Crypto gaming has “coin operated karaoke room” energy

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Very good thought leadership moment with @luc from Re7. https://youtu.be/iVYjf--EFZM?si=wksefVNxuGhIB8Rr He's not high-level to sound smart, but to break down and explain crypto's mission. I had the chance to host Luc too, for a CVA VC office hours, and I can confirm he's really profound and didactic. (but all of you know that already, from watching him on fc) Crypto suffers from a complexity syndrom, like: 'this is tech and cryptography, so why spend so much time here to do only simple stuff?' We need more Lucs.

1 reply

3 recasts

12 reactions

You hear about the guy who put $500 into a memecoin and made $100k, but you don't hear about the hundreds who put $1000 and are left with $10. lesson in there. ✍️

17 replies

21 recasts

94 reactions

Things I learned in 2025 as a normy to the crypto space: 1. I did not expect to meet so many extremely talented, smart, and actually nice people on the internet 2. Everyone LOVES this fucking weird looking frog pepe thing and I don't get it at all (cuz im new) 3. Believe it or not, the crypto community extends beyond Farcaster (wild I know)

1 reply

1 recast

12 reactions

I think I finally understood something about this. The Coinbase team ran with the assumption that "Donating Money + Potential financial benefit" is more powerful than just "Donating Money". On the paper, it seems mathematically true, but it turns out to be completely wrong. When there's a potential for financial gain, there's an expectation that is created. Because this expectation has been consistently betrayed (most creator coins are underwater), and can actually only be betrayed given that there's no sustainable buying mechanism for each token, the result looks more like "Donating Money + Negative Feeling", which is actually less compelling than just "Donating Money". The negative psychology that is attached to "investment" and "losing money" is powerful. When you feel like you got burnt once, you usually don't wanna get burnt twice, hence the difficulty for this meta to catch any steam.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Or, hear me out, “crypto gaming” was smothered by 100% of crypto games being absolutely shit? https://decrypt.co/350319/gg-story-year-2025-crypto-gaming-collapses?amp=1

1 reply

0 recast

5 reactions

wen 🐂

10 replies

11 recasts

54 reactions

They are expanding the bbl epidemic to NFTs and you're bearish anon?

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

At this point, I still don’t get the push to creator coins and I think I’m just about done with Base. It makes zero sense, harms normal users on the dump, and has no true associated value. I get they want to attract an audience by bringing in influencers, but the best influencers don’t want their fans getting dumped on and I’ve yet to see a strategy that actually creates value with creator coins instead of pump and dump speculative stupid. The true value of @base.base.eth is DeFi and payments. That is the core of everything they have with Coinbase + Base and it’s a gigantic market. Creator coins is a losing strategy and in the meantime they are going to lose huge market share to Stripe on their chain because they have the merchants, the consumers, and they can show value by automating DeFi for everyone while dramatically increasing their margins and lowering costs for merchants. What a waste. I was a huge fan of Coinbase + Base, because they had onboarding, they had payments, and they could show the true value of crypto to average folks. It makes sense to target and recruit creators, but give them tools for payments, subscriptions, streaming micro payments, and true value for users by helping them safely make more money with their money. I think it’s time to dump my significant accumulation of $COIN and start looking at who is executing the right way, because this ain’t it and we aren’t going to waste Kilroy on something that could very well die by destroying its great reputation through making dumping on average folks the norm.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Decentralized tokenization of prediction market based bounty hunter futures on the vitamin butter chain.

2 replies

0 recast

6 reactions

@naraprotocol Satoshi didn't airdrop didn't do a sale didn't reserve tokens for the "team" he just said: here's the code, mine if you want mining created transparent cost basis anyone could participate supply responded to demand this was 2009 why did everyone forget this?

3 replies

2 recasts

7 reactions

$MON screenshot takers.

11 replies

7 recasts

61 reactions

"I am frustrated because while the tech improves, culturally we are going in the opposite direction." Great post from @usersteen.eth. My 2 gwei: tl;dr - Everyone is annoyed in Ethereum right now, but this is historically how technology grows. I'm sorry, we can't just manifest bullposting a marginal buyer anymore. Projects that are serious need to raise $100M just as an entry ticket just to compete because you're now in the ocean with major corporations who have distribution, support, and marketing. If they don't, they probably won't be around in 2 years. What's happening when you look at deal flow is money is entering the space, but directed via private equity that's funding professional companies and locking in real traditional equity. The major new blockchains raised a ton of money from VCs and other professional financial firms, so the reality is the pie is growing utilizing the public tech, but of course the revenues will be constrained to the owners of those firms. What this means in the future for public tokenholders and public builders is up for debate, but I do believe this is bad for everyone who is used to DeFi summer, humble farming, and supporting teams via angel investing, ICOs, or buying tokens outright. We're just not winning anymore. - The Aave situation is telling, where the reality is tokens are legally in an area where owners have no rights and no privilege to capture revenue, which makes it dead-on-arrival for any real investor. - Circle's acquisition of Interop Labs where they acquihired the team, but formally said the team is leaving Axelar's network and token in the dust shows the token doesn't really matter. A labs team can just bounce and get acquihired, receive cash, and tokenholders get nothing. If the tokens and projects can't show tokenholder value for people supporting projects and builders, there simply won't be a marginal buyer anymore. This is mostly critical for the thesis of Ethereum's public protocols since without some direct form of people holding the tokens and receiving value (yes, capitalist revenue capture), the general public and investors will absolutely *not* care about these systems. I believe this is the source of all the frustration. Builders are spending operating costs maintaining zombie apps and protocols, tokenholders see no financial gain in supporting these builders, users see apps that are broken and underdeveloped constantly falling apart and not working during critical load times, and we all get to watch major companies usurp the public technologies to capture private revenues. Of course everyone is mad! Unfortunately this is historically how this goes. Corporations are going to take the best parts of technologies, integrate them, dump unnecessary waste, optimize systems, utilize their existing distribution channels, and generate profits. This happened in the last mobile growth cycle in applications and hardware, where by 2015, the "good parts" consolidated into Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Google.

4 replies

2 recasts

28 reactions

Managed wallets are an anti-pattern. Privy is not good. Relay is not good. The farcaster wallet is not good. Any managed wallet where you don't control the keys is not good. Please stop using them.

0 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

For people interested, this is probably the earliest example I can think of relating to prediction markets being used for bad. Timothy May explicitly wrote about this in 1994 when talking about cryptoanarchist theories around digital cash. My problem with the new kids in crypto is they wake up and believe they somehow "discovered" these issues with this technology after doing zero research or reading. The reality is everyone has already had this discussion and form a useful model, like a cost benefit analysis. Problems with bad parts of prediction markets have been pointed out literally for over 2 decades. What people who *like* prediction markets cite is: First if someone wants to kill someone they have plenty of tools, a prediction market doesn't really change this. Second, in the writings of @vitalik.eth and people who came up with TruthCoin and Augur, the original prediction markets, people believe markets of verifiable truth will have more positive benefit than the negatives, especially in an AI world. https://cdn.nakamotoinstitute.org/docs/cyphernomicon.txt

3 replies

0 recast

9 reactions