niftytime
@niftytime.eth
Gut reaction: this feels like an extremely troubling precedent to set. Re-minting *the same exact asset* that was previously minted and sold is typically frowned upon from an art perspective, to put it lightly But let me recap the facts so folks can form their own opinions: - 2024-04-03: Jacob released a Zora mint (1155 NFT) of the horse titled !!! #2 at a cost of 11 $higher per mint at a cost of appx $0.17 that was minted 3871 times - 2025-03-12: Jacob minted the same image as a Zora coin with the ticker $horse (1B supply) —> Jacob airdropped 500M $horse across appx 667 current 1155 NFT holders at 16:11:29 UTC this morning at a rate of 133,346 $horse per 1155 worth appx $9.9 (coin value = $0.00007491 per coin at time of airdrop) —> value of coin at time of this cast (18:50 UTC) is $0.001 or appx $130
5 replies
0 recast
6 reactions
jacob
@jacob
every single collector just got net *way* more value than if i had not done that? where is the issue here?
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
niftytime
@niftytime.eth
yeah had to split my post. insane returns for primary minters no doubt still processing what this means, but couple open questions come to mind: - which token collection matters now (1155 or erc20 or both)? - what happens if this approach is copied but returns to existing collectors net out to being less what they originally paid? https://warpcast.com/niftytime.eth/0xcff14d7b
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
SQX
@sqx
Inclusion of previous is almost like a teleburn. And as such. Seems fair enough. $horse is running free
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
