0xmons
@xmon.eth
nah fam idt this is it see broader discussion (me and basils posts) who is actually winning here it's literally the same shitcoin meta except now we made the numbers 10x smaller? i feel like there's a bunch of underlying assumptions if u read into the followup reply, most of which seem to imply that this is how we onboard the next XXX million developing world people because $3 means a lot more for them and this latent ongoing speculation game is supposed to better reward people who can catch such vibes early But none of that is being up for discussion (eg is that target demographic really going to be somehow better than the current market participant? does that matter? Are there other onboarding methods that don't involve cluttering the global token name/attention space? etc etc) None of that is being made explicit here, just claiming that embracing multiple coins and lower market caps is "based" or "is the way forward" No bueno
4 replies
0 recast
12 reactions
basil (recession arc)
@itsbasil
how does this rationale make sense? a 10% return is a 10% return; the price is arbitrary. this is the stock split argument; its financial engineering. what do you think these traders do when they build up enough capital; do you think they still wager a bunch of $0.10 trades? or would they move to invest larger sums? do you think its most beneficial to the artist to have a dozen menial traders in & out of their art pieces that inevitably abruptly exit, or would it be better to have a network token that they can reinvest their earnings back into? that their collectors can stake on your pieces to signal long-term alignment? share revenue? is it better that the artist receives $10 in weekly revenue on a bunch of bs trading volume that will inevitably end no where & adds no distribution, or a percentage of volume brought into the entire network? a large percentage of 1/1 sales? is the goal to attract swing traders or collectors? in this model, how does the success of one piece benefit the many others?
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
alex
@proxystudio.eth
We’ve also just not seen this demand appear yet Almost half of protocol volume to date from the base launch The presumption that creators will attract interest continually while issuing asset after asset is the opposite of what I’ve seen. On clanker people who do this ultimately are only able to attract bots, who buy only from high follow count users and sell immediately The bid goes away, focuses on assets with more upside
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
basil (recession arc)
@itsbasil
exactly, you have to consider the fact that newcomers to zora are likely hesitant re crypto to begin with & are likely there as a collector or creator looking for an alternative - they are not a trader as a creator, you either have distribution or you have to rely on someone to signal you; so you get your signal & your few original followers pile in, followed by the signal's volume within a week, all of those that were signaled in have now traded out because they were never there for the content in the first place now you have a select few original holders who were there for the art who have now seen this content skyrocket, got optimistic, only for the floor to fall out - now they're questioning how any of this makes sense now the creator launches a new piece of content & any remaining liquidity left in #1 immediately flows to #2, crashing what was left of the price all collectors got rekt & they don't even own a 1/1 this does not work now imagine there was a platform coin, a collector coin, and 1/1s
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
