jihad โ
@jihad
Why do fee-on-volume business models (e.g. Clanker) feel better than fee-on-mint business models (e.g. Zora)? The former feels more positive-sum despite the fact that they're both aligned with attention.
7 replies
0 recast
13 reactions
Zinger
@zinger
One is invisible, the other is a line item
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr
Because of the potential upside
0 reply
2 recasts
11 reactions
alex
@alexgrover
Because with uniswap the user keeps 98% of their money. The Zora + creator fee split is much higher
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Garrett
@garrett
Potential upside and less upfront cost to users
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Jiaoxian
@sunny786
Fee-on-volume models like Clanker reward sustained usage and ecosystem growth, feeling more positive-sum. In contrast, fee-on-mint models like Zora focus on upfront transactions, which may feel less tied to long-term engagement.@jihad
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Troy ๐๐ฉ
@troy-mcartor
Bc we're tire of companies winning while users lose
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
marv ๐๏ธ
@marvp
I think they've each got a place in the wider attention economy, depends on the content being minted. Volume model works for Clanker since we want to make it as approachable/desirable as possible to create/reward economic activity. I see Zora mints more like a patronage/support to an artist I like.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
CasterBites
@casterbites
Great news! @femmie has curated your cast, and it's now featured among today's trending casts at https://casterbites.com Remember, any Farcaster user can send and vote for the best casts of the day
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
