Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/coins
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
jesse.base.eth 🔵
@jessepollak
try to argue against content coins from first principles. if a video on tiktok has millions of views, it has value. why should a single platform control that value? why shouldn't that value be explicit? why shouldn't the creator benefit from that value? seems good to me.
41 replies
21 recasts
164 reactions
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
@six @androidsixteen.eth @kia – you smart and fair and skeptical fellows. What's a steelman of the argument that coining content *should* not happen? (Not saying you believe this, just want the strong argument) I understand people who don't *want* it to happen. I understand people who doubt it *will* happen. But I don't get why people believe it *shouldn't* happen. To me it seems strange to want to prohibit entrepreneurs (in my mind that's what creators are) from having access to whatever tools enable them to profit directly from the success of their work, by way of entirely voluntary exchange from their audience.
7 replies
0 recast
15 reactions
androidsixteen 🌲
@androidsixteen.eth
Firstly, I appreciate being characterized as a “fair and skeptical fellow”, thank you 😄 Re: coins — the main argument that @jessepollak makes above conflates two points: - creators being able to access more of the value they create as opposed to the intermediating platform - this value exchange happening in the form of fungible ERC-20 tokens being traded with fee rev share for the content creator The former is valid and a no-brainer, the latter has holes. Tokens / coins are just one of many items in the financial toolkit. Shoehorning content into the form of a token works when there is general euphoria around trading tokens, but cheapens the content by associating it with speculative mania This doesn’t mean it *shouldn’t* happen, but rather that it won’t get significant adoption because it misunderstands the relationship between creators, curators, consumers and traders Related — one of my core views is that the past 5 years of crypto has trained us to overfinancialize products
3 replies
1 recast
21 reactions
Kyle Tut
@kyletut
100% General euphoria led to "NFTs are valuable because only a certain amount exist". Content coins feels like an ode to it.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
androidsixteen 🌲
@androidsixteen.eth
And crypto AI agents was this cycle’s metaverse 😆
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
Haha. I don’t know whether to love or hate that this is perceived as just a totally scam category now. Bc I can’t believe what a huge opportunity Bracky is. It’s by far the most fun and high potential thing I’ve ever worked on.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
androidsixteen 🌲
@androidsixteen.eth
Huge arb opportunity for you Not denying that meaningful innovation will come out of it, but 98% of the category is trash
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
tldr (tim reilly)
@tldr
Totally agree. It's kind of paradoxical but also makes sense: The barrier to making agents was low enough that that the worst actors flooded the space and threw a token on it. But the very thing that made that barrier so low (the huge leap forward and natural fit with crypto + social) is also what gives it the space such incredible potential if you do it legitimately (which, btw, is a lot harder and slower!) It's been interesting to be un-synced with the prevailing trend – I've never been a part of that before
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
