Degen

when someone deploys a clanker, a portion of the fees goes to the creator — but the bigger cut goes to clanker itself.
over time, they've stacked a massive pile of community tokens through fees alone (which i assume they won't sell).

now imagine if they burned all those creator tokens and only kept the $CLANKER in their vaults.
would be nice.

@clanker /jazz /foodnyc what more does one need

Mint, Spin & Win! | Join Our Live Games on Monday Wednesday & Friday @ 3PM EST | Powered by $BETR. CA: 0x051024B653E8ec69E72693F776c41C2A9401FB07

artist · creative director at @rainbow — /groupies · /yon-experience

No, imagine if they instead earmarked these tokens to support creators and artists via mint incentive protocols like boost dot xyz, layer 3 and (shameless self-shill) @betrmint.

This is the win-win-win arrangement I tried to pitch proxy on but we never quite got there. I still believe it’s a huge positive sum opportunity. 

@dish @btayengco bang my line when the oceans calm a little 😂

noun seven three zero | onchain experimentation maxi @ zerorights.media, zeropod.xyz, @betrmint, the /yellow collective

the only issue i see here is the potential sell pressure — they're sitting on a huge stack of tokens (more than the creators themselves).
personally, i'd rather see those tokens burned to benefit the people who've been holding all this time.

after all, creators already got our cut — we can run our own incentive protocols, rounds, or whatever we want to do with them, as most of us are not looking to sell either.

Well, with betrmint/boost/layer 3, creators could earmark the tokens to boost content specifically about that token (like when you kindly boosted the episode of ZEROPOD you were on with some $GDUPI, that was based and not stupi.) 

This way you are literally onboarding new fans to your token community every time they collect. 

@betrmint is still very much in experiment mode since we’ve only been live for a week but we’ve seen some pretty good results for our token partners so far. For example, $runner price went up 30% on the day it was featured, and $veil was st the top of @tomu’s chart for mindshare on the day it was featured. 

Ultimately I think the answer is probably that token creators should be given the option to opt in or out of a program like this, but I would life to see the experiments run. 

Btw I used to be a huge fan of token burns but have just observed that they actually do v little for token price if holders don’t really understand the inherent benefits of them (and most don’t)

how have you seen these types of distributions actually impact the projects?

for example, i deposited some $GDUPI on warpslot, and while i've seen a lot of people casting about it when they won tokens, there hasn't been much beyond that (i loved it but there was no real impact imo).
it's fun, sure — but does it bring in quality users?
is there really a difference between someone selling, and the balance being so small that it just sits in a wallet forever?

rounds could be a solid approach, since they get people creating content for the token — but again, i'm not sure why clanker should be the one running those.
that's why i think they could just burn the tokens, and let creators run these kinds of plays themselves.

Data shows that people actually rarely sell tokens received as mint boosts (likely because of the small balances and the perceived speculative upside.) And the distribution effects would be huge. 

(Also you don’t need to do the whole amount either.)

I also remain pretty unconvinced that most market participants really understand or appreciate the “public good” aspect of token burns. And if they don’t, then the burns are just a waste really.