martin ↑
@martin
How was this decided @proxystudio.eth ? Weren’t the initial fees going to Supercast? https://x.com/_proxystudio/status/1870229838801387705?s=46
1 reply
2 recasts
14 reactions
martin ↑
@martin
Or is this Clanker’s fees that are now going to @slokh ?
1 reply
1 recast
7 reactions
Toady Hawk
@toadyhawk.eth
No this is regarding future creator earnings. Proxy team made the decision to redirect these for two clanker projects that went through significant post-launch CTO’s— ANON and PEPEC, where original beneficiaries aren’t involved in the projects anymore (and where the teams that are involved have no easy way to bootstrap development. Seems fair to me fwiw, considering more than $300K worth of fees had already accrued to the ANON creator account up to now, and Slokh has been shipping like crazy with only what skin in the game he purchased for himself.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
martin ↑
@martin
I don’t really love the precedent - the project wouldn’t have picked up if it hadn’t been launched by anoncast right?
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Toady Hawk
@toadyhawk.eth
I hear what you’re saying, but would just say that while the fact that the memecoin was launched via superanon care of clanker is part of the lore for sure, 1) I don’t believe that alone is worth millions of dollars of fees in perpetuity and 2) that’s not why most people are interested in the project— they are interested in being involved with the development of a cutting edge zk social app. Also, it’s kind of a moot point anyway because Slokh wasn’t likely going to keep building something tied to a token that paid fees to a non-contributor forever, so this is probably the most amenable solution (compared to him inevitably just sunsetting the app or forking the token etc.) I agree with @proxystudio.eth that this is a product level question still at this juncture. Clanker can be a mostly permissionless protocol but with room for flexibility to support successful CTO’s that may emerge.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
martin ↑
@martin
I can see the argument, but I don’t like the precedent of an app deciding who gets to keep fees or not What if a community gets a takeover but the initial creator has a different idea?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
ted (not lasso)
@ted
agree, this is unfortunately a trust-losing decision for me. the argument above is moot; the rules of creator earnings were clear upfront to everyone and the project chose to proceed regardless. the optics of this announcement are it’s a unilateral decision made without the creator. yikes. disclosure: i’m not on anon core, i own 20k anon, i do use supercast
2 replies
1 recast
2 reactions
martin ↑
@martin
Agree
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
daivd 🎩👽 ↑
@qt
Opportunity for another (launchpad) client
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
