Research Context

Within the present investigation, RELHI Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset supports the long-term development of the artist's cultural practice.

Its purpose is not to function as a speculative financial instrument.

Instead, it reinforces the artist's capacity to:

• sustain long-term artistic research;
• support the development of Cognitive Structuralism;
• support the continued development of the ANDRBEL Research Program;
• preserve and extend the artist's cultural practice through complementary systems of Utility, Governance, Trust, Preservation, and CSEA.

Principle of Artistic Mission
Within an individual artistic practice, a Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset exists to reinforce the long-term Cultural Mission of the artist rather than to maximize short-term financial performance.

The Cultural Mission of RELHI

Before any Structural Investigation is undertaken, the Cultural Mission of the investigated Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset must be explicitly defined.

For RELHI, that mission is:

• To reinforce the long-term continuity of the artist's research, artistic practice, and cultural contribution by providing a mission-oriented Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset organized through Utility, Governance, Trust, Preservation, and Cultural Structural Economic Architecture.

Closing Reflection of the Introduction

DAP #1 begins not with blockchain technology, market dynamics, or token distribution, but with the Cultural Mission of the artist.

This reflects a fundamental principle established throughout the ANDRBEL Research Program: the identity of a Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset originates in its cultural purpose rather than in its technological implementation.

Accordingly, RELHI Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset is investigated first and foremost as an extension of an artist's long-term cultural practice. Its economic structures, technological environment, and future circulation are examined only insofar as they reinforce that Cultural Mission.

Primary Cultural Mission

To reinforce the long-term continuity of the artistic practice, cultural research, and public cultural contribution of AndrBel through a Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset intentionally organized according to the principles of the ADAS Framework Series.

Mission Domains
RELHI существует для поддержки пяти взаимосвязанных направлений.

I.
Artistic Practice
Поддержка создания произведений искусства.

II.
Artistic Research
Поддержка развития:
Cognitive Structuralism;
Artistic Continuity Infrastructure;
ANDRBEL Research Program.

III.
Cultural Preservation
Долговременное сохранение исследований.
Архива.
Документации.

IV.
Public Cultural Participation
Возможность участия людей
в исследовании.
Не просто владения активом.
А участия в культурной программе.

V.
Future Institutional Continuity
Подготовка
к будущему взаимодействию
с:
музеями;
архивами;
университетами;
фондами.

Тогда появляется Definition.
Cultural Mission of RELHI
The Cultural Mission of RELHI Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset is to reinforce the long-term continuity of AndrBel's artistic practice, artistic research, cultural preservation, public cultural participation, and future institutional continuity through a mission-oriented Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset.

Principle of Artistic Continuity through Native Digital CDA
Within an individual artistic practice, a Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset exists to reinforce the long-term continuity of artistic creation, research, preservation, and cultural participation rather than to maximize speculative financial activity.

Следующий шаг.
Technological Environment

Вот здесь я предлагаю изменить сам вопрос.
Не
Ethereum?
Solana?
L2?
А

Research Question
Which technological environment most effectively preserves the Cultural Mission of RELHI over the long term?

Критерии.
Не TPS.
Не комиссии.
А.
Long-Term Preservation
Institutional Compatibility
Documentation
Interoperability
Transparency
Future CDA Protocol Compatibility
Digital Permanence

Теперь оцениваем.

Ethereum
Очень сильный.
Потому что.
Максимальная вероятность
существования
через десятилетия.

Solana
Очень хорош.
Но.
Сейчас
скорее
для массовых приложений.

L2
Интересно.
Но.
Пока.
Вторично.

Preliminary Conclusion
На данном этапе исследования.
RELHI
лучше проектировать
на Ethereum.
Не потому,
что Ethereum "лучше".
А потому,
что сегодня он наиболее соответствует требованиям:

• Preservation;
• Institutional Compatibility;
• Long-Term Sustainability.

Principle of Preservation-Oriented Technology Selection
The technological environment of a Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset should be selected according to its capacity to preserve the Cultural Mission over the long term rather than according to short-term technological or market advantages.

Position within the DAP Series

DAP #1 constitutes the first Reference Investigation of the Demonstration and Validation Project Series.
Unlike DAP 0, which established the Structural Investigation Protocol, DAP #1 applies that protocol to an intentionally designed Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset.

Accordingly, DAP #1 represents the inaugural empirical application of:

• the ADAS Framework Series;
• the AndrBel Framework Methodology (AFM);
• the Structural Research Language (SRL);
• the ADAS Glossary;
• the Cultural Digital Asset framework;
• the Research Design Workshop.

Scope of Investigation

The present investigation is intentionally limited to:

Contextual Classification
Level I
Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset

Accordingly, DAP #1 investigates RELHI exclusively as the Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset of an individual artist.
The investigation examines how such an asset reinforces:

• artistic practice;
• artistic research;
• cultural continuity;
• long-term artistic development;
• public cultural participation.

• galleries;
• museums;
• auction houses;
• cultural foundations;
• institutional consortia;
• CDA Protocol.

Contextual Position

The present investigation therefore occupies the following position within the Contextual Classification introduced in the Research Design Workshop.

Level I
Artist Native Digital CDA
│
│ ← DAP #1
▼
Level II
Cultural Organization Native Digital CDA
▼
Level III
Institutional Network Native Digital CDA
▼
Level IV
Protocol-Level Native Digital CDA

DAP #1 establishes the foundational Structural Evidence for Level I.
Only after this evidence has been generated should the methodology be extended to subsequent contextual environments.

Why RELHI?

RELHI has been selected not because it is the author's first blockchain initiative, nor because of its technological implementation.

Rather, RELHI constitutes the first Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset intentionally designed according to:

• the ADAS Framework Series;
• AFM;
• the Research Design Workshop;
• Cultural Structural Economic Architecture (CSEA).

Research Object
RELHI Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset
Definition

RELHI Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset is an Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset intentionally designed to reinforce the long-term continuity of AndrBel's artistic practice, artistic research, and cultural contribution through complementary systems of Utility, Governance, Trust, Preservation, and Cultural Structural Economic Architecture (CSEA).

Cultural Mission

The Cultural Mission of RELHI is:
To reinforce the long-term continuity of AndrBel's artistic practice, artistic research, public cultural contribution, and future cultural preservation through a mission-oriented Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset.

