Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Boona 🎩
@boona
My Top 9 on @rodeodotclub featuring @p1x3lboy, @metaisdope, @jjjjjohn, @markwebster, @paul-prudence, @rinna, @loackme, and others
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Callum Wanderloots ✨
@wanderloots.eth
How are you liking it so far?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Boona 🎩
@boona
Honestly it’s a vibe man. Getting to collect wips and works that may not be part of artist main body of work is really cool
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Callum Wanderloots ✨
@wanderloots.eth
Nice! That’s an interesting way to look at it, glad you’re enjoying it :) What do you think of people minting the same work on rodeo as a “post” and then as part of a limited edition on a different contract?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Boona 🎩
@boona
Definitely don’t subscribe to minting “posting” to rodeo then minting a 1/1
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Callum Wanderloots ✨
@wanderloots.eth
Meaning, you think that having the same work on both types of chains (rodeo contract vs sovereign contract) would be bad for the artists?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Boona 🎩
@boona
Correct While it’s on a rodeo contract, the artist is minting it. Just like asking the question if an artist minted on an OS shared contract does it make the art OpenSea’s or the artists?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Callum Wanderloots ✨
@wanderloots.eth
Oh sure, so that’s where I see actually a value distinction in shared contracts v sovereign contracts. So perhaps the question is: how much does the context of the mint change the value of the art? Eg if I mint a work on rodeo to promote the piece that I then sell as “fine-art” with a limited edition manifold series, shouldn’t the contract indicate the relative value? In that sense, the context of a “social post” vs “fine-art” should enable the artist to post the same piece twice and clearly have the value prop indicated to the collector? (Really appreciate your thoughts, this is something I’ve been struggling with)
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
