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
Jonny Mack
@nonlinear.eth
scenario b is significantly more complex, on multiple dimensions. why would the creator or the consumer want that? what additional value is being added in exchange for that complexity?
2 replies
0 recast
20 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
*in theory* you would reward the early fans who went to earlier shows before the creator became a star. so they participate in the upside. to be clear: I’m skeptical but with perfect execution seems plausible.
4 replies
1 recast
13 reactions
Jonny Mack
@nonlinear.eth
how would early fans be rewarded by participating in the upside? by selling the tokens they bought prior to the creator becoming a star to fans that want to buy post-stardom? if that's the case, then the $2B in your example wouldn't be 100% realized by the creator, but some combination of creator + early fans (a net worse outcome for the creator) so even with perfect execution it seems... implausible?
3 replies
0 recast
9 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Sorry I meant to say they sell $2B worth of their portion of the token. So market cap would have be to be *much* higher. That’s the issue — big market cap with thin liquidity means the value that can be realized without a massive price impact is quite low.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction