Dan Romero
@dwr
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.
16 replies
39 recasts
263 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr
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.
21 replies
6 recasts
114 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
15 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr
*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
12 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
7 reactions
CarCulture.eth🎩 🔵
@carculture.eth
I think we need to consider the first solution and mirror the equity markets. To my mind, the situation is very similar to vesting periods for employees. When you buy a coin, you will hold it for a set amount of time at the end of which you may receive a reward. Smart contract. L
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Mr. Wildenfree 🐺🍵🎵
@mrwildenfree
This is definitely a scenario where I think coins are unnecessary. I think markets can leverage Blockchain tech without having to adopt various tropes about how it has been previously leveraged in web3 exclusive experiences. A good example is NFTs & collecting from music artists. It was not normal for music (broad access) as compared to the existing markets for Visual arts (galleries, 1 of 1s, limited collections, etc.) But certain efforts decided to break away from the prescribed notion of NFTs equating to ownership & all these benefits, and just leverage the tech in a different way (e.g. the SHARE Protocol having the music exist as an NFT, but just leveraging the crypto payment rails to enable immediate transactions & splits, letting the artists define the price & length of time for ACCESS to experience the art — not own it)
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
jessyfries
@jessyjeanne
is the second option like “coin all your content”?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
DrCura.base.eth
@abubakerjameel
Ohhh I get it now!!!
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction