Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
The fundamental problem to solve for with personal tokens / creator coins / etc. is the psychological effect of a significant price decline. 1. Most people are not equipped to manage a liquid, global, 24/7 traded asset. 2. Current norms are that if someone buys an asset, they expect the person / team / organization behind that asset are incentivized long-term to make that asset more valuable. 3. When there's a significant price decline, many / most creators will be overwhelmed by the hole they now need to dig themselves out of. Layer on a bunch of angry, pseudonymous people screaming at them on the internet. 4. Additionally, what happens when you want to stop creating? Like Outdoor Boys recently did. Contrast to a publicly traded company where the founder retires—the value still continues to accrue. Possible ways to change this 1. Invent a new asset that's time bound. Closer to a prediction market or an option. "I'm speculating on X during period Y." 2. Change norms / culture -- this is super slow.
18 replies
55 recasts
335 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
A secondary problem: solve the norms for allowing the creator to sell. Today, if someone behind a crypto asset sells said asset, it's deemed to be "dumping" and a bearish signal. (People tend to ignore if number keeps going up.) In public markets, there are 1) planned sales (10b5-1) and 2) transparency around insider ownership (disclosed in quarterly financials). This doesn't exist in crypto yet (despite a few efforts). Consider two scenarios: a) Taylor Swift does a concert tour and generates $2B in ticket sales from her fans. That's a direct transfer of money from fans to the creator b) Taylor Swift does a concert tour and sells $2B worth of creator coin. Fans can attend the concert if they hold X amount of her creator coin. The increase in demand for the coin provides sufficient increased market cap / liquidity for the creator to realize value. In scenarios A and B, the creator realizes the same amount of value. But in scenario B, current norms make this feel bad, whereas scenario A is normal.
24 replies
10 recasts
152 reactions
Steve Pederzani
@pederzani
Port basically paying quickbooks line items on A/P vis a vis “project coins” as budgetcoins and you can series out starting capital. Testing this with our C-Corporation with planned buybacks, bossman greenlit the plan today after I showed him some live examples and outcomes. 👍🏻👍🏻 Throw this at “solve the sell norms” through structured cashflow planning in lieu of a whitepaper on project tokens basically.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
D-wayñe 😇💜
@drrrner.eth
Really interesting can you simplify this 🤔
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Steve Pederzani
@pederzani
Essentially using “project tokens” to as a fair market non-security “share” class specifically over a piece of equipment existing at a company. There’s some UCC and ammortization stuff that makes it complicated, but beyond that the company basically manages the lifecycle of the token like managing the lifecycle of depreciable assets. This is not simplifying anything is it. It’s more of an institutional thing LOL 🫣
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction