off the dome, one Coin per creator seems better than one Coin per content. (each content could be priced in terms of CreatorCoin). except for the fact that this is less like a memecoin and more like a s*curity, why is this a worse model?

I work at the posts office

terminally.online

I’ve done so many hours of user research here and fundamentally almost every serious creator doesn’t want to:

1. Have their body of work (and career) tied to an extremely fickle, arbitrary number

2. Lose their sense of self worth in the aggressive financialization of their every move

3. Scam their true fans (even accidentally)

For the vast majority artists and makers, launching a coin is ALWAYS serious bc it’s tied to their reputation (which is basically all they have bc they have no money) and most of their fans aren’t degenerate gamblers so they cannot and will not understand why number go up and down so much and so fast. 

Number can’t go up rationally without being tied to a stream of cash flows. That is fundamentally a security. Everything else is the fever dream playland of (who I affectionately call) the mentally ill.

weird internet kid. word rotator. yapping on /okbanger. playing with @wannanaplabs. curating in /cameron | dev + vet + HBS. 
Cameronarmstrong.org 🫡

There definitely needs to be a choice. Coining is a great idea in theory, but simply selling an NFT is much simpler, easier to explain to web2 users entering the space, and makes a lot of sense to continue.

Owning one copy of an NFT is simpler than saying I own 10000 coins of this artwork

yea I mean one of the biggest artist complaints here is all the nft platforms removing their ability to just sell NFTs like they were previously able to do

Would you say then that rather than "coining" their work, creators would prefer to allow their fans to purchase the NFT version of the work? 

The fans are supporting the creator directly by buying it, as opposed to purchasing a coin that the creator will need to "dump" to see any profits

I write about tech + humans + philosophy. Skeptical optimist, EA aligned, building internet businesses.

Farcaster OG.

https://linktr.ee/joanwestenberg

You’re entirely right. All of this is why I stopped doing any tokenised work.

JOAN

thank you so much this means a lot coming from you

leading DevRel @base | accelerating builders with AI tools, onchain opportunities, frontier insights |former founder onchain since '17

BUT fundamentally that isn’t a VC backable play so it won’t happen quickly or with KOL blessings 

I am optimistic about micro teams building useful, sub venture scale software WITHOUT VC funding and the incentives that are shackled to it. 

It’s never been more possible than today which is pretty cool.

I pretty much agree with all of what you said. 

It’s telling though how all the big YouTubers flirted with crypto over the past few years until their audiences got too critical for the creator to continue to take it on the chin. 

They WANT a new model for making money on the internet, but with something so new you really only get a handful of failed attempts before your fans stop giving you the benefit of the doubt. 

Combine that event cycle with the baseline bad pr of crypto bros, how crypto has become right coded in general, AND the basically impossible task for outsiders of separating literal scams from something potentially useful and we’re left with a pretty tough nut to crack. 

IMO we’re multiple years away from truly getting another clean shot at bringing a version of crypto to normal people

I think we’d have a pretty good swing if we replicate the existing stack w better margins for creators (crypto Patreon etc) that people don’t know is crypto but reasonable people hate that approach

This makes a lot of sense. 

I feel that there’s a struggle here between the target market for this new mechanism. 

I totally understand why professional creators don’t want to have a coin ad preferred the nft model. It’s isomorphic to traditional selling of artwork and has less risk of being associated with all the bad parts of meme coins. 

At the same time, a shit poster or meme curator on instagram would likely be unbothered and even excited about this new paradigm because it gives them a chance to monetize work they’ve never previously been able to monetize

I think the space needs both. A place for artists and professional creators to sell 1 of 1s if that’s their preference. And continued exploration of how social evolves onchain. 

Ack that Zora was home to a lot of professional creators and that’s part of why there’s been a lot of whiplash in the transition.

Curious your thoughts.

stealth mode in pursuit of an aesthetic eth

I appreciate you taking the time to respond and respectfully think you don’t understand how most “creator + collector” relationships tend to work

Most people buy and save the thing (the caught baseball, the ticket stub, the nft) because it has fundamental value to the collector. It’s tied explicitly to something emotional like perceived local status or a personal connection.

There is of course a professional collector class that cares about reselling but the vast vast majority of fan collecting has historically been things that have essentially no resell value. 

I’ve always found thinking NFT = beautiful receipt to be much more useful as a mental model for creator biz models

The obsession with reselling is a degen affliction not a historical truth

Could coins unlock something powerful passive income wise for some creators? Sure, but i have seen nothing over the past in crypto that unlock will extend past the the top 10% of creators of things. 

And everyone else deserve a sustainable models too

Btw, all tokens are tied to reputation.

The notion that fungibles are uniquely so is ridiculous. I get that fungibles are scary bc of abusive degens, but fundamentally that's incorrect.

How long have creators sweated and argued over pricing, supply, which platform to use, etc? Fungibles actually take these pressures off the creators back and out them on the market's.

Unintentionally scamming via fungibles is pure madness as a narrative. What is a greater scam than selling someone an NFT they will almost certainly never be able to sell? 

If I give you $5 and you give me a digital asset, which is better: not being able to sell or being able to sell for $1?

Tokens will be innovated upon but these arguments are beyond tiresome and beyond the point. Creators are supposed to set the tone, innovate, experiment, and create at will. These narratives are self-destructive.

Sequencing the past few years has capital C Creators scared, and understandably so. The SuperRare meta still exists, and most don't understand scarcity on the Internet. Nfts are more skeuomorphic and more readily understood by creators and collectors. But they are inefficient, especially at the scale we all hope to achieve.

That creators are demonizing fungible tokens is disturbing. 

Many have been here long enough to understand the tradeoffs. Programmed passive income, liquidity, UX, etc were everything they wanted and were upset about with nfts. Like SuperRare clouded judgement before, pump/memecoins have done the same for fungis. 

This argument around token type is counterproductive and preventing progress. The experiments NEED to be run. 

The real problems are distribution and discovery. We don't talk about those anymore bc it's easier to complain than solve hard problems. Both will be solved through fungibles.