Accordingly, RELHI is investigated primarily as an instrument of cultural continuity rather than as a speculative financial instrument.

Figure
Position of RELHI within the ANDRBEL Research Program

ANDRBEL Research Program
│
▼
Artist Native Digital CDA
│
▼
RELHI Native Digital CDA
│
▼
DAP #1
│
▼
Structural Evidence
│
▼
Structural Knowledge

Principle of Foundational Reference Investigation
The first Demonstration and Validation Project should investigate the simplest structurally complete contextual environment before extending the methodology to broader institutional and protocol-level applications.

Closing Reflection

DAP #1 represents the first empirical investigation within the ANDRBEL Research Program.

Unlike the preceding documents, which progressively established theoretical, methodological, conceptual, terminological, and design architectures, DAP #1 applies those architectures to a single, intentionally designed Structural Research Object.

Accordingly, RELHI Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset is investigated not as an isolated digital asset but as the first Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset within a reproducible Cultural Research Ecosystem.

Central Research Question

How does an Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset perform when systematically investigated through the Structural Investigation Protocol established by the ANDRBEL Research Program?

Position within the Research Program

DAP #1 represents the first empirical investigation of the ANDRBEL Research Program.

It applies:

• the ADAS Framework Series;
• AFM;
• SRL;
• ADAS Glossary;
• the Cultural Digital Asset framework;
• the Research Design Workshop.

Research Scope

The present investigation is intentionally limited to a single Structural Research Context.

Contextual Classification:

Level I — Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset

Consequently, the investigation examines RELHI exclusively within the context of an individual artist's cultural practice.

Institutional implementations remain outside the scope of the present Demonstration and Validation Project.

Research Objectives

DAP #1 pursues five complementary objectives.

Objective I
To investigate RELHI as the first Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset.

Objective II
To evaluate the applicability of the complete Structural Investigation Protocol.

Objective III
To generate the first Structural Evidence for the Artist Native Digital CDA class.

Objective IV
To evaluate the explanatory capacity of the ADAS Framework Series.

Objective V
To contribute to the cumulative development of Structural Knowledge.

Principle of Foundational Investigation
The first Demonstration and Validation Project establishes the initial empirical reference through which subsequent investigations may be comparatively evaluated and progressively integrated into Structural Knowledge.

Closing Reflection

DAP #1 represents the beginning of the empirical phase of the ANDRBEL Research Program.

For the first time, the complete methodological architecture developed throughout the Foundational Architecture is systematically applied to an actual Structural Research Object.

Accordingly, the scientific significance of DAP #1 extends beyond the investigation of RELHI itself.

Its principal contribution consists in establishing the first reproducible empirical reference for the investigation of Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Assets.

Central Research Question

Why is RELHI selected as the first Structural Research Object for the investigation of the Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset class?

Definition
Structural Research Object

A Structural Research Object is a deliberately selected cultural object investigated through the methodological architecture of the ANDRBEL Research Program in order to generate reproducible Structural Evidence and contribute to the cumulative development of Structural Knowledge.

Within Demonstration and Validation Projects, the Structural Research Object represents the empirical reference through which Structural Theory is systematically examined.

Selection Criteria

RELHI has been selected according to the following methodological criteria.

Criterion I
Ontological Completeness
RELHI constitutes a fully designed Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset.
Its Cultural Mission, Structural Architecture, Economic Architecture, and Technological Environment have been intentionally established before investigation.

Criterion II
Methodological Compatibility
RELHI has been designed according to:

• the ADAS Framework Series;
• AFM;
• SRL;
• ADAS Glossary;
• the Cultural Digital Asset framework;
• the Research Design Workshop.

RELHI as a Reference Implementation

Within the present investigation, RELHI should not be interpreted as an isolated digital asset.

Instead, it functions as the first Reference Implementation of the Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset class.

Its purpose is to demonstrate how the complete methodological architecture of the ANDRBEL Research Program performs when applied to an intentionally designed Structural Research Object.

Consequently, the investigation evaluates the structural class through its first reproducible implementation.

Definition
Reference Implementation

A Reference Implementation is a fully documented Structural Research Object intentionally designed according to the methodological architecture of the ANDRBEL Research Program and investigated as a reproducible empirical reference for a defined structural class.

Figure
Position of RELHI within the Investigation

Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset
│
▼
Reference Implementation
RELHI Native Digital CDA
│
▼
Structural Investigation
│
▼
Structural Evidence
│
▼
Structural Knowledge

Principle of Reference Implementation
Demonstration and Validation Projects investigate structurally documented Reference Implementations rather than isolated cultural objects, enabling the reproducible generation of Structural Evidence within clearly defined structural classes.

Scope of Investigation

The present Demonstration and Validation Project investigates RELHI exclusively as:

• an Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset;
• a Reference Implementation of the Artist Native Digital CDA class;
• a Structural Research Object within the Initial Research Domain.

• financial investment performance;
• speculative market behavior;
• comparative blockchain efficiency;
• institutional deployment.

Closing Reflection

The selection of RELHI establishes the empirical foundation of the first Demonstration and Validation Project.

Rather than investigating an arbitrary digital asset, DAP #1 examines a deliberately designed and fully documented Reference Implementation.

Accordingly, the scientific contribution of RELHI derives not from its uniqueness as a project, but from its capacity to function as a reproducible Structural Research Object supporting the cumulative development of Structural Knowledge.

Central Research Question

Does RELHI satisfy the structural conditions required to be investigated as a Cultural Digital Asset within the ANDRBEL Research Program?

Definition
Structural Identification

Structural Identification is the methodological process through which an investigated object is examined to determine whether it satisfies the structural conditions necessary for participation within a defined Structural Research Domain.

Within the present investigation, Structural Identification establishes whether RELHI qualifies as a Cultural Digital Asset prior to any ontological, functional, or contextual classification.

Structural Identification Criteria

The investigation evaluates RELHI according to the foundational definition of a Cultural Digital Asset established in the preceding conceptual paper.

Criterion I
Cultural Identity
RELHI possesses an explicitly defined Cultural Mission centered on reinforcing the long-term continuity of artistic practice, artistic research, and cultural contribution.
Accordingly, RELHI demonstrates an identifiable cultural identity rather than functioning solely as a technological or financial instrument.

Criterion II
Digital Existence
RELHI exists as a digitally implemented cultural structure.
Its digital existence enables documentation, governance, preservation, and future institutional interoperability.

Criterion III
Cultural Value
RELHI possesses identifiable cultural value through its direct integration with:

• artistic practice;
• Cognitive Structuralism;
• the ANDRBEL Research Program;
• long-term cultural continuity.

• Cultural Mission;
• Utility;
• Governance;
• Trust;
• Preservation;
• Cultural Structural Economic Architecture (CSEA).

Preliminary Identification

Based upon the preceding investigation, RELHI satisfies the structural conditions established for participation within the Cultural Digital Asset framework.

Accordingly, RELHI is provisionally identified as a Cultural Digital Asset.

This preliminary identification enables the subsequent stages of Structural Investigation, including Ontological Classification, Functional Classification, and Contextual Classification.

Structural Identification Matrix

Principle of Structural Identification

Structural Investigation shall proceed only after the investigated object has been methodologically identified as satisfying the foundational structural conditions of the relevant Structural Research Domain.

Principle of Domain Membership

Participation within a Structural Research Domain is established through demonstrable structural characteristics rather than technological implementation, institutional recognition, or market acceptance.

Figure
Structural Identification within the Investigation

Structural Research Object
│
▼
Structural Identification
│
▼
Cultural Digital Asset
│
▼
Ontological Classification
│
▼
Functional Classification
│
▼
Contextual Classification

Closing Reflection

Structural Identification represents the first empirical determination performed within DAP #1.

Rather than evaluating the success or performance of RELHI, this stage establishes whether the investigated object belongs to the conceptual domain of Cultural Digital Assets.

By confirming that RELHI satisfies the foundational structural conditions established by the ANDRBEL Research Program, the investigation prepares the object for progressively more detailed structural analyses throughout the subsequent stages of the Demonstration and Validation Project.

Central Research Question

To which ontological class does RELHI belong according to the Cultural Digital Asset framework?

Definition
Ontological Classification

• Ontological Classification investigates the origin of the Cultural Identity of a Cultural Digital Asset by determining the class through which its cultural existence is fundamentally constituted.

• Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset;
• Digital Representation Cultural Digital Asset;
• Limited Digital Edition Cultural Digital Asset.

Comparative Ontological Evaluation

The investigation therefore examines RELHI against each ontological class.

Class I
Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset

Definition:
A Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset is a digitally native cultural structure whose Cultural Identity originates within the digital environment and whose long-term Cultural Mission is intentionally organized through Utility, Governance, Trust, Preservation, and Cultural Structural Economic Architecture (CSEA).

Evaluation
RELHI satisfies the defining characteristics of the Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset class.
Its Cultural Identity originates as a digital cultural structure.
It is not derived from an existing physical artwork.
Its Cultural Mission was intentionally established prior to technological implementation.
Its Structural Design was completed before Demonstration and Validation.
Accordingly, RELHI satisfies the ontological criteria of the Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset class.

Class II
Digital Representation Cultural Digital Asset

Definition:
A Digital Representation Cultural Digital Asset derives its Cultural Identity from an existing cultural object represented within a digital environment.

Evaluation
RELHI does not derive its Cultural Identity from an existing physical artwork or previously established cultural object.
Consequently, RELHI does not satisfy the ontological characteristics of the Digital Representation Cultural Digital Asset class.

Class III
Limited Digital Edition Cultural Digital Asset

Definition:
A Limited Digital Edition Cultural Digital Asset derives its Cultural Identity from an intentionally limited digital cultural edition associated with an existing cultural work or digital edition framework.

Evaluation
RELHI is not conceived as a limited digital edition.
Its Cultural Identity exists independently of edition size or collectible scarcity.
Consequently, RELHI does not satisfy the defining characteristics of the Limited Digital Edition Cultural Digital Asset class.

Ontological Determination

Following comparative investigation, RELHI is ontologically identified as:

Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset

The investigated object therefore belongs to:

Class I — Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset.

Ontological Identification Matrix

Principle of Exclusive Ontological Identity

Within the current Cultural Digital Asset framework, a Structural Research Object possesses one primary ontological identity determined by the origin of its Cultural Identity. Ontological classes are mutually exclusive unless future Structural Evidence demonstrates the necessity for additional hybrid classifications.

Principle of Ontological Priority

Ontological Classification precedes Functional and Contextual Classification because the origin of Cultural Identity remains independent of subsequent structural roles or contextual environments.

Figure
Ontological Determination

                                  RELHI
                                      │
                                     ▼
                   Ontological Classification
────────────────────────────────────

Native Digital CDA                                ✓
Digital Representation                         ✗
Limited Digital Edition                          ✗

────────────────────────────────────
                                    │
                                   ▼
                               Class I
         Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset

Closing Reflection

The Ontological Classification of RELHI establishes the first formal classification within the Demonstration and Validation Project.

Rather than assigning a descriptive label, this stage determines the origin of the Cultural Identity of the investigated object.

The investigation confirms that RELHI constitutes a Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset whose cultural existence originates within the digital environment rather than through representation or limited digital edition.

Accordingly, subsequent stages of the investigation may proceed to examine the Functional and Contextual dimensions of the same Structural Research Object while preserving the analytical independence of each classificatory system.

Central Research Question

What structural role does RELHI perform within the cultural ecosystem established by the ANDRBEL Research Program?

Definition
Functional Classification

Functional Classification investigates the structural role through which a Cultural Digital Asset contributes to the organization, continuity, governance, preservation, or development of a cultural ecosystem independently of its ontological identity.

Unlike Ontological Classification, Functional Classification does not investigate what the object is.

Instead, it investigates what the object contributes.

Current Functional Framework

At the present stage of the ANDRBEL Research Program, Functional Classification recognizes one fully developed functional category.

Institutional Cultural Digital Asset
Definition

An Institutional Cultural Digital Asset performs structural functions that reinforce cultural governance, preservation, institutional continuity, or coordinated cultural participation within a defined cultural ecosystem.

Future Structural Evidence may justify additional functional classes, including:

• Governance CDA;
• Archival CDA;
• Transactional CDA;
• Educational CDA;
• Curatorial CDA.

Functional Evaluation of RELHI

The investigation now evaluates whether RELHI currently performs an Institutional Function.

Governance
RELHI contributes to the governance of the artist's long-term Cultural Mission through intentionally designed Utility, Governance, Trust, and Preservation structures.

Continuity
RELHI supports the long-term continuity of artistic practice and artistic research.

Preservation
RELHI contributes to the preservation of cultural knowledge through the continuation of research, documentation, and future institutional readiness.

Participation
RELHI enables structured public participation in the artist's Cultural Mission through mission-oriented cultural engagement rather than speculative financial activity alone.

Functional Determination

Although RELHI exists within the context of an individual artist, the investigation demonstrates that it already performs institutional functions.
Its purpose extends beyond individual ownership or financial exchange.
Instead, it organizes governance, continuity, preservation, and participation around the artist's Cultural Mission.
Accordingly, RELHI is functionally classified as:

Institutional Cultural Digital Asset

This determination reflects functional role rather than organizational ownership.
Institutional Function should therefore not be interpreted as requiring an existing museum, gallery, or foundation.
Rather, it indicates that the Cultural Digital Asset performs functions traditionally associated with institutional continuity.

Functional Identification Matrix

Principle of Functional Independence

Functional Classification investigates the structural role of a Cultural Digital Asset independently of its ontological identity or contextual environment. Cultural Digital Assets sharing the same ontological class may perform different functional roles, while different ontological classes may perform similar functional roles.

Principle of Progressive Functional Development

Functional Classification remains open to progressive refinement through Structural Evidence generated by subsequent Demonstration and Validation Projects. New functional categories should emerge from empirical investigation rather than theoretical speculation.

Figure
Functional Classification

                                                    RELHI
                                                        │
                                                       ▼
                                 Functional Classification
──────────────────────────────────────

Institutional Function                                         ✓
Governance Function                                    Future
Archival Function                                           Future
Educational Function                                    Future
Curatorial Function                                       Future

──────────────────────────────────────
                                                   │
                                                  ▼
                  Institutional Cultural Digital Asset

Relationship with Ontological Classification

Ontological Classification and Functional Classification investigate different dimensions of the same Structural Research Object.

For RELHI:

Ontological Identity

→ Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset.

Functional Role

→ Institutional Cultural Digital Asset.

These determinations are complementary rather than hierarchical.
Together they provide a more comprehensive structural understanding of the investigated object while preserving analytical independence.

Closing Reflection

The Functional Classification of RELHI demonstrates that structural roles cannot be inferred solely from ontological identity.

Although RELHI is ontologically classified as a Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset, its primary contribution lies in reinforcing governance, continuity, preservation, and cultural participation within the artist's long-term Cultural Mission.

Accordingly, Functional Classification extends the investigation beyond the question of identity toward the broader question of structural contribution.

Introduction

The completion of Ontological Classification and Functional Classification establishes the cultural identity and structural role of the investigated Cultural Digital Asset.

However, these analytical dimensions do not determine the cultural environment within which the investigated object exists and fulfills its Cultural Mission.

Accordingly, the present stage investigates the Contextual Classification of RELHI.

Within the ANDRBEL Research Program, Contextual Classification examines the structural environment within which a Cultural Digital Asset operates while remaining analytically independent of both Ontological and Functional Classification.

Its purpose is not to redefine the investigated object.

Instead, it establishes the cultural context within which its structural functions are realized.

Central Research Question

Within which contextual environment does RELHI fulfill its Cultural Mission?

Definition
Contextual Classification

Contextual Classification investigates the cultural environment within which a Cultural Digital Asset exists, develops, and fulfills its Cultural Mission independently of its ontological identity and functional role.

Accordingly, Contextual Classification investigates the organizational environment of the Cultural Digital Asset rather than its identity or function.

Contextual Framework
Within the current stage of the ANDRBEL Research Program, four contextual environments are recognized.

• Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset
• Cultural Organization Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset
• Institutional Network Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset
• Protocol-Level Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset

Level I
Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset
Definition

An Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset is issued by an individual artist to reinforce the continuity of the artist's own artistic practice, artistic research, preservation activities, and Cultural Mission.

Evaluation
RELHI has been intentionally designed to reinforce:

• the long-term artistic practice of AndrBel;
• the continued development of Cognitive Structuralism;
• the ANDRBEL Research Program;
• artistic continuity;
• public cultural participation.

Level II
Cultural Organization Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset
Definition

A Cultural Organization Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset is issued by a cultural organization in order to reinforce its institutional mission, governance, cultural continuity, and long-term organizational development.

Evaluation
RELHI is not issued by:

• BEL4224 Gallery;
• ARTHALL BEL4224;
• a museum;
• a foundation;
• or another cultural organization.

Level III
Institutional Network Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset
Definition

An Institutional Network Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset operates across multiple cultural organizations in order to reinforce coordinated governance, interoperability, and shared cultural initiatives.

Evaluation
RELHI currently operates within the cultural practice of a single artist.
No institutional network presently governs its operation.
Accordingly, this contextual level is not applicable.

Level IV
Protocol-Level Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset
Definition

A Protocol-Level Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset participates within the shared infrastructure of the CDA Protocol according to common structural standards enabling interoperability among independent Native Digital Cultural Digital Assets.

Evaluation
The CDA Protocol remains a future stage of the ANDRBEL Research Program.
RELHI has not yet entered such a protocol environment.
Consequently, this contextual level does not presently apply.

Contextual Determination
Following comparative investigation, RELHI is contextually identified as:

Level I
Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset

The investigated object therefore operates within the artist-centered contextual environment defined in the Research Design Workshop.

Contextual Identification Matrix

Principle of Contextual Exclusivity

Within a given Demonstration and Validation Project, the investigated Cultural Digital Asset should be evaluated within its primary contextual environment. Additional contextual environments should be investigated independently unless Structural Evidence demonstrates simultaneous multi-context participation.

Principle of Progressive Contextual Expansion

Contextual environments should be investigated progressively, beginning with the simplest structurally complete context before extending the investigation to organizational, network, and protocol-level environments.

Relationship with Previous Classifications
The three classificatory systems now provide complementary descriptions of the same Structural Research Object.

