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
Jonny Mack
@nonlinear.eth
scenario b is significantly more complex, on multiple dimensions. why would the creator or the consumer want that? what additional value is being added in exchange for that complexity?
2 replies
0 recast
20 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
*in theory* you would reward the early fans who went to earlier shows before the creator became a star. so they participate in the upside. to be clear: I’m skeptical but with perfect execution seems plausible.
4 replies
1 recast
13 reactions
↑Dom
@onchaindom.eth
because the coin could be used for much more than the concert ticket, which is trash right after you enter the show. the coin could be a rolling ticket to other concerts, access to events and drops, proof of fandom And even if you don't want any of these things you can express you're bullish/bearishness on Taylor passively. And in theory this speculative activity leads to better price discovery, good for Taylor and for her biggest fans. And Taylor, instead of taking cash, can keep her cash flows compounding in her coin if she believes in herself.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction