Dan Romero on Farcaster

Dan Romero pfp

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.

20 replies

57 recasts

471 reactions

Dan Romero pfp

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

168 reactions

Jonny Mack pfp

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

tricil pfp

Thank you for raising this. Currently, as a creator, the only way to realize a profit is to sell which is perceived as dumping in the culture. Hard problem to solve especially for creators who need it.

0 reply

1 recast

5 reactions

C O M P Ξ Z pfp

I think the real solution lies in establishing clear norms around transparency and planning. If a creator’s token sale is pre-scheduled, transparently disclosed, and aligned with community expectations, it no longer feels like a “dump”! it feels like a mature, sustainable financial model. The problem isn’t the sale itself; it’s the lack of context and communication around it.

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

Monteluna pfp

This is probably where @koeppelmann.eth could plug Circles. Another thing, I have no idea why its not normal for teams to setup uniswap pools and provide liquidity for their tokens. I'm not exactly OK with teams dumping, but I'm pretty OK if they have a transparent AMM position and are earning fees while working on the product.

0 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

m00npapi.eth pfp

who is building web2 rails for web3 creators

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

CHRIS DOLINSKI pfp

great notes are tokens attached to the singular sale? if there are residual benefits to the token, then she'd sell far more in token value because as you're now inviting in a new persona into the mix you have the concert attendee and now speculators or secondary benefit holders and resellers

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

tim/vortac pfp

I feel slightly uncomfortable if you talk about these kind of things

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Ruhul pfp

But for option b it'll be a disaster after the concert. As everyone will start selling the coin.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

0xZara.eth🎩 pfp

Unfortunately, in most scenario Bs... there’s no concert. Yes somehow, the coins still drop... and the crowd still show up. But for Taylor, this isn't a problem if she owns 100% of the tokens from the start and sells them at a fixed price during the initial phase.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Frank pfp

Scenario A is extractive because intermediaries inflate the cost of the product [concert] egregiously above COGS.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Steve (ozFather) pfp

Steve (ozFather)

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

1 reaction

Spookydog pfp

Simple fix: community-controlled smart contracts linked to a wearable device the dev team can’t remove. Like a Saw movie, but for crypto. It eliminates the incentive to rug and shifts full trust to the community. The first life-bound founder token is unironically going to pump so hard

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

mirs.ETH pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Chris Biele pfp

There’s a value spike in both scenarios, but the exit strategy is wildly different. a) perceived value is based on a time sensitive event. value decline is nearly instant (doors open -> concert finishes -> on to the next) b) value is unknown. Will you get lucky as an early fan or buy high and sell low? Pour your heart into an artist or project just to watch it disappear like a magic carpet? In the first scenario we all “get what we paid for, or our money back”. In the second we take a leap of faith. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn’t.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Derek pfp

You're on to something here Dan. Your Taylor Swift scenerios just made me realize artiste can gain a lot going onchain and using perks to push and make their token utility tokens. Depending on the artiste, their token will keep increasing in value as long as they're alive and making music.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Peter Arogundade pfp

Peter Arogundade

@noblepeter2000

Suffice to say we're are Work in Progress (WIP)

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Oliver pfp

Alternatively, offering more options for Liquidity Pools feels like a solution. Eg one that has higher fees that solely goes to the creator address and they can "slide" the ratio such that it's weighted more heavily towards USD when they unstake

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Ⓜ️ohammad 🎩👏 pfp

Ⓜ️ohammad 🎩👏

You could’ve used Drake instead of Taylor

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Rocky 🇦🇷🔵🎩🌐 pfp

Rocky 🇦🇷🔵🎩🌐

Yes, for example in the case of a singer, etc., a good option would be to offer a kind of asset that if you buy it, you get a percentage of the sales of their concerts, records, reproductions, etc. This would come in handy especially for those who are just starting out and need capital to be able to launch themselves into the market. The creator wouldn't be able to sell his share, but would only receive the benefits of what he generates from the % he/she has left. In this way, the fans who bet on him/her, would be reassured because there would be no dumping (by the creator). The risk is that the creator stops generating interesting content, and stops generating good profits. But that can happen in any type of investment. It's like buying a percentage of a soccer player.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction