What follows from two things?

The object is already a composition. The pattern is the repetition. The uses are a guess.

Two things are already on the shelf. A made object carries the cost of its own work, and a stranger can check that from the file. How do you make a digital thing scarce? A public sequence is a clock anyone can read and nobody owns. How do you prove when the work happened?

Those two are not the bottom of a stack you then assemble. The object already is a composition: a key, a cost, and a place in that sequence, put together so a stranger can check the file. What follows is the same step, taken again.

Place one such object so that it names an earlier one, and names where that earlier one sat. The link is not a note in the margin. It is a new object. It has a before and an after. A stranger can confirm both without asking either maker, because everyone reads the same sequence. Nothing else was added to make that checkable. It follows from a costly object and a shared sequence.

A new object that can be named can be placed again. This after that, that after the one before. Compose it with another and the result is a further object, which can enter the next composition. Each step yields something that was not in either piece alone, and that something is available to the step after.

The sequence does not get replaced on the way up. A private list of the links would throw away the property that let a stranger check them. The cost does not move either. A chain of ten is ten objects. What kind of cost refuses to divide?

What the further objects are for does not follow. The pattern is the repetition: one object composed with another makes a new object, and that object can enter a further composition. Naming the subjects those compositions might become would be a guess. The pattern is visible. The uses are not.