Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/clanker
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Jack Dishman
@dish
Incredibly well-articulated writeup by the /splits team highlighting my experience building Clanker Splits has been a pillar of Clanker from the beginning, using their contracts to share fees with interfaces in early versions and now powering our team's onchain operations Their articles are becoming the highest signal newsletters in our eco 🫶 @sonyasupposedly @abram @w https://splits.org/blog/trust-at-scale-clanker/
4 replies
11 recasts
51 reactions
Nandosツ
@nandos
3" Jack said. "You have an idea, you need funding, you want to build something. Let us help you get there." Q: who provides this funding? Is it the traders that buy the token or is it the platform provider? I think Jack misses the point here, he undermines the token holders who actually provide the funding through trading the token. It's not too much to ask that there is an alignment between funders (token holders) and the creators/builders. Without token holders/traders there is no funding, no matter how good the tech is. Calnker team is slowly losing the traders and token holders since there's nothing in it for them, creators keep adding more taxes to raise funds (not sustainable)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Nandosツ
@nandos
There's a comparison between Clanker and uniswap. Let's remember: 1. Uniswap charges minimal fees for matching willing buyer and seller. No taxes (fees) to fund creators. 2. Clanker charges taxes to match creators with funders, those taxes fund both Clanker and the creators. $Clanker token price in comparison to believe/launchcoin, bnkr, noise, pump tells a story especially considering that Clanker had a first mover advantage. I suppose Jack is happy with the fees/taxes collected for the Clanker team and is literally showing a middle finger to $clanker token holders who've supported him from the beginning
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
