drewcoffman
@drewcoffman.eth
chat, do we really believe that the space doesn't need more virality?
11 replies
2 recasts
20 reactions
androidsixteen
@androidsixteen.eth
Yes. Co-sign @flynn.eth on this one The word is also bad. “Virality” feels boomer / cringe and almost like an anachronism from an age where the attention economy hadn’t formed yet Folks want distribution and ownership, not a million shallow impressions https://warpcast.com/androidsixteen.eth/0x47f1353c
2 replies
3 recasts
16 reactions
drewcoffman
@drewcoffman.eth
i understand where you’re coming from but actually think “distribution and ownership” is (sadly!) more boomer than virality i think we should probably dial the language in more. “viral” is imperfect t shorthand for attention compounding + building influence
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
androidsixteen
@androidsixteen.eth
You think so? “Distribution and ownership” are dry, but feel like creators / developers are professionals who wouldn’t mind the straight talk But agree with you on the meaning — “attention compounding + building influence” is a great way of putting it. Feels closer to the money
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
will
@w
spectrum with viral (many, shallow, fleeting) and 1000 true fans (few, deep, enduring) on either end in theory, crypto should be able to solve both which i think comes back to: https://warpcast.com/w/0x2b8b699c the question i'm hung up on is.. can you market both simultaneously and if not, which do you choose? how does that affect your user base and community culture?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
john
@know
magnetism
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
