https://steemitimages.com/500x500/https://steemitimages.com/DQmY8yVgM1rBp1jF9cqV78hzBGuccLUy9hguYQTxTJZCZU5/Screen%20Shot%202018-04-22%20at%207.34.09%20PM.png ^{A screenshot of a tweet that I'm unable to properly embed into the Steemit text editor.} The semester is swiftly coming to a close, and with it ends our crypto-experiment. (If you're just tuning in, you can read more about our #Philly5151 project to push the boundaries of nonprofit fundraising here!) In the next couple of days, I'll be posting about what I think our next steps should be, as well as some thoughts on maximizing impact for public history projects. For now, I want to take some time to assess our project now that it nears its end. ## The need for a lab report Even those of us coming from a background in the humanities and the "soft" sciences can understand the utility of a time-honored tool of scientists everywhere: the lab report. If our project was truly an experiment, an evaluative look back at its results is standard operating procedure. I'm not a scientist, but I was able to find a lab report template for an upper-level physics course offered at Temple University- this example indicates that something of the sort for our purposes would outline experimental method, theoretical background, data results and analysis, and final conclusions. This was an innovative idea, but it was also an experiment. Can we share our insights on the successes and limitations of this approach so that others may continue the work, implement it in different ways, build upon our foundations? To this end, I propose that we draft a process paper to submit to The Public Historian or the National Council on Public History's History@Work blog. Precedent exists for this kind of "lab report"- see, for instance, "Peopling the Age of Elegance: Reinterpreting Spokane's Campbell House--A Collaboration" (The Public Historian 26, no. 3 [2004]: 27-48), or "'Plan or Be Planned For': Temple Contemporary’s Funeral for a Home and the Politics of Engagement" (The Public Historian 37, no. 2 [2015]: 14-26). ## Institutional reluctance to "the Steemit way" Like several of my colleagues, I am hesitant to recommend "the Steemit way" as a sustainable and realistic solution to nonprofit fundraising in the history sector as the platform currently stands. @yingchen has written about the problem of "large families, small households" in regards to content quality. @tedmaust has chimed in with questions on equitable wages and labor practices. I think these are well-reasoned challenges that should be considered going forward, and I share some of these concerns. But in the most immediate sense, I question the practical usability of the Steemit platform on an institutional scale. ## Steemit is too unwieldy for nonprofits with small staffs to reasonably manage Several of the things that make Steemit difficult to use have to do with its basic, markdown-styled text editor. Formatting of text and images is not intuitive. It isn't possible to embed Tweets, for example, as evidenced above. The input window itself is oriented horizontally, rather than vertically, forcing a user to constantly scroll down and back up again to see the input preview. There is no way to schedule posts in advance without the use of a third-party extension. All of these features are standard in other programs currently managed by nonprofit social media and communications staff. Aside from those issues, which are basically UX (user experience) gaffes, there are more complex obstacles to making Steemit a more feasible institutional funding solution, all of which are beyond our control. A big hurdle is a lack of buy-in from a wider audience of scholars or cultural heritage professionals- which is what this project was intended to spark, I understand. There is also very clearly a lot of public confusion about cryptocurrency and blockchain and their basic functions, relative pros and cons, etc. This may come with time and more exposure, or it may not. There has also been speculation about the possibility of using tokens on other platforms to expand the audience outside of Steemit. Again, this would be key to the success of future experiments like ours, but it is not currently the reality. ## My main takeaway? We need to consider the confines of the present What we're dealing with is the way things stand now in regards to Steemit usability for the purpose of nonprofit fundraising. It is so true that the donation appeals of yore are tired and ineffective, as @phillyhistory has pointed out. It's also true that blockchain has really interesting potential for artists and storytellers, as @peartree4 breaks down. But we are no longer operating in the past, and we are not yet operating in the future. Particularly for a risk-averse nonprofit industry, and one as hard-hit as Philly's, we need to find a middle way. And by that, I mean we have to look at the willingness (or not) of nonprofit staff to embrace this method of fundraising, and meet them at the pass. To me, that means more listening, more patience, and more compromise. ^{100% of the SBD rewards from this #explore1918 post will support the Philadelphia History Initiative @phillyhistory. This crypto-experiment conducted by graduate courses at Temple University's Center for Public History and MLA Program is exploring history and empowering education. Click here to learn more.}