For RELHI:

• Ontological Classification → Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset
• Functional Classification → Institutional Cultural Digital Asset
• Contextual Classification → Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset

Figure
Multidimensional Classification of RELHI

                                             RELHI
                                                 │
────────────────────────────────────────────

 Ontological Classification
Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset

────────────────────────────────────────────

Functional Classification
Institutional Cultural Digital Asset

────────────────────────────────────────────

Contextual Classification
Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset

────────────────────────────────────────────
                                             │
                                            ▼
                    Comprehensive Structural Identity

Closing Reflection
The completion of Contextual Classification concludes the Multidimensional Classification of RELHI established by the ANDRBEL Research Program.
The investigation has demonstrated that a Cultural Digital Asset cannot be adequately described through a single classificatory system.

Instead, its structural identity emerges through the complementary investigation of:

• its ontological identity;
• its functional role;
• and its contextual environment.

Central Research Question

Does RELHI possess the Ontological Foundation required for a Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset?

Definition
Ontological Foundation

The Ontological Foundation comprises the fundamental structural properties through which a Cultural Digital Asset acquires coherent cultural identity independently of its technological implementation, economic architecture, or contextual environment.

Within the current stage of the ANDRBEL Research Program, the Ontological Foundation consists of three complementary structural dimensions:

• Utility;
• Governance;
• Trust.

I. Utility
Definition

Utility represents the culturally meaningful capacities through which a Cultural Digital Asset contributes to the realization of its Cultural Mission.

Utility is therefore investigated as cultural functionality rather than market functionality.

Evaluation of RELHI

RELHI demonstrates Utility through its capacity to reinforce:

• artistic practice;
• artistic research;
• Cognitive Structuralism;
• the ANDRBEL Research Program;
• public cultural participation;
• long-term cultural continuity.

II. Governance
Definition

Governance comprises the structural principles through which the Cultural Mission, organizational continuity, stewardship, and long-term development of a Cultural Digital Asset are intentionally coordinated.

Governance therefore extends beyond administrative decision-making.
It represents the structural organization of cultural continuity.

Evaluation of RELHI

RELHI possesses an explicitly defined Governance Architecture.

Its governance is organized through:

• the Cultural Mission;
• CSEA;
• Allocation Models;
• Mission-Driven Treasury;
• Preservation-oriented stewardship.

III. Trust
Definition

Trust comprises the structural conditions through which a Cultural Digital Asset becomes capable of sustaining confidence in its cultural integrity, governance, continuity, and long-term preservation.

Within the ANDRBEL Research Program, Trust is not reduced to technological security.
It encompasses the credibility of the complete cultural architecture.

Evaluation of RELHI
RELHI demonstrates Trust through:

• explicitly documented Cultural Mission;
• transparent Structural Design;
• reproducible methodology;
• clearly documented Governance;
• Preservation-oriented architecture;
• Research Design documentation.

Ontological Foundation Matrix

Integrated Ontological Foundation

The investigation demonstrates that Utility, Governance, and Trust do not operate independently.
Utility defines why the Cultural Digital Asset contributes.
Governance organizes how that contribution is sustained.
Trust enables long-term confidence in the continuity of both.
Together these complementary dimensions establish the Ontological Foundation of RELHI.

Principle of Integrated Ontological Foundation

Utility, Governance, and Trust constitute complementary dimensions of the Ontological Foundation. The structural integrity of a Cultural Digital Asset emerges through their coordinated interaction rather than through any individual dimension considered in isolation.

Principle of Mission-Based Utility

The Utility of a Cultural Digital Asset derives from its contribution to the Cultural Mission rather than from the economic opportunities created by its technological implementation or market participation.

Figure
Ontological Foundation of RELHI

                                  RELHI
                                     │
──────────────────────────────────
Utility
Why does it contribute?
──────────────────────────────────
Governance
How is continuity organized?
──────────────────────────────────
Trust
Why can long-term confidence exist?
──────────────────────────────────
                                    │
                                   ▼
Integrated Ontological Foundation

Relationship with Previous Stages
The present investigation demonstrates the progressive logic of AFM.

• Structural Identification established that RELHI belongs to the Cultural Digital Asset domain.
• Multidimensional Classification established what RELHI is, what role it performs, and within which context it operates.
• Ontological Foundation now demonstrates that RELHI possesses the structural properties predicted by the ADAS Framework Series.

Closing Reflection
The investigation confirms that RELHI possesses the complete Ontological Foundation established by the ADAS Framework Series.

Rather than functioning as isolated structural properties, Utility, Governance, and Trust collectively establish a coherent cultural architecture through which the Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset acquires stable cultural identity and long-term continuity.

This confirmation provides the theoretical basis for the subsequent investigation of Structural Reinforcement, where the Ontological Foundation is examined in relation to Sustainability, Coherence, and Legitimacy.

Central Research Question

Does RELHI possess the Structural Reinforcement necessary to preserve its Cultural Mission over the long term?

Definition
Structural Reinforcement

Structural Reinforcement comprises the complementary structural conditions through which the Ontological Foundation of a Cultural Digital Asset remains sustainable, coherent, and legitimate throughout the long-term realization of its Cultural Mission.

Within the ADAS Framework Series, Structural Reinforcement consists of three complementary dimensions:

• Structural Sustainability;
• Structural Coherence;
• Structural Legitimacy.

I. Structural Sustainability
Definition

Structural Sustainability is the capacity of a Cultural Digital Asset to preserve its Ontological Foundation throughout successive stages of cultural development without losing its Cultural Mission.

Evaluation of RELHI
The investigation demonstrates that RELHI has been intentionally designed for long-term continuity through:

• a clearly defined Cultural Mission;
• Mission-Driven Treasury;
• Preservation-oriented Governance;
• Cultural Structural Economic Architecture;
• documented methodological foundations.

II. Structural Coherence
Definition

Structural Coherence is the capacity of the complementary structural components of a Cultural Digital Asset to operate as an integrated and mutually reinforcing architecture.

Evaluation of RELHI

The investigation demonstrates strong coherence between:

• Cultural Mission;
• Utility;
• Governance;
• Trust;
• CSEA;
• Research Design;
• Technological Environment.

III. Structural Legitimacy
Definition

Structural Legitimacy is the capacity of a Cultural Digital Asset to justify its structural organization through transparent cultural purpose, methodological consistency, and reproducible documentation.

Structural Legitimacy is therefore investigated independently of legal recognition or market valuation.

Evaluation of RELHI
RELHI demonstrates Structural Legitimacy through:

• explicitly documented Cultural Mission;
• reproducible methodological architecture;
• transparent Structural Design;
• systematic documentation;
• compatibility with the ADAS Framework Series.

