six
@six
we couldn't hold coins above 1m? smh come on guys
9 replies
3 recasts
29 reactions
jesse.base.eth 🔵
@jessepollak
probably shouldn't be worth >1m
2 replies
0 recast
12 reactions
Zinger ↑
@zinger
Why not?
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
SAINTLESS
@saintless
why 1M?
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
six
@six
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
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Zinger ↑
@zinger
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
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
jesse.base.eth 🔵
@jessepollak
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
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Zinger ↑
@zinger
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
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
jesse.base.eth 🔵
@jessepollak
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
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Zinger ↑
@zinger
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?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
jesse.base.eth 🔵
@jessepollak
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. ...
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
jesse.base.eth 🔵
@jessepollak
... 4. I *also* think there is massive cultural stigma around them, because we've been told that "coins are bad" literally by the government AND convinced ourselves that a *scarcity* of coins is better (because then we can control the small number). I think that these are both negative stigmas that need to be broken. 5. To get to the other side, and unlock all the creative potential here, I think we need to push through some discomfort. Rewrite some of our thinking on this and be open to learning on the go. That's why I'm experimenting in the open and sharing what I learn and see. I don't know where we're going, but I know that there's something big at the other side. And I know that I'll need all of your help to get there. Open to any and all ideas and feedback.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction