I don’t completely disagree with Jesse here. 

If you parse the meat of his argument from the proselytizing, he’s basically just saying provenance and social proof are really all that matter. 

If you’re popular enough and drop a decent idea that gets a lot of attention you can now monetize more easily than before via web3. 

The asset is attention not the token itself, we’ve known this for years now. 

You can try to frame it in a million ways, and crypto has done so many times, but ultimately it’s the same thing it’s always been. We’re just turbo-launching shit now because it’s way easier than it’s ever been. 

Don’t overthink it. Content coins are memecoins are NFTs are ICOs and so on…

the issue with this framing is that more stuff to speculate on doesn't bring in new users

Jesse's argument here is "this is the use case that gets the next billion onchain"

but it's not

we just had a whole cycle of hyperspeculation and "coining" everything imaginable and it had SIGNIFICANTLY less public uptake than the NFT cycle of 2021

it was a knife fight of crypto ppl trading against crypto ppl and old money dumping useless governance tokens for memecoins because at least those were hot

there was, at most, a trickle of new money coming in

this runs counter to the argument that "more speculative assets" is the missing ingredient to get the general public excited about crypto, or that artists/content creators want their content to be speculated on more

incentivizing things @ poidh.xyz - come chill /poidh + follow @poidhbot

100%. Speculation brings volume, not real adoption. Users want utility, not just more assets to gamble on.