agrimony↑🎩 on Warpcast

Steve pfp

https://warpcast.com/wanderloots.eth/0xfb4a2a5d

10 replies

8 recasts

62 reactions

𝙗𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙠 pfp

𝙗𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙠

> ask yourself why NFTs are a dead narrative? 721/1155 vs 20 - biggest difference is liquidity structure which i think is why coins are winning we have launchers for nfts and coins but one of them has way more usage > coin value always been about attention (nft or coin) copy trading was occurring on nfts as well, things are just happening quicker (volatility) bc of more liquid and fluid market > creativity this upgrade was not about creativity, it was about building better infra imo im excited to see new things built upon this infra, maybe that's where you can see more creativity spark to me i see it as: more liquid and less clunky market for both creators and collectors, why would i not want that?

2 replies

0 recast

5 reactions

Steve pfp

I would not equate usage to quality or even success. Only real winners out of maximizing usage are platforms that earn on trading volumes (Zora, Base, Solana, etc). Usage is way higher not because of the liquidity but because of how it gets easier and easier to launch these coins. Image + text + hit send and done. The launcher handles the distribution problem for you. Not to mention it's way cheaper computationally to aggregate trading metrics for coins than collectibles. To be clear I am not anti-coins; they are much more straightforward of a game that we played speculating on NFTs with infinitely more complex mechanics. This is good for all participants. re: creativity This is probably the central point to my frustration. Less than 12 months ago Zoras message was "mint your imagination". If this was some random platform that didn't inspire so much culture no one would bat an eye, it would be business as usual. This just feels like toxic air for creators in and out of the space.

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

𝙗𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙠 pfp

𝙗𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙠

naive of me to boil it down to liquidity tbh i was trying to make the point that erc20 is pretty much superior to nft standards, main reason being LP - why would you not want a more efficient market for your tokens (of any kind)? imagine we went from ERC20 to ERC1155 for normal coins, it just wouldn’t make sense to make things slower and clunkier market wise

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

agrimony↑🎩 pfp

agrimony↑🎩

Diff things are different tho. I like my art non fractionalized. But fully understand that zora is not purely for art.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

𝙗𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙠 pfp

𝙗𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙠

do you view 1155s as non fractionalized?

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

agrimony↑🎩 pfp

agrimony↑🎩

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

𝙗𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙠 pfp

𝙗𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙠

imo they are conceptually fractionalized, even tho 1 unit is 1 unit this is why i don't see a big difference from 1155 vs 20 1 still equals 1 to me

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

agrimony↑🎩 pfp

agrimony↑🎩

I agree, but this is less about the token standard and more about the token framing. If u wanna use erc20 for jpgcoin then make them use smallest unfractionable decimals. I rather see 1/1000 eds than 0.001 coin if that makes sense

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

𝙗𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙠 pfp

𝙗𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙠

agreed, i do like that better but these are frontend problems essentially this can be changed via the ui where they have it denominated like that in the app and on the open market (3rd party swap site) you can do fractions or whatever you desire

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

agrimony↑🎩 pfp

agrimony↑🎩

Partly frontend yes, but also backend (eg decimals, max tokens) Eventually this is decided at the social layer anyway. Just need consensus of the naming terms

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Steve pfp

It's not going to be fun for anyone to wrangle countless individual smart contracts for individual pieces of content. At least later standards had tokenId which could map different pieces content at a way better scale.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

agrimony↑🎩 pfp

agrimony↑🎩

yeah thats what token standards are for. no one should be wrangling individual contracts unless they love torturing themselves

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Steve pfp

Oh, I didn't mean specialized contracts. I meant one ERC20 contract is only capable of tracking one "piece of contact". Thus every "cointent" needs its own contract, and has to be aggregated at scale.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

agrimony↑🎩 pfp

agrimony↑🎩

this is already being done at scale (same as how all indexers function)? or am i misunderstanding the question

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Steve pfp

For purely numerical coins where the media is an afterthought, and traders on average have dozens at a time, totally. But for this conceptual cointent where the media is supposed to matter, and we expect collectors to collect and maybe hold hundreds of these tokens, not really. Surely it's possible but it just seems like a misuse of the ERC20 standard. Which is essentially the entire point I'm trying to make.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

agrimony↑🎩 pfp

agrimony↑🎩

Vanilla erc20 won't work since it doesn't have tokenuri to point to a content hash I believe. Erc721 indexing also works at scale anyway eg blur. Imo this isn't a technological issue but a psychological one

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Steve pfp

If this is anything beside ERC20 then I'm all ears. Someone propose EIP-10936 that's basically ERC1155 but more ERC20-like or whatever. If it works, great, progress! What felt backwards about all this is the celebration of an almost 10 year old standard to be retrofit as a means of content creation.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

agrimony↑🎩 pfp

agrimony↑🎩

Ah yeah, should be a modified erc20 token that adds function without breaking backward compatibility with existing erc20 protocols. My only problem is that I like non fungibility in some content. Eg different rarity tiers. Not everything should be fungible

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Steve pfp

If there's some truly groundbreaking innovation to uncover by forking ERC20 coin launcher meta into a new standard, cool (I have my doubts but I've also been wrong plenty of times) If it's the same standard with minor tweaks, well...

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

agrimony↑🎩 pfp

agrimony↑🎩

Hah yes, totally agree that there shouldn't be one universal standard. I made the same point originally. Same standards with minor tweaks are fine if it preserves backward compatibility. Eg ethernet cables have been upgraded from cat 5 to cat 8 over the years. Normies won't know the diff since they all use the same rj45 connectors.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction