Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
The fundamental problem to solve for with personal tokens / creator coins / etc. is the psychological effect of a significant price decline. 1. Most people are not equipped to manage a liquid, global, 24/7 traded asset. 2. Current norms are that if someone buys an asset, they expect the person / team / organization behind that asset are incentivized long-term to make that asset more valuable. 3. When there's a significant price decline, many / most creators will be overwhelmed by the hole they now need to dig themselves out of. Layer on a bunch of angry, pseudonymous people screaming at them on the internet. 4. Additionally, what happens when you want to stop creating? Like Outdoor Boys recently did. Contrast to a publicly traded company where the founder retires—the value still continues to accrue. Possible ways to change this 1. Invent a new asset that's time bound. Closer to a prediction market or an option. "I'm speculating on X during period Y." 2. Change norms / culture -- this is super slow.
18 replies
55 recasts
335 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
A secondary problem: solve the norms for allowing the creator to sell. Today, if someone behind a crypto asset sells said asset, it's deemed to be "dumping" and a bearish signal. (People tend to ignore if number keeps going up.) In public markets, there are 1) planned sales (10b5-1) and 2) transparency around insider ownership (disclosed in quarterly financials). This doesn't exist in crypto yet (despite a few efforts). Consider two scenarios: a) Taylor Swift does a concert tour and generates $2B in ticket sales from her fans. That's a direct transfer of money from fans to the creator b) Taylor Swift does a concert tour and sells $2B worth of creator coin. Fans can attend the concert if they hold X amount of her creator coin. The increase in demand for the coin provides sufficient increased market cap / liquidity for the creator to realize value. In scenarios A and B, the creator realizes the same amount of value. But in scenario B, current norms make this feel bad, whereas scenario A is normal.
24 replies
10 recasts
152 reactions
Chris Biele
@nfthinker
There’s a value spike in both scenarios, but the exit strategy is wildly different. a) perceived value is based on a time sensitive event. value decline is nearly instant (doors open -> concert finishes -> on to the next) b) value is unknown. Will you get lucky as an early fan or buy high and sell low? Pour your heart into an artist or project just to watch it disappear like a magic carpet? In the first scenario we all “get what we paid for, or our money back”. In the second we take a leap of faith. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn’t.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
