John Palmer 💡
@john
I'm finding the "positive sum" language around coins really misleading. It's literally the opposite. If the way users make money from their content is when other users buy it, it's literally zero sum, financially. Not everyone can be making money, unless external capital is being injected from a another source (which is losing money).
15 replies
5 recasts
96 reactions
John Palmer 💡
@john
Not to mention that trading any coin on a DEX is quite literally PVP against the other traders. It’s defined by en equation. Plus there’s a fee to the DEX / client on most interfaces.
3 replies
0 recast
26 reactions
sean
@seanhart
How is this different than any other form of trading in the economy? The item being traded can have different value for different parties. This is the entire point of trade. Agree with you on ponzi memecoins, but this generalization is a stretch
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Monteluna
@monteluna
The one time ever I agree with you. I do think creating ERC20-like coins and effectively bonding curves for posts is interesting, but only if creators offer something of value for owning the post. I could see some experimentalism where holding the posts gets you gated chat, meet and greets, etc. for bigger profiles. If issuers add their own value to the posts, then it's not zero sum. The current issue is it appears the markets are generated by default with no opt-in, and the issuers clearly don't want to do that. So then the issuer has to explain to people the posts are indeed worthless and they aren't going to receive anything for it, so the only value is indeed pvp zero-sum.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
SQX
@sqx
Ohhh the fee.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
