Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/brypto
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Zinger pfp
Zinger
@zinger
Use → buy → earn I feel strongly that there should be more experimentation done around allowlists for tokens using onchain history and other relevant data, particularly engagement metrics for a given project Farcaster is doing a nice job of this for airdrop qualification and I think it’ll become the norm for serious projects with tokens as well rather than letting any randos buy your coin Similar to dealing with permissionless spam, we can never prevent bad actors from creating infinite side wallets but we can invert the model and be more selective about holders, especially in the early days Users should have to *earn the right* to invest in a project based on their activity rather than speculating on the attention around it with no intention of ever actually becoming a user themselves This is also beneficial to projects since the holders will now be power users with skin in the game which can lead to increased engagement and genuine bullposting about a project that they already liked It's time that we align incentives between holders and projects rather than allowing rogue speculators to manipulate charts while devs profit off of this disingenuous LP fee model we have now
9 replies
4 recasts
51 reactions

mark mollé pfp
mark mollé
@marmo.eth
Thank @zinger for sharing this feeling and @jabo5779 for brining it to my attention and highlighting what we too often ignore: the cost of our "criteria." Yes, we need better allowlists. But the solution isn't just shinier locks and fancier keys. Here's an uncomfortable question: Do we value a wallet's balance matter more than a person's work? The answer to that question must be yes if a bot-controlled wallet with $120 can instantly "belong," to the @farcaster pro tier while an actual human who's contributed memes, mods, code, context, and vibes gets priced out? We've hard-wired the traditional monetary hierarchy into the heart of the blockchain. This could be part of the solution: an in-kind participation tier—not just as a path to allowlists, but as a path to free and clear ownership of the offered asset. Imagine if 50% of Forecaster Pro NFTs went to actual active human contributors, as opposed to fast bots with deep pockets. People who earned their membership through real contributions to the ecosystem. If you've contributed valuable time and effort, you've earned the right to share in the upside—even if your wallet balance isn't flex-worthy. Let's tax non-human speculation and reward human participation. (e.g., walk and talk videos where people show off their peripatetic prowess) Let's stop building exclusionary systems that tell real people: "The time in your human life is worth less than the money in their robot wallets." Let's build criteria that value effort, love, presence, and proof-of-care—not just wallets and speed. I was inspired by @ted’s recent post loneliness and despair and isolation (https://farcaster.xyz/ted/0x1713e52e) and Aristotle’s wisdom on touch to ask: why not let Aristotle establish our inclusionary criteria? His three tiers of friendship (from the Nicomachean Ethics) could help us determine who’s a true friend of any project—who has to pay full price, who can buy in at a discount, and who has earned a free pass: 1. Utility Tier — Transactional Tier “You gain from me, I gain from you.” This ends when the benefit does. Pure mercenary relationships. 2. Pleasure Tier — Hedonic Tier “You entertain me, I entertain you.” This ends when the fun fades. Fair-weather participants. 3. The Good Tier — The Virtue Tier “We care about each other’s character.” This friendship is rare, lasting, and real. These are your builders, your believers, your community.
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions