An ethical framework for self-development and mental health resources in NFTs
by benbuddeh and ticklesnarf
Community authors:
Benbuddeh is a researcher and lecturer at Nottingham Trent University with a background in occupational psychology.
Ticklesnarf is a professor at Florida State University with a background in quantitative and developmental psychology.
Summary: The ZenApe Ethical Framework is an evidence-based model that encourages content creators to take additional care when developing and distributing resources to their community. The higher the sensitivity, the more research we advocate. As a result, we can do our part in presenting well-rounded resources back to the community placing their trust in us and help to minimise any risks associated with sensitive topics such as mental health, wellbeing, and software security.
Introduction
An increasing trend in the NFT community is for projects to develop and distribute self-improvement resources to their members. During the infancy of the NFT movement, the majority of resources focused on topics such as global web3 conversations and smart-contract optimisations. More recently, an increasing number of NFT projects have begun to distribute information on complex or sensitive topics such as contract exploitation, cryptocurrency investment, mental health, and wellness. Many of us are familiar with the friendly advice and support displayed in #mental-health or #programming channels in Discord servers. However, extra caution needs to be taken when moving to a project’s formal distribution of topical information in, for example, the areas of health and wellness for mind, body, spirit, and soul.
Undoubtedly, resources vary widely in both paradigm and application, and a variety of individual opinions is likely to influence resource content. As such, content creators must be diligent to ensure that the recommendations provided to the community are both accessible and grounded in evidence-based practises and/or empirically-supported research.
There is a level of implicit trust by the community in the information and resources distributed by projects. Just as NFT projects look to do right by the community in terms of their financial investment, they should also make sure to do right by them in due diligence for how materials are developed, managed, and distributed. This article aims to provide projects and leadership with a better understanding of how to safely and responsibly create resources.
Documentation of Expertise & Role Responsibilities
The first obstacle in developing these resources is documenting the areas of expertise from individuals involved in creating resources. A simple spreadsheet outlining one’s topical knowledge, documented expertise, and willingness to share can be an invaluable tool for ongoing information curation. This simple step can serve as a foundation upon which sub-groups can collaborate autonomously based on documented information. A delegate may be appointed to coordinate the planning, design, creation, and distribution of said resources to facilitate the research, development, and delivery methods (for example, reports, infographics, twitter spaces) of resources.
Quality Assurance Review Process
After the documentation of expertise and scope of responsibilities for each team member has been specified, the team should thoroughly discuss the research area, potential implications, and capacity to cause harm to the target audience. Accordingly, resources may need to be reviewed by member(s) of the team prior to distribution to ensure that any recommendations use accessible and appropriate language given current and historical empirical evidence. This process ought to be considered primarily for written documentation, although verbally delivered content (for example, podcasts) that discuss sensitive topics would also benefit.
ZenApe Ethical Framework & Guiding Principles
The ZenApe team has constructed a three-tier ethical framework that guides those involved in the development and distribution of resources in how they approach content creation to support an enhanced level of diligence in a largely unregulated NFT space. This framework is dynamic in that it helps users to recognise the sensitivity of content and thus the necessity to take more care when developing resources.
When dealing with sensitive topics that have potential to do harm, the framework requires those members to evaluate the evidence-base (that is, whether the resource is based on previously tested theories or ideas) or empirical-support (that is, whether scientific evidence exists to support the idea) to ensure that the content provided is well-informed.
The proposed three-tiered framework is based on global models that organise evidence to help: 1) effectively manage biases, 2) promote beneficence (doing or producing good), and 3) carefully guard against non-maleficence (not doing harm). We propose that the bottom of the pyramid comprises weaker study designs that are often supported by personal opinion or basic information. Ascending the pyramid enhances the rigour of the evidence base in line with the sensitivity of topics covered and, as a result, proposes that resources further up the pyramid will require more empirical grounding than those below. In potentially sensitive topics, such as those associated with mental health, we recommend that content be reviewed and discussed by the team and where necessary, reviewed by an expert OR researcher to ensure that the content distributed is empirically grounded.
Tier 1
Tier 1 has the lowest perceived capacity to do harm. As such, these resources can be developed through the use of descriptive personal experiences (this is what happened to me and not this is what will work for you) and group agreements without too much emphasis on scientific evidence. Resources in this tier refer to basic resources that require very little guidance, for example, healthy eating tips, crypto wallet options, or personal experiences of a seamless minting process.
Tier 2
Tier 2 relates to resources and/or content that may have some capacity to do harm if not reviewed. Although personal experiences and group agreements are a sound foundation for conceptualisations, additional effort will need to be made to ensure that interpretations are not limited to personal subjective experiences. Any techniques used or benefits claimed must also be taken from a reliable source, such as an established website, statistical report or case study. Resources in this tier could range from self-awareness workshops, burnout tips, or success indicators of NFT projects.
Tier 3
Tier 3 refers to resources and/or content that, if designed and delivered incorrectly, could do harm in the absence of trained personnel implementing appropriate support mechanisms. The conceptual basis for this tier can incorporate personal experiences, though this will be dependent on existing empirical evidence in the research pool. Every effort should be made to present an objective and balanced view on the topic, and a list of sources should be referenced should members request it. The resources included in this tier are more likely to link to sensitive topic areas, or areas requiring a higher threshold of research. For instance, resources that address factors relating to mental health (for example, anxiety) will require thorough empirical grounding to protect vulnerable members that may be using the resource. Sources such as systematic reviews or meta-analyses would provide the highest level of empirical support.
Similarly, those providing in-depth resources on software implementation (e.g. smart contract exploitation protocols) would need to provide extensive knowledge and evidence that the claims they are making are generalisable. Finally, the content within these resources need to be reviewed by someone with sufficient knowledge and/or experience in the research area.
Moving Forward
We are quick to note here that a short article such as this one cannot possibly include all considerations for reviewing and recommending resources before distribution. The model recommended here is a type that others may simplify or expand on to suit their own needs. Several international organisations in health and wellness use this type of framework to help scientists and practitioners evaluate practices and the language that could or should be used in describing technique appropriateness. Similarly, the model may also act as a preliminary foundation to more complex frameworks employed by cyber security companies that analyse software vulnerabilities and act as persistent security monitoring tools.
As scientists in areas of psychology, part of our thinking is informed by the idea that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of intervention. Taking time to vet information carefully before distribution will be time well spent to serve the overall good of the NFT community.
