Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
kenny 🎩
@kenny
everyone loving this Cobie post, but I think it's hopelessly cynical it assumes it's impossible a celebrity would ever come into crypto, make a coin, and not rug Ansem is optimistic and assumes that it's worth engaging because eventually rugs won't be the standard don't see why that's such a crazy take, not hard to imagine a world where celebrities enjoy having coins attached to their names as a fun side experiment "if they want to get into crypto they should buy our existing coins" is lame, Cobie himself has made the point over and over that the majority of the existing coins are shitcoins what's more fun for someone new to crypto: experiment with permissionless finance by launching your very own financial asset or buy some random coin where you have no idea how it works, why the tech matters, etc. one seems obviously more appealing
6 replies
1 recast
13 reactions
Cassie Heart
@cassie
There's an ideological clash at play here. People associating intrinsic value with attention are missing (or are aware but plan to get out before it crashes) the point that attention is ephemeral. The OGs of crypto were philosophically driven by the understanding that economic value of a crypto asset must be driven by something meaningful either immediately or long term, or it is inherently worthless/will rug. Bitcoin was inherently meaningful because of the miners themselves creating an intrinsic relationship between the coin and the energy expenditure. Later generations had direct utility relationships (Eth, Sol, etc.). Celebrity meme coins are simply financialization of attention, and specifically to one individual. That doesn't pan out without something "real" attached, like Bowie Bonds, well before crypto ever existed.
2 replies
1 recast
23 reactions
Tempe.degen 🎩
@tempetechie.eth
Good point! 500 $DEGEN
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
