@lib12

Zora, this is getting old. Every year it’s the same playbook. NFTs are the future. Then creator coins are the future. Then attention markets are the future. Now it’s “the attention market,” again, on a new chain, with the same recycled moral pitch about empowering creators. It’s not innovation. It’s narrative whiplash. You don’t build ecosystems, you harvest momentum. You show up where attention is hot, dress it up as infrastructure, extract liquidity, social capital, and creator labor, then quietly move on once the hype curve flattens. What’s left behind is a graveyard of half-finished promises and people who actually believed this time was different. Iteration is fine. Experimentation is fine. What’s not fine is pretending each pivot is some principled evolution when it’s obviously trend-chasing. If you actually believed in any of these models long term, you’d commit to one long enough for it to mature instead of torching the narrative every time something shinier pops up. Creators pay the price for this, every single time. They’re told to migrate, rebrand, re-educate their audience, rebuild liquidity, rebuild trust. Then you pull the rug narratively and act like that was always the plan. It’s not “permissionless.” It’s disposable. At this point, the only consistent thing about Zora is the inconsistency. The product changes, the chain changes, the thesis changes, but the extraction stays the same. So yeah, miss me with the grand vision tweets/casts. If the endgame is always “capture attention, drain it, move on,” just say that. Don’t dress it up as a revolution for creators when you’re clearly just passing through. You’re not building the future. You’re speedrunning it, then throwing it in the trash when you’re done.

3 replies

7 recasts

22 reactions