jalil
@jalil.eth
secondary markets are a side effect of the medium, not the main character. https://x.com/jalilwahdat/status/1894522593933496688
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
jihad ↑
@jihad
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?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
jalil
@jalil.eth
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.
2 replies
0 recast
7 reactions
jalil
@jalil.eth
... 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.
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
jalil
@jalil.eth
... 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. ...
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
jalil
@jalil.eth
... 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: ...
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction