Welcome to the WakeHacks Blockchain & Cultural Property Interdisciplinary Track! This document serves as a hackathon guide for you and your team.  This document will be finalized on March 6th.  A printable version of this document is here.

In order to create New Solutions to Old Problems, people will be the drivers of change supported by new technologies that will help further disperse the human work of bringing people together and sharing ideas. We are so excited to have you join us for this endeavor and cannot wait to see the outcomes. There are no grades for your transcript here! Just 24 hours to have fun, meet new people, learn something new, hustle, hear from experts, and possibly win at least $200!

Each team in this track of the hackathon will choose and focus on one of three case studies from the collection at the Museum of Anthropology at Wake Forest University. Your team will be submitting materials at noon on March 7th. Judges will evaluate the submissions based on a Rubric. Prizes will be awarded to three teams!

The rest of this document has details that will help you understand what is expected of your team and directs you to some resources that are available to help you understand better blockchain technologies, complexities in cultural property ownership, and some logistical details about the hackathon.

Technical Instructions for Joining Hackathon & Submission

Prize Information

Team Submission Items

General Submission Guidelines

Rubric

Case Studies

Case Study A: Pacific Ethnography: Fijian Oil Bowl

Case Study B: Western Mexico Collection: Effigy Bowl

Case Study C: Bura Collection: Funerary Statue

Schedule

Teams

Judges

Sarra Alqahtani, Assistant Professor, Wake Forest University Department of Computer Science

Amanda Gallagher, Head of Technology Strategy, New York Life Investments

Vanessa Grellet, Executive Director, Global Partnerships and Alliances @ConsenSys

Background Resources

General Track Resources

Blockchain Basics

Law of Cultural Properties

Cultural Property Complexities

Technical Instructions for Joining Hackathon & Submission

To join the hackathon track, make an account in DevPost.  You already have your teams assigned via your sign up on sign up genius.  You’ll be able to chat and collaborate by joining the Wake Hacks Discord server.  You will want to do this BEFORE Saturday, March 6 if possible.

UPDATE on Naming File Submissions:  Please name your file submissions like this: TEAM_<#>_CODE, TEAM_<#>_DOCUMENTATION, TEAM_<#>_VIDEO, TEAM<#>PIC1, TEAM<#>PIC2, TEAM<#>PIC3.  Definitely replace the <#> with your actual team number!  So team 1’s code submission will look something like this: TEAM_1_CODE.js.

Please put in the comments of your Code the name of every member of your team.  Please put in the documentation all your names too, and indicate in your documentation what team you are somewhere at the top.

Prize Information

1st Place Team: $300 per person*

2nd Place Team: $250 per person*

3rd Place Team: $200 per person*

*Note that US Tax laws require WFU to withhold up to 30% of award amount from international students.

Team Submission Items

At the time of submission, your team will turn in via DevPost

  1. well-commented code
  2. documentation supporting why your solution meets all judging criteria well in the form of a 5-10 page written document,
  3. a 7-10 minute video introducing yourselves, the work you did during the hackathon, and your solution, and
  4. 3 photographs/screenshots depicting your team in action

Note that the judges will favor thoughtful solution design over code that compiles. Read the rubric to better understand the criteria the judges will go by.

General Submission Guidelines

The commented code should:

The written deliverable (suggested 5-10 pages) should:

The video (7-10 minutes) should:

The pictures of your team in action could be a screenshot of your zoom meeting, of any brainstorming you are doing, etc.

Each of these submission components will allow for taking a solution further, answer the questions for your scenario, and provide a lasting, commemorative and educational record of your great work during the hackathon.

Rubric

Category

Points (0-10)

Fit:

- Does the solution address the problem statement, and is it based in real, researched problems?

- Does the solution take into account the differing needs of all stakeholders?

- Does the solution provide flexibility for global use and fractionalized ownership options?

Innovation:

- Does the proof of concept introduce novel ownership structures and new solutions?

- Has the team brought new and novel ideas to the problem statement?

- How has the team translated ownership structures into terms that could be the basis of smart contracts?

- Has the team coded for smart contracts?

Functionality:

- Does the proof of concept function as intended? If not, what would it take to get the solution there?

- Does it provide access to a chain of provenance and can each stakeholder understand how to engage with the proof of concept?

- Is the proof of concept iterative in nature, can it evolve easily as nodes are added?

Scalability:

- Can the design be adapted for a private, permissioned blockchain solution?

- Can it absorb a swiftly growing ecosystem of stakeholders?

- Has the team commented code and created documentation so that the public could scale this solution?

New Solutions to Old Problems:

- Does the solution foster equity, inclusivity, accessibility, and transparency?

- Does the solution further the mission of AABC?

- Has the group incorporated interdisciplinary expertise?

- Does the solution suggest innovative research and resolutions to existing problems?

Case Studies

Choose one of the three to focus on as the case study for your team submissions. The overarching prompts for them all are:

  1. How can smart contracts satisfy the needs of all stakeholders within each scenario?
  2. Can all stakeholders be represented by the solutions you build with smart contracts?
  3. How do the provenance details provide a way to create fractionalized ownership?

