@derek

First, it's great of you, @jesse.base.eth, and the team to consistently remain open to feedback. One of the most encouraging things you do. Secondly, I love the chain. I love creators. I love what Base (the chain) could be. This feedback comes from a place of alignment in that we want what's best for the space. Also, I'll put aside my more general concerns with TBA and discuss the creator coin model in particular. Final caveat: this is feedback on creator coins as they are today. There may be iterations from here that work well. 𝐓𝐋;𝐃𝐑 ① Creator coins don't work. ② Creator coins misalign incentives. ③ Creator coins create more, not less, work for creators. ④ Creator coins turn people into assets. 1a. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵. Most importantly from Coinbase's perspective, I don't think it works for the primary KPIs you've made public: growth. I don't see them on Instagram. Or TikTok. Or Youtube. Were they a growth vector from Nick Shirley's audience to Base? Not that I saw. I follow Nick on Web 2 socials and I didn't see him share on existing channels. To the point where I wasn't even sure if it was legit when he first launched. Obviously he received a ton of press, and outside of a few crypto-specific outlets, the creator coin was nowhere mentioned. His content and creator coins seem to essentially be just a secondary income stream. This may work for volume KPIs, but not growth. Great experiment, but the results are in. We've been told that the reason TBA (and creator coins on TBA) exists is to help builders on Base with distribution. But if paying creators thousands of dollars doesn't lead to new users onboarding, it's time to pivot. This isn't just from Zora/TBA, by the way. We've seen iterations of creator coins since 2019/2020: Rally, Roll, Friendtech, etc. All with similar results. 1b. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻'𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘀. This is most evident on the current leaderboard: routinely TBA's top creator coins derive their value not from creativity, but proximity to Coinbase. Speculators and traders only like a few creator coins and are increasingly getting burned out (see Threadguy's recent video on them). Creators aren't flocking to them. Creator monetization is a solved problem for most creators – to be fair, de-platforming and audience portability remain a problem, although Farcaster/TBA don't solve that yet either. Fans aren't clamoring for them. The masses are completely happy liking/following/subscribing to support creators. Those that want to go deeper have Patreon or YouTube Memberships. Many builders like myself see creator coins as a massive distraction and misuse of resources. When I think about interesting onboarding opportunities, I think about @jacek's Degen or @sayangel's Warplets or @tldr's Bracky or @deployer's BNKR. Creator coins vs. builder support may be a false dichotomy, sure, but resources are finite and must be allocated in some way. Bluntly: if the option is to send a creator 1 BTC or a builder 1 BTC, I'm picking builders every. single. time. 2. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀. The chain is extraordinarily adept at aligning incentives, both inside and outside of financial contexts. Creator coins breaks this feature of the chain. In the current model, in order for creators to make money from their creator coins, they have to dump on their fans. This means that creator coins are just a more convoluted (at best) or dishonest (at worst) Patreon model. Additionally, creators make the most money when not-their-fans are involved: snipers, traders, speculators, etc. This creates an emotional roller coaster: "yay! my coin is up i have so many fans who appreciate my work" to "what did i do wrong? why is my coin down 80%". This is even more dangerous when attached to one's identity rather than one's work (see #4 below). Alternatively, creators have to take @realgarrytan.base.eth's approach of using funds to buyback their own coin, rather than using it to fund creation. This is a self-defeating ponzi scheme, where the creator is perpetually the next person up. 3. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿. We think that the primary burden on creators is financial. Sometimes it is. But in my work over the years with creators and in the creator economy, the primary burden is that of 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦. Money is just one way in which this lack of space manifests: "I don't have space to create because I need to pay my bills". Creator coins in their current form exchange the financial burden for a social one: "I don't have space to create because everyone who holds my token now is now putting pressure on me to increase token price". Anything that creates more burden on creators is not going to last very long, and in fact could burn relationships with creators rather than attract them. 4. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀. This means art becomes objective and quantified rather than subjective and qualitative. The flip side of "it helps creators get paid!" may be true, but there are already great ways to support creators that don't involve treating them transactionally. Creator coins literally turn people into assets. I think content coins may be closer to what we want, where outputs are tokenized. But having my identity so directly associated with a tradable likely leads to dangerous places. --- I sincerely hope this is read with the care and tone with which I intend. DMs open, always happy to discuss further in feed or in the inbox.

16 replies

38 recasts

138 reactions