I just coined my viral horse image

this was a pivotal moment for me because it was originally minted on zora before it went viral. When it went viral the market couldn't keep up.

It showed me that we needed a more fluid model, and eventually led to us going to a coin model.
0xf1fc9580784335b2613c1392a530c1aa2a69ba3d

Gut reaction: this feels like an extremely troubling precedent to set. Re-minting *the same exact asset* that was previously minted and sold is typically frowned upon from an art perspective, to put it lightly

But let me recap the facts so folks can form their own opinions:

- 2024-04-03: Jacob released a Zora mint (1155 NFT) of the horse titled !!! #2 at a cost of 11 $higher per mint at a cost  of appx $0.17 that was minted 3871 times
- 2025-03-12: Jacob minted the same image as a Zora coin with the ticker $horse (1B supply) 
—> Jacob airdropped 500M $horse across appx 667 current 1155 NFT holders at 16:11:29 UTC this morning at a rate of 133,346 $horse per 1155 worth appx $9.9 (coin value = $0.00007491 per coin at time of airdrop)
—> value of coin at time of this cast (18:50 UTC) is $0.001 or appx $130

Building @tipn /rebase | Advising /24art | Prev. @cent Nifty Gateway | Hosting /thewipmeetup | byteGAN #265 PFP by @vanarman

every single collector just got net *way* more value than if i had not done that?

where is the issue here?

Inclusion of previous is almost like a teleburn. 

And as such. Seems fair enough. 

$horse is running free