A few quick thoughts: When I first saw @ripe0x talking about it I missed the rather important detail that it burns @cryptopunks. It's a punk burner, and wrapping a conceptual theory around it doesn't change that. It gives you something to talk about and raises questions and invites debate, but at the end of the day it's still burning Punks. In 2021 @ROBNESSOFFICIAL intentionally burned #2317 (burnedpunks.com/2317/) as part of a performance art piece which took on it's own life, that's all interesting and noteworthy, but it's still burned. ZKM accidentally sent #5449 (burnedpunks.com/5449/) & #2838 (burnedpunks.com/2838/) back to the CrytpoPunks contract which has sparked all kinds of interesting conversations about ownership and what that means in this context, and similarly inspired many thoughtful discussions, but the end result is that they are still burned. @ripe0x's Permanent Collection contract touches many of the concepts that I discuss on BurnedPunks, I'm talking about Punks specifically but as a proxy for the larger question about blockchain based digital art. They are interesting concepts and people will have lots of future things to say about them, and new questions will be asked as Ripe is asking with this article, but the conversation around the event doesn't change the event - it's still burning Punks. No matter how much text is written about it, that's still what is technically happening. I think it's unfortunate when a CryptoPunk is burned, it forces these conversations and gives us an opportunity to think about the concept of digital ownership, but it's still unfortunate. I made BurnedPunks to honor those Punks and the stories, and try to put a positive spin on an unfortunate situation. Creating an unfortunate situation in order to talk about it feels backwards. I think we can have those conversations and play with those ideas without employing destructive tactics. It's unfortunate when one Punk is burned. PC aims to burn 111 Punks. Banksy shredded a painting to get us thinking and talking, but we don't need to shred more paintings to keep having that conversation. It's also one thing to do this to your own work, it's something else entirely to do it to someone else's. I think Ripe could have invited the same conversations using their own work, and it would have been more respectful to work created by others. To me this feels parasitic, attaching a memecoin to it makes it feel worse. People will sell punks to this contract without knowing it's going to burn them, and make them unwitting / unwilling participants. I know for a fact some of the previous owners of other burned punks wrestle with their involvement in those stories, more than one has told me they which they could undo it. The PC contract is published, there's no undo. What happens next is inevitable, and it's unfortunate.