we couldn't hold coins above 1m?

smh come on guys

@base builder #001; onchain cities w/ OAK & city3

/new-york by day 🗽 /untzuntz by night 😈 Fan of eating tacos and bringing people together, often at the same time 🌮

Valuation numbers are kind of arbitrary and useless in both directions imo

By the same logic that it shouldn’t be worth more than 1m, there’s also no reason that it should be worth less than 1m

Just flows at the end of the day

Just surprising for me to see the head of Base actively shooting down valuations when his chain has struggled massively to gain any traction on memecoins against Solana and this is a critical time right now when Base can win back some volume

I think volumes and valuations on memecoins have historically been massively inflated by insider pump and dumps

a return to healthier valuations is net positive for the space and a proliferation of low cap creativity is an abundant onchain future we want

Weird take imo

The problem isn't the valuations, it's the insiders. We need better tools to ensure fairer distribution and prevent pump and dumps. That doesn't mean that valuations should come down.

"An abundant onchain future of low cap creativity" doesn't make much sense to me. People buy things because they expect for them to increase in value. There's not much increase possible for a sub-100k coin, especially if you're not in the first couple of buyers.

I totally agree that we should align holders with projects and incentivize them to think long-term but this messaging isn't it

people buy lots of things that they don't expect to increase in value - they are intrinsically motivated and that is what we should be work to create more of with coins

My high level perspective (in two parts):

1. I think ERC20s/tokens are an incredibly powerful building block for composability. They are also the "freeest" / most liquid way of pricing assets. This means that they are accruing a huge amount of inertia around them. And also are likely to be the best way of pricing + monetizing content.
2. I think that all content is going to onchain. And that the most composable, liquid way of pricing that content will be the one that wins out. That is why content is getting absorbed into coins.
3. The *problem* is that the mechanics around those coins are broken right now. Initial launches aren't price right, there aren't positive sum ways for creators to capture value, etc etc.

...

If you're talking about collectibles I don't understand why those should be packaged as ERC20s rather than open editions. What's the logic there? How are liquid, fungible tokens better in a scenario where people aren't buying an asset with the intention of it increasing in value?

this sounds nice, but goes against human psychology