aaron

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.

My takeaway from this is that most things don’t need a token—especially if the goal is simple access, like attending an event or unlocking content. 

This is doubly true for personal tokens as it creates a volatile market around identity. 

Tokens introduce speculation, price pressure, & unrealistic expectations that can distort both creator and community dynamics. 

If the value is transactional, sell a ticket. If ur building something symbolic, participatory, or meant to be traded—something that carries meaning over time or coordinates people without a central authority—then a token might make sense.

former CEO turned Web3 degen - a creative polymath - PE teams & startups advisor

google me.

Forbes Tech. 
Forbes Web3.

/aaron

I agree. There are many anomalies. Bankr and clanker committed a great betrayal of base liquidity.