Hugo -
@schezhugo
Given the coins debate, here’s a mechanism that I think could make sense for higher effort artworks: 1- Mint artwork as a token with a bonding curve attached to it. Anyone can buy from it. 2- Allow users to “lock” their tokens in exchange for the NFT. 3- NFT represents the artwork as well as your position (how early you were and how much you bought). 4- Distribute trading fees to creator and lockers This way you encourage long-term holding and community building. Price is more predictable. Bonus point: locked eth earns yield such that game is non zero-sum anymore. Would love to get good feedback on this! Thoughts?
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Daniel Lombraña
@teleyinex.eth
I think we are overcomplicating things. It sounds like an overengineered approach that should be easier to understand. What problem solves this new approach?
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Hugo -
@schezhugo
Hey, thanks for the comments! The way I see it it’s mainly two: - Creating incentives for long-term holding vs short-term trading while still allowing for price discovery and speculation. - Creating more sustainable and predictable markets such that more people feel like participating. I can see how it might feel overcomplicated and over engineered, but I’m not sure it’s that much really!
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Daniel Lombraña
@teleyinex.eth
Explaining this to an outsider is going to be complicated. For me, the issue is speculation. It is difficult to remove it while probably supporting the artists.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Hugo -
@schezhugo
Yes, it’s not super easy to explain, that’s true, hopefully good UX would be able to compensate for it. Regarding speculation, I’m not sure it needs to be removed though, but maybe make it less zero-sum. Appreciate your thoughts!
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
