0xmons
@xmon.eth
nah fam idt this is it see broader discussion (me and basils posts) who is actually winning here it's literally the same shitcoin meta except now we made the numbers 10x smaller? i feel like there's a bunch of underlying assumptions if u read into the followup reply, most of which seem to imply that this is how we onboard the next XXX million developing world people because $3 means a lot more for them and this latent ongoing speculation game is supposed to better reward people who can catch such vibes early But none of that is being up for discussion (eg is that target demographic really going to be somehow better than the current market participant? does that matter? Are there other onboarding methods that don't involve cluttering the global token name/attention space? etc etc) None of that is being made explicit here, just claiming that embracing multiple coins and lower market caps is "based" or "is the way forward" No bueno
4 replies
0 recast
12 reactions
basil (recession arc)
@itsbasil
how does this rationale make sense? a 10% return is a 10% return; the price is arbitrary. this is the stock split argument; its financial engineering. what do you think these traders do when they build up enough capital; do you think they still wager a bunch of $0.10 trades? or would they move to invest larger sums? do you think its most beneficial to the artist to have a dozen menial traders in & out of their art pieces that inevitably abruptly exit, or would it be better to have a network token that they can reinvest their earnings back into? that their collectors can stake on your pieces to signal long-term alignment? share revenue? is it better that the artist receives $10 in weekly revenue on a bunch of bs trading volume that will inevitably end no where & adds no distribution, or a percentage of volume brought into the entire network? a large percentage of 1/1 sales? is the goal to attract swing traders or collectors? in this model, how does the success of one piece benefit the many others?
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
basil (recession arc)
@itsbasil
the more you breakdown this model, the more you realize almost any other avenue is more beneficial for the artists & collectors so much so that an argument could be made that this model is equal or worse than previous models; you’ll resort to “decentralization” as usp—what else does this do that wasn’t possible in web2? crypto offers so much more than this it’s sad because the intermediaries can make bank either way but choose to be lazy and risk off, larping & collecting a paycheck instead of working on the hard problems; ie., creating better creator systems
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
alex
@proxystudio.eth
We’ve also just not seen this demand appear yet Almost half of protocol volume to date from the base launch The presumption that creators will attract interest continually while issuing asset after asset is the opposite of what I’ve seen. On clanker people who do this ultimately are only able to attract bots, who buy only from high follow count users and sell immediately The bid goes away, focuses on assets with more upside
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
