matthew chaim
@chaim.eth
I don’t think the “this can work for jesse and no one else” argument is making the point you think it is. The problem that highlights is that there aren’t that many creators here with lots of attention + big distribution power. Not that the value capture mechanic is wrong. I’m not saying this zora pivot is the end all be all for right thing. but i’m not positive it’s wrong either.
2 replies
0 recast
8 reactions
Steve
@sdv.eth
> The problem that highlights is that there aren’t that many creators here with lots of attention + big distribution power. So how does a pivot from collectors to targeting profit seeking traders help creators?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
matthew chaim
@chaim.eth
i’m not sure the pivot is better or it’s worse. i’m also not sure it’s a pivot from collectors to profit seeking traders over long term to me it’s instagram with a financial market baked into each piece of content instead of an engagement market. simple as that. and rn the most efficient and interoperable crypto markets run on erc20 infra. things always have a price. they also reduce complexity away from understanding how orderbook secondary markets work. the question is can this mature beyond pure short term speculation at scale? i don’t think that question is much different if it was a 1155 or 721 system instead. the answers just manifest a bit differently. with 20s you get quick boom and busts. with nft’s you get illiquid secondaries and a slowly dying off primary. that question may have a better chance of being answered if the best type of financial market is attached to the content. zora is saying: maybe it’s 20’s. (cont’d..)
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
matthew chaim
@chaim.eth
the caveat is, as you say, maybe 20s just can’t graduate out of the current pumpfun era design space in which case we likely see a pendulum swing back to nft’s, maybe in fresh form factors i just don’t see the ruling out of this pivot before we see it breathe a little. it could be completely not the thing but i don’t think that’s already true.
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Steve
@sdv.eth
I'd be optimistic if there was something new in the conversation besides a slightly different UI and a blog post trying to explain the pivot. re: liquidity I'd say this benefits traders the most. Illiquid jpegs at least drove the full value to the creator.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
basil (recession arc)
@itsbasil
let me hold a piece of the network AND a piece of the art (if i like the art) if i just want to support creators, let me capitalize the network, reduce my risk & earn from network growth alongside the creators if i like the art (which will just be speculative signaling until attention is, if ever, organically driven to the network), let me move downstream & buy a “piece of the art”(which likely needs a minimum & cap to be meaningful in anyway) ie. is it better to own 0.001% of the art or 0.0001% of the network all the art sits on? which is better for the artist? what about the artist who receives no signal & thus no distribution? is it better that they get paid in network tokens which have reduced volatility & higher chance of appreciation, perhaps funding their next project? or is better to have your 5 current pieces owned by 60 people, making you $30 in your first week, $15 in the next, and now just a few bucks here & there? which is better for holders & collectors? 🤷♂️
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction