secondary markets are a side effect of the medium, not the main character.

99% of the current thing is gambling and i don't like it.

i don't like this design space. it doesn't feel like it's betting on the idea that people just want to own others' creations on the internet.

it feels like it's playing into high frequency traders playing hot potato…

jalil.eth

secondary markets are a side effect of the medium, not the main character.

https://x.com/jalilwahdat/status/1894522593933496688

Growth is infinite. Work is worship.

/vv /opepen /checks

i feel similarly, but it’s hard to disagree with the observation that 99% of a piece’s lifespan will be on secondary markets 

how do we reconcile that?

seeker /native /believein /bedrock 🇵🇸

it certainly is the strongest point; my rebuttal would be:

information wants to be valuable at its inception and free afterwards.

if the reason for information to be expensive is to enable creators to create more of it, then paying early liquidity pool entrants or trading against existing holders are by definition not conducive to that goal (imho).

the life of the idea isn't its secondary market but its usefulness as a meme. 

and if it ends up being useful it _can_ have a reverse effect on whatever form that tokenization had initially, but not _because_ of it.

...

e.g. i bought these three 1/1s from jack in 2021 _because_ i found (and find) them valuable. and because i wanted @jack to make more of them. 

are they less valuable now because they were 1/1s vs. editions vs. coins? no!

but as tokens, they fulfilled their core functions of 

a) securing the artwork on a decentralized ledger + decentralized content storage
b) directing economic energy towards their creator (in hopes of him producing more of it)
c) elevating the relationship between the creator and collector

because i love these three visuals so much (and i want the information to be as accessible as possible), i made a website for them, permissionlessly stewarding their meaning as the holder/owner of said tokens: https://presence.art. 

if we engage like this, we are not traders. we are owners, stewards, gardeners of ideas.

again - at its inception, information wants to be expensive. afterwards, free.

...

if there ever was a secondary market for these, the price for them would have to be absurdly high because i value being their steward and am looking forward gifting them to my children one day.  

and if the price were to become so "absurdly high" - then, the secondary market fulfills its function in service of spreading the idea because the fact something is expensive is an interesting signal to people. (see e.g. CryptoPunks/Beeple 5k).

but again, even in this case the secondary market fails at the core function of being expensive in service of its creator. because just like with coins, or editions - i own these tokens, not Jack.

...

...

that said, after the @visualizevalue.eth Checks and Opepen stories, i strongly believe (and am in line with Zora thinking i guess), that higher volume but lower price of the work substantially increase the potential economic energy directed towards creators.

that's why we created the mint protocol (https://docs.mint.vv.xyz) with carefully chosen constraints:

- push you to store assets on decentralized protocols
- invite open "moment in time" participation for one day (by anyone, so it's uninteresting to bots or traders)
- direct all economic energy to the creator (0% to a protocol other than the medium itself (ethereum))

they also have stronger secondary markets, allowing for participation of more people. Checks and Opepen have combined secondary trading of ~500 million USD. it is very efficient because they doesn't have any inherent friction (like royalties or trading fees) either.

but again, that is besides the point as not in service of our work. EXCEPT IT IS: ...

it is because them being valuable, known, and appreciated enables us to continue creating work, and selling it to this formed network of appreciators of the work.

as an example, we created "Checks Elements" which are non editions but we auctioned quite successfully: https://elements.checks.art/

or we created the Mint Protocol and marking the launch sold a token that was collected ~150k times. https://mint.vv.xyz/0xcb52f0fe1d559cd2869db7f29753e8951381b4a3/1

the point i'm trying to make is again, information wants to be expensive at it's inception (meaning directing energy towards its creator).
and creators have this incredible gift of being able to do create continuously.

for all this to work, we don't have to build rails that tend to gamblers of the casino (and most often highly sophisticated bot farms).

we can build rails that enable gardeners and genuine participation while disincentivizing participation from the gambling kind.

all that maybe doesn't work as a business.
but it sure does as an internet level protocol.

the two points you are making here seem at odds with each other. 

the value of an idea is its usefulness as you say, and that will change and perhaps get more valuable over time. 

if we only posit that it happens at inception we are assuming that it's maximally useful at the time of creation.

with mints we needed that to be true because that's where all of the value capture was. with coins we don't need that because there is creator capture the whole time and a market that can adjust with it's usefulness over time.

more crucially, the coin format helps it be more free (free to spread) because the coins can spread infinitely far.