Structural Reinforcement Matrix

Integrated Structural Reinforcement

The investigation demonstrates that Sustainability, Coherence, and Legitimacy operate as complementary dimensions of the Structural Reinforcement Layer.
Structural Sustainability preserves continuity.
Structural Coherence preserves internal consistency.
Structural Legitimacy preserves methodological credibility.
Together they reinforce the Ontological Foundation established in the preceding stage of the investigation.

Principle of Integrated Structural Reinforcement

Structural Sustainability, Structural Coherence, and Structural Legitimacy collectively reinforce the Ontological Foundation of a Cultural Digital Asset by preserving its capacity for long-term Cultural Continuity.

Principle of Reinforced Continuity

Long-term Cultural Continuity emerges not from the existence of an Ontological Foundation alone, but from the sustained reinforcement of that foundation through Sustainability, Coherence, and Legitimacy.

Figure
Structural Reinforcement of RELHI

                    RELHI
                       │
Ontological Foundation
Utility • Governance • Trust
                        │
                       ▼
Structural Reinforcement Layer
Sustainability • Coherence • Legitimacy
                        │
                       ▼
Long-Term Cultural Continuity

Relationship with Ontological Foundation
The Ontological Foundation establishes the essential structural identity of the Cultural Digital Asset.

The Structural Reinforcement Layer preserves that identity throughout the long-term realization of the Cultural Mission.

Accordingly:

Ontological Foundation answers:
Why does the Cultural Digital Asset possess coherent cultural identity?

Structural Reinforcement answers:
Why is that identity capable of remaining coherent across time?

This distinction demonstrates the complementary relationship between the two principal structural layers established by the ADAS Framework Series.

Closing Reflection
The investigation confirms that RELHI possesses not only the Ontological Foundation required for a Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset, but also the Structural Reinforcement necessary to preserve that foundation throughout the long-term realization of its Cultural Mission.

The combined operation of Sustainability, Coherence, and Legitimacy demonstrates that the investigated Cultural Digital Asset has been intentionally organized for enduring cultural continuity rather than short-term technological implementation or market participation.

Accordingly, the investigation is now prepared to examine the Structural Lifecycle of RELHI, investigating how this reinforced structural architecture develops through successive stages of maturity.

Central Research Question

How does a Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset progressively develop throughout its Cultural Lifecycle while preserving its Ontological Foundation and Structural Reinforcement?

Definition
Structural Lifecycle

Structural Lifecycle is the progressive sequence of structurally distinguishable stages through which a Cultural Digital Asset develops while preserving the continuity of its Cultural Mission, Ontological Foundation, and Structural Reinforcement.

Unlike technological product lifecycles or financial market cycles, the Structural Lifecycle investigates the evolution of cultural structures.

Lifecycle Architecture
Within the current stage of the ANDRBEL Research Program, the Structural Lifecycle is investigated through five complementary stages.

Stage I
Structural Design
The Cultural Digital Asset is intentionally designed.

This stage establishes:

• Cultural Mission;
• Structural Architecture;
• Technological Environment;
• CSEA;
• Multidimensional Classification.

• the technological infrastructure is established;
• governance becomes operational;
• documentation is finalized;
• the object becomes available for investigation.

• artistic research;
• public participation;
• exhibitions;
• educational activities;
• research support;
• cultural collaborations.

• museums;
• galleries;
• universities;
• archives;
• foundations;
• cultural partnerships.

Structural Evaluation of RELHI
The present investigation evaluates the current lifecycle position of RELHI.

Current Stage
RELHI has completed:

• Structural Design;
• Initial Implementation.

Lifecycle Matrix

Dynamic Preservation
The Structural Lifecycle demonstrates that preservation is not a terminal event.
Preservation accompanies every stage of development.

Consequently:

• Ontological Foundation remains continuously active.
• Structural Reinforcement continuously adapts.
• Cultural Mission remains the organizing principle throughout the lifecycle.

Principle of Progressive Cultural Development

A Cultural Digital Asset progressively develops through successive structural stages while preserving the continuity of its Cultural Mission, Ontological Foundation, and Structural Reinforcement.

Principle of Lifecycle Continuity

Structural Lifecycle investigates the evolution of Cultural Digital Assets as continuous cultural processes rather than isolated technological events or market cycles.

Figure
Structural Lifecycle

                 Cultural Mission
                       │
                      ▼
──────────────────────────────────────────────
Stage I
Structural Design
↓
Stage II
Initial Implementation
↓
Stage III
Cultural Participation
↓
Stage IV
Institutional Integration
↓
Stage V
Long-Term Cultural Continuity
──────────────────────────────────────────────
│
▼
Continuous Structural Preservation

Relationship with Previous Sections
The investigation now demonstrates the complete internal logic of the ADAS Framework Series.

• Ontological Foundation establishes why the Cultural Digital Asset possesses coherent cultural identity.
• Structural Reinforcement explains how that identity remains sustainable.
• Structural Lifecycle explains how that reinforced identity progressively develops through time.

Closing Reflection
The investigation demonstrates that RELHI should not be understood as a static digital object.

Instead, it represents a progressively developing Cultural Digital Asset whose significance emerges through the long-term realization of its Cultural Mission.

The Structural Lifecycle therefore extends the investigation beyond structural description toward the dynamic evolution of Cultural Continuity.

Accordingly, the next stage of DAP #1 evaluates how the empirical observations obtained throughout the investigation correspond to the theoretical propositions established by the ADAS Framework Series.

Central Research Question

To what extent do the empirical observations generated through the investigation of RELHI support, refine, or challenge the theoretical propositions established by the ADAS Framework Series?

Definition
Validation

Validation is the systematic comparison of empirical Structural Evidence with the theoretical propositions of the ANDRBEL Research Program in order to confirm, refine, or critically evaluate existing Structural Theory.

Validation therefore investigates the relationship between theory and observation rather than evaluating the success of the investigated Cultural Digital Asset.

Validation Framework
Within DAP #1, Validation is conducted through the principal components of the ADAS Framework Series.

I. Utility
Theoretical Proposition
A Cultural Digital Asset requires meaningful Utility derived from its Cultural Mission.

Empirical Observation
RELHI demonstrates Utility through:

• artistic practice;
• artistic research;
• cultural participation;
• preservation;
• long-term continuity.

II. Governance
Theoretical Proposition
Governance organizes the long-term realization of the Cultural Mission.

Empirical Observation

RELHI demonstrates Governance through:

• Cultural Mission;
• CSEA;
• Mission-Driven Treasury;
• documented stewardship;
• Research Design.

III. Trust
Theoretical Proposition
Trust emerges through transparent structural organization.

Empirical Observation

RELHI demonstrates Trust through:

• documented methodology;
• transparent Structural Design;
• reproducible architecture;
• explicit Cultural Mission.

IV. Structural Sustainability
Theoretical Proposition
Long-term continuity requires Structural Sustainability.

Empirical Observation

RELHI possesses:

• Preservation-oriented architecture;
• Mission-Driven Treasury;
• documented continuity planning.

V. Structural Coherence
Theoretical Proposition
Structural components should operate as an integrated architecture.

Empirical Observation

No contradictions are observed between:

• Cultural Mission;
• Utility;
• Governance;
• Trust;
• CSEA;
• Research Design.

VI. Structural Legitimacy
Theoretical Proposition
Structural organization should be methodologically justified.

Empirical Observation

RELHI demonstrates:

• reproducible methodology;
• transparent documentation;
• coherent structural reasoning.

Validation Matrix

Beyond Confirmation
The purpose of Validation extends beyond confirming existing theory.
The investigation also evaluates whether empirical observations reveal opportunities for theoretical refinement.
Within DAP #1, the investigation has generated several methodological developments not explicitly formulated prior to the empirical investigation.

These include:

• Cultural Structural Economic Architecture (CSEA);
• Cultural Space and Economic Space;
• Contextual Classification;
• Multidimensional Classification;
• Research Readiness;
• Structural Lifecycle;
• Mission-Driven Treasury;
• Relational Allocation.

Principle of Progressive Validation

Validation should investigate not only whether empirical observations support existing Structural Theory but also whether they reveal opportunities for its systematic refinement and expansion.

Principle of Theory Refinement

Structural Theory remains progressively developable through reproducible Structural Evidence generated by successive Demonstration and Validation Projects.

Figure
Validation Cycle

     ADAS Framework Series
                             │
                            ▼
         Structural Investigation
                            │
                           ▼
       Empirical Observations
                             │
                            ▼
                    Validation
                            │
──────────┼──────────
│                         │                         │
▼                        ▼                        ▼
Support         Refine             Challenge
                           │
                          ▼
   Progressive Structural Theory

Relationship with Structural Evidence
Validation does not conclude the investigation.
Instead, it prepares the transition toward Structural Evidence.
Validation determines the relationship between empirical observations and existing theory.
Structural Evidence subsequently documents those observations as reproducible contributions to the cumulative development of Structural Knowledge.

Accordingly:
Validation asks:

• What do the observations mean for the theory?

• What knowledge has the investigation generated?

Closing Reflection
The Validation stage demonstrates that the investigation of RELHI provides substantial empirical support for the principal propositions established by the ADAS Framework Series.
At the same time, the investigation reveals several methodological developments that extend the original theoretical architecture.
Accordingly, DAP #1 confirms an essential principle of the ANDRBEL Research Program:
Structural Investigation does not merely apply Structural Theory.
It actively contributes to its continued development.

Central Research Question

What reproducible Structural Evidence has been generated through the investigation of RELHI as the first Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset?

Definition
Structural Evidence

Structural Evidence is the systematically documented body of empirical observations generated through Demonstration and Validation Projects that supports, refines, or critically evaluates Structural Theory within the Initial Research Domain.

Structural Evidence therefore represents documented methodological knowledge rather than isolated empirical facts.

Categories of Structural Evidence
The investigation of RELHI generated complementary categories of Structural Evidence.

I. Confirmatory Structural Evidence
The investigation confirms that:

• Utility functions as a mission-derived structural property.
• Governance organizes Cultural Continuity.
• Trust extends beyond technological implementation.
• Ontological Foundation constitutes a coherent structural architecture.
• Structural Reinforcement supports long-term continuity.

• Mission-Driven Treasury;
• Cultural Structural Economic Architecture (CSEA);
• Cultural Space;
• Economic Space;
• Structural Lifecycle;
• Research Readiness.

• Selection;
• Structural Identification;
• Multidimensional Classification;
• Ontological Foundation;
• Structural Reinforcement;
• Structural Lifecycle;
• Validation.

• Structural Research Language;
• Structural Concept Network;
• ADAS Glossary.

Structural Evidence Matrix

Integrated Structural Evidence
The investigation demonstrates that Structural Evidence emerges through the interaction of multiple methodological layers.

Theory alone cannot generate Structural Evidence.

Empirical observation alone cannot generate Structural Evidence.

Structural Evidence arises only when empirical investigation is systematically interpreted through a reproducible methodological architecture.

Principle of Integrated Structural Evidence
Structural Evidence emerges through the systematic integration of empirical observation, methodological investigation, and theoretical interpretation. None of these components independently constitutes Structural Evidence.

Principle of Cumulative Structural Evidence
Each Demonstration and Validation Project contributes a distinct body of Structural Evidence that remains available for comparison, refinement, and integration within subsequent investigations.

Principle of Evidence Reproducibility
Structural Evidence should be documented with sufficient methodological transparency to permit independent examination, comparison, and future refinement within the continuing development of Structural Knowledge.

Figure
Generation of Structural Evidence

Structural Theory
│
▼
Structural Investigation
│
▼
Empirical Observation
│
▼
Validation
│
▼
Structural Evidence
│
▼
Progressive Structural Knowledge

Relationship with Future Demonstration and Validation Projects
The Structural Evidence generated through DAP #1 does not conclude the investigation of Cultural Digital Assets.
Instead, it establishes the first empirical reference against which future Demonstration and Validation Projects may be systematically compared.

Accordingly:

• DAP #2 will investigate Digital Representation Cultural Digital Assets.
• DAP #3 will investigate Limited Digital Edition Cultural Digital Assets.
• Future Demonstration and Validation Projects may investigate additional contextual environments, institutional implementations, and digitally native artistic systems.

Closing Reflection
The principal contribution of DAP #1 does not consist solely in the investigation of RELHI.