Case Study A: Pacific Ethnography: Fijian Oil Bowl

The descendants of Captain James Cook have inherited an oil dish lamp (O 1978.E.87) that Cook collected during his voyages in the late 18th Century. Cook’s descendants would prefer to sell the object at an auction house or donate it to a museum rather than keep it in the family. There is no record of the way in which the artefact was acquired from Fiji and thus, the lamp could be subject to repatriation.

 

Cook’s descendants approach an American museum about donating the object, which would result in a tax deduction for the family. The museum is concerned about accepting a donation that lacks clear provenance and fears repatriation litigation; they do not accept the donation. The family attempts to consign the work at an auction house, but the African/Oceanic Arts department will not accept it without proven provenance. The family is left with the now ‘orphaned’ object and no options for its future circulation. The market for the object has now halted and it cannot be circulated.

 

The ideal outcome would be for the object to be sold at a public auction.

To consider in terms of blockchain applications:

  • If the object were to be sold at a public auction, what solutions could be created to divide sale proceeds among known stakeholders and unknown future claimants?
  • Could pre-negotiated governance be established to acknowledge the lack of confirmed provenance, and thus, protect all participants against future claims?
  • How can source countries become partners in reactivating the life of these objects? Are international treaties an option? How can technology assist this outcome?
  • How could all stakeholders receive partial ownership rights via smart contracts?
  • How can we take into consideration the different countries’ governing jurisdictions? Is there a way for different laws / governance to be incorporated into one smart contract?
  • Considering these stakeholders, would it be preferable for these objects to be registered on a public or private blockchain?

Case Study B: Western Mexico Collection: Effigy Bowl

The Museum of Anthropology at Wake Forest University has a group of archeological objects in their collection that were looted from Mexico. Upon realizing these objects were acquired unethically, the museum contacted the Mexican government in an effort to repatriate the objects and open a dialogue. The history of the objects was acknowledged by the governmental representative; however they did not wish to repatriate the objects due to the burden of storage and conservation.

In this scenario, blockchain technology would be used to assign revenue rights to the Mexican government - ideally for the benefit of the community from which the objects originated - while the museum maintains physical stewardship. The local Mexican community benefits from any resulting profit related to exhibition, merchandising and publication in which the works were represented, while the museum continues to serve as steward of the objects.

To consider in terms of blockchain applications:

  • From where do these objects originate and is there a creative way for the source community to benefit financially? How could smart contracts create fractional ownership for both the museum and a representative community or organization in Mexico?
  • What is the equitable division of revenue share taking into account the imagined expenses of the museum to house and conserve them? Take into consideration: similar objects in similar institutions’ collections; museum’s costs to house objects on behalf of the source country. The museum is assuming the ongoing cost of housing and conserving the objects as their steward.
  • What does a due diligence process look like schematically and how it might impact decisions about technology implementation. Consider export restrictions, local government regulations. Should the governing contract always be generated in the jurisdiction of the source country?
  • How would title be best held to represent the joint relationship, and can the resulting smart contract remain throughout the future of the object? If the smart contract needs to change, what factors need to be considered during renegotiations?

Case Study C: Bura Collection: Funerary Statue

The Bura culture was first discovered in 1975 to the northwest of Niamey, the capital of the state of Niger, and in neighboring Burkina Faso. Between the third and tenth centuries, the dead were laid to rest at a site in present-day Niger downstream from the Inland Niger delta. The expansive, dense burial ground’ suggests a veritable city of the departed. Several hundred individual graves were marked by upturned pottery urns, some of which were cylinders topped by figurative imagery.

In 2018, Dr. David and Karina Riling, collectors of African and Oceanic artifacts, gifted objects to the Museum of Anthropology at Wake Forest University that originated from the Bura-Asinda-Sikka culture which was in the present-day Southwest Niger. In 1960, Niger became an independent country from France.

One of the objects in the collection is a funerary urn-reliquary dating from approximately the 10th century (MOA Collection No. 2019.07.A.03).

The current government of Niger has contacted the MOA to discuss the possible return of this object. The conversation will center around new models of fractional ownership that would honor the origin of the object and provide financial support to the National Museum of Niger (Musée National Boubou Hama). http://www.museenationalduniger.ne

The MOA would like to continue displaying the object for educational purposes, lending it to appropriate institutions and creating a shared revenue stream.

To consider in terms of blockchain applications:

  • Assume the ancestors of the Bura region cultures are considering making a repatriation claim on the objects.
  • Could we create multiple ownership solutions in one smart contract (i.e. 50/50 title split, 90/10 revenue for the National Museum of Niger)?
  • If this object were included in traveling exhibitions, how would the title vs. revenue tokens be fractionalized?
  • Could the title tokens be defined and catalogued from multiple points of view, to avoid any one definition of the object?
  • Could a revenue-sharing ticket model be created and enforced through smart contracts? In this instance, the MOA could display the object and attach a certain dollar amount to each exhibition visitor that would be paid to the National Museum of Niger.
  • As stated in Scenario A: Should the governing contract always be generated in the jurisdiction of the source country?

Schedule

Teams

TEAM 1

NAME

UNIVERSITY

MAJOR

EthanE

Will Caulkins

Wake Forest University

Computer Science

Caitlin Kelly

Wake Forest University

Law

Kristen Kovach

Wake Forest University

Law

TEAM 2

NAME

UNIVERSITY

MAJOR

Jordan Mozebo

North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University

Computer Science

Michael DiSalvo

Wake Forest University

Computer Science

Ben Suslavich

Wake Forest University

Law

Michael Riedl

Wake Forest University

Law

TEAM 3

NAME

UNIVERSITY

MAJOR

Raul Cruz

UNC Greensboro

Computer Science

Nicolas Rios

Elon University

Computer Science

Amal Almutairi

Wake Forest University

Law

Karen Saeed

Wake Forest University

Law

TEAM 4

NAME

UNIVERSITY

MAJOR

TEAM 5

NAME

UNIVERSITY

MAJOR

Quinn Tjin-A-Soe

UNC Greensboro

Computer Science

JarmanT

Kat Pitchford

Wake Forest University

Anthropology, Psychology

Andy Benson

Wake Forest University

Computer Science

TEAM 6

NAME

UNIVERSITY

MAJOR

TEAM 7

NAME

UNIVERSITY

MAJOR

Grishma Patel

Wake Forest University

Computer Science

Ananta Thapaliya

Wake Forest University

Computer Science

Ryan Grosse

Wake Forest University

Computer Science

Joshua Durham

Wake Forest University

Law

WAITLIST

NAME

UNIVERSITY

MAJOR

Judges

Sarra Alqahtani, Assistant Professor, Wake Forest University Department of Computer Science

Dr. Sarra Alqahtani (King Saud University, B.S.; King Saud University, M.A.; University of Tulsa, Ph.D.) is an Assistant Professor in the Computer Science Department at Wake Forest University. She received her PhD from University of Tulsa in 2015 and spent 2 years as a postdoc associate there. Dr. Alqahtani focuses on developing artificial intelligent techniques for distributed coordination and adaptive distributed planning for resilient autonomous systems, implementing algorithms to enhance the security and reliability of multi-agent systems built based on reinforcement learning. Dr. Alqahtani is passionate about making progress toward sustainable development goals in the tight race with irreversible changes in our planet. She works with the Intelligent Remote Sensing in Conservation & Discovery Group (IRSC) in WFU to leverage the potential of AI and DL to draw conclusions from large data that humans may not have the capability to see otherwise. She is also passionate about diversity and inclusion in CS education.

Amanda Gallagher, Head of Technology Strategy, New York Life Investments

Amanda Gallagher is the Head of Technology Strategy at New York Life Investments.  In this role, Amanda is responsible for translating global business goals into technology solutions, leading large data and technology initiatives, and driving process improvements across sales, marketing, and operations.  Amanda has over 10 years of experience in technology and financial services, starting her career as a Software Engineer and moving into roles in proof of concept management, venture capital, change management, and innovation.  Amanda is a current MBA candidate at Columbia Business School, and received her Bachelor of Arts from NYU in Economics with minors in German and French.  Passionate about the arts, Amanda is a committee member of the Lincoln Center Young Patrons and an advisor to the Art & Antiquities Blockchain Consortium.  She loves ballet, learning new languages, and helping great ideas become a reality.

Vanessa Grellet, Executive Director, Global Partnerships and Alliances @ConsenSys

Vanessa Grellet is a Global Executive with over 17 years of expertise in the Financial Services and Tech industry. At ConsenSys she focuses on Enterprise and Strategic initiatives including the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance (EEA), the Accounting Blockchain coalition (ABC) and leads the Blockchain for Social Impact Coalition (BSIC). Prior to Joining ConsenSys she was the CEO of IIH a Wealth Management firm, a key member of PwC’s global wealth management team and served as a corporate strategy executive for the NYSE managing a portfolio of strategic projects, partnerships and M&A focusing on Derivatives, Cash markets, Clearing, Listing, Market data and Regulatory reform. She is a former securities lawyer and worked for various regulators. She chairs the Nexus Working Group on Impact Investing, dedicated to educating, empowering, and connecting Next-Gen impact investors, philanthropists, and social entrepreneurs. Vanessa is an Advisory Board member of Cornerstone Capital, an ESG asset manager, sits on the Advisory Board of The Resolution Project dedicated to activating young leaders through social entrepreneurship and is a Partner at Acumen fund focused on impact investing. She is a Milken Institute Young Leader and a Young Leader Board member of the Off the Record lectures series (OTR) affiliated with the Foreign Policy Association. Mrs. Grellet graduated Cum Laude from Law School (Paris II Assas) and Business School (HEC).

Background Resources

General Track Resources
Blockchain Basics
Law of Cultural Properties
Cultural Property Complexities