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

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

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.

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.

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 😂

question for traders: 

do you mind if the transfer fee is 2% instead of 1% which is the ~standard? 

why: 
- native tokens become part of the fee to creators/launchpad, 
- but selling them from either party gives negative signal

so instead:
- make it 2% and ~1% in native coins can be burned

wdyt?

what if this was just a native part of trading platform?

building @revealcam | previously @perl, cofounder SBLY.com, eng at Stripe | alum South Park Commons | peter-kim.com

kinda like when opensea made royalties optional — why would traders choose get less money for their trades? most of them wouldn't want to.
and also, wouldn't it be even harder to get people to switch trading platforms just to reward creators? or am i missing something here?

what if this was just a native part of trading platform?

https://warpcast.com/ace/0xc3daa750

this is top of mind for me as to how we can redistribute these tokens to the ecosystem! Once we get guidance on tax implications & legal on how to do this the right way, I'd love to use these in a positive sum way to bring attention back to the projects

dev / collector / chef / ex-Twitter

chemical engineer in a previous life

thing #5 at @clanker

They’ve made millions with these, a sort of utility to the own $CLANKER would be awesome to keep it being top

Should be reversed really why does the platform take such a big cut without doing really any work? Doesn’t make sense. I think giving the LP the majority of the percentage would benefit clanker more as it’s incentive to build there. @dish how come Clankers takes such a big percentage on fees? Genuinely curious

Clanker keeping their own tokens makes sense, burning others tokens would show commitment.