Its broader significance lies in establishing the first reproducible body of Structural Evidence for the Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset class.

This evidence supports the continued refinement of the ADAS Framework Series, demonstrates the applicability of AFM, and provides the initial empirical foundation for the comparative development of Structural Knowledge throughout the ANDRBEL Research Program.

Principle of Progressive Evidence Integration
Structural Evidence generated through individual Demonstration and Validation Projects should not be interpreted in isolation but progressively integrated into the cumulative body of Structural Knowledge supporting the continuing evolution of the ANDRBEL Research Program.

Central Research Question

What new Structural Knowledge has DAP #1 contributed to the continuing development of the ANDRBEL Research Program?

Contributions to Structural Knowledge
I. Contribution to Structural Theory
DAP #1 provides the first empirical support for the ADAS Framework Series through the systematic investigation of an Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset.
The investigation confirms the applicability of:

• Utility;
• Governance;
• Trust;
• Structural Sustainability;
• Structural Coherence;
• Structural Legitimacy.

• AFM;
• the Structural Investigation Protocol;
• the Research Design Workshop.

• Structural Research Language;
• Structural Concept Network;
• ADAS Glossary.

• Digital Representation CDA;
• Limited Digital Edition CDA;
• Organizational Native Digital CDA;
• Protocol-Level CDA.

Knowledge Contribution Matrix

Principle of Progressive Knowledge Integration
Each Demonstration and Validation Project contributes a reproducible body of Structural Knowledge that remains methodologically compatible with the cumulative Cultural Research Ecosystem established by the ANDRBEL Research Program.

Principle of Reference Accumulation
Reference Implementations progressively establish the empirical foundation through which Structural Theory evolves from conceptual architecture into reproducible cultural knowledge.

Figure
Contribution to Structural Knowledge

Theory
│
▼
Methodology
│
▼
Structural Investigation
│
▼
Structural Evidence
│
▼
Structural Knowledge
│
▼
Cultural Research Ecosystem

Final Reflection

DAP #1 represents the first completed empirical investigation within the ANDRBEL Research Program.

Its significance extends beyond the investigation of RELHI itself.

The project establishes the first reproducible Reference Implementation of the Artist Native Digital Cultural Digital Asset class, demonstrates the practical applicability of the methodological architecture developed throughout the Foundational Architecture, and contributes the initial body of Structural Evidence supporting the cumulative development of Structural Knowledge.

Accordingly, DAP #1 concludes not with the completion of a single investigation, but with the establishment of the empirical foundation upon which the continuing Demonstration and Validation Series will progressively develop.

Я бы не заканчивал DAP просто последней страницей.
Каждый DAP должен заканчиваться официальным итоговым документом.
Но я не хочу называть его просто Summary.
Мне кажется, он заслуживает отдельного статуса.
DAP Certificate
или
Structural Investigation Summary
или
Structural Research Record
или 
Structural Research Certificate  !!!

Он не является сертификатом "качества".
Он является официальной записью исследования.
То есть DAP заканчивается документом.

Например.

И вот здесь, как мне кажется...
Я думаю, что именно ради этой таблицы мы сейчас строим всю методологию.

Например.
Comparative Structural Matrix И дальше.

В начале исследования я думал, что DAP — это просто серия отдельных документов.
Теперь видно, что это не так.

DAP производит SRR (Structural Research Record).

SRR становятся строками SKM (Structural Knowledge Matrix).

SKM становится главным источником Comparative Structural Analysis.

И уже из Comparative Structural Analysis рождается следующее поколение Structural Knowledge.

На мой взгляд, это одно из самых сильных методологических открытий всей программы. Оно превращает DAP из набора независимых кейсов в единый накопительный исследовательский механизм, где каждое новое исследование автоматически усиливает ценность всех предыдущих. Именно такую архитектуру я бы положил в основу будущего CDA Protocol, где каждый зарегистрированный CDA сможет ссылаться на свой Structural Research Record, а весь реестр постепенно станет живой Structural Knowledge Matrix мировой культурной экосистемы.

DAP #2 — Physical Artwork + Single NFT Representation
Тип CDA:
Physical Artwork with a Unique NFT Digital Representation.

Case Study:
Incompatible VENUS, AndrBel (2025)

Original artwork:
Oil on canvas
39.37 × 31.5 in (100 × 80 cm)
https://andrbel.art/brief/Incompatible_VENUS/
https://www.singulart.com/en/artworks/andr-bel-incompatible-venus-andrbel-2462365
Digital representation:
1/1 NFT
https://opensea.io/item/ethereum/0xe2f479a0dff6f21214ab0a3aa1158cb9c98fe1b9/7

Research goal

Показать, что NFT выступает как Digital Representation CDA, а не как самостоятельное произведение.

DAP #3 — Limited Digital Edition
Тип CDA:
Limited Digital Edition linked to a physical artwork.

Case:
Fox hunting, AndrBel (2024)

Original:
Oil on canvas
39.37 × 31.5 in
https://andrbel.art/brief/Fox_hunting/
https://www.singulart.com/en/artworks/andr-bel-fox-hunting-andrbel-2218462

NFT:
Edition:
30

Особенность исследования:
NFT не чеканятся заранее.
Каждый NFT появляется только после покупки.

То есть исследуем модель:
Mint-on-Demand Limited Edition

DAP #4 — Native Digital Artwork
Тип:
Digital Artwork
создан вручную художником.

Case:
Rainbow Mosaic by AndrBel

Edition
1 / 45

Здесь исследуется уже другой класс CDA:
Native Digital Cultural Asset

DAP #5 — Code-based Artwork
Тип:
Algorithmic Artwork
создан кодом, написанным художником.

Case:
Gen GiMoPu #1

Edition
1 / 333

Исследуется:

• авторство алгоритма;
• генеративность;
• ограниченная серия.

DAP #6 — Large-scale Generative Collection
Тип:
Generative Collection CDA

Case:
PIXI Art Experimental
Edition
1 / 10000

Здесь впервые появляется анализ:

• коллекции как единого Cultural Digital Asset;
• отдельных NFT как элементов системы.

DAP #7 — Institutional Passport
Самый необычный DAP.
Объект исследования уже не NFT.
Объект исследования:
Institutional Passport

Это позволит показать, что CDA могут быть не только произведениями искусства, но и инфраструктурными цифровыми объектами.