportunity for Mattereum. Normally, Certifiers adding information about objects to our Asset Passports focus on what that object is. For the first time, we had the chance to showcase the usefulness of an Asset Passport highlighting what an object likely is not. In many circumstances, this latter type of information can be just as important as the former.
Mattereum has for a long time considered the usefulness of what we call ‘adversarial certifications’ in Asset Passports. These are pieces of information which, while contributing to a clearer understanding of the object, are not always entirely positive in nature. In some cases these could be added to an Asset Passport by the object owner themselves at the point of launch. However, these could also be added later by independent Certifiers who want this additional, sometimes unflattering, information to be a matter of record. These certifications would be backed by the same warranties as other certifications to ensure their accuracy, and to provide recourse if there was a dispute about that accuracy (which is particularly important to reduce the risk of baseless mud-slinging).
I want to speak briefly about two forms that these adversarial warranties might take.
The first could be termed a certification of ‘negation’. In this case, a certification is created stating that the object is not something. Our Asset Passport for the chupacabra footprint accomplished exactly this by stating that it was very likely (our certifier was pretty certain, but you never know) not that of a chupacabra. The presence of this assertion in the Asset Passport will make it very difficult later for someone to attempt to sell the footprint as being genuine unless they are able to produce a greater degree of verifiable proof to back up their claim.
A similar practice could be very valuable for passported items from asset classes prone to high levels of fraud and forgery, such as the art or luxury goods markets. Being able to flag an object as a known forgery doesn’t necessarily mean that nobody will ever want it (there’s actually a fairly decent market for artworks by famous forgers), but it does make it far more of a challenge for later unscrupulous sellers to try to fleece potential buyers by passing something off as something that it is not.
The second possible form of adversarial certification is more affirmational, but the information being affirmed might not necessarily be terribly flattering. At the moment, there is no requirement for those onboarding assets to disclose absolutely everything about them (although we do encourage them to do so, since the more info is known about an object, the more its value is affirmed and the more willing buyers are to pay for it). So it would be very easy for asset owners to omit information that they felt could impact the likelihood of a sale. In these cases, independent Certifiers could act as whistleblowers of a sort, providing information about objects which shines a light into dark corners to make sure that buyers have the ability to make more informed decisions about their purchases. Examples of this information could include associated carbon outputs from production, poor labour practices, or even evidence that the object had been trafficked or had otherwise concerning provenance.
Although the Mattereum Asset Passport can greatly assist in making an object more desirable on the market, it is, at its core, not solely a marketing tool. Rather, the Asset Passport is a faithful record of all information relating to an object, and at times that means ‘warts and all’.
Whether the warts are provided by those onboarding the assets, or by independent actors using their knowledge and expertise to ensure that the truth is made available, they are an essential part of ensuring that Mattereum’s mission of promoting truth in trade is carried on.
