phil pfp
phil
@phil
I find the backlash to the new Zora model quite fascinating. When NFT’s first became popular, many people advanced the same criticisms. They weren’t real art, they overly financialized something that shouldn’t have a price on it, etc Now, four years later we have learned a lot. It’s time for new experiments. But it’s weird to see NFTs being held up as some bastion of artistic purity.
6 replies
2 recasts
27 reactions
Alex Mack 🏔️ pfp
Alex Mack 🏔️
@alexmack
The biggest issue with the model is it's tone deaf to artists. I support experimentation, FAFO and innovation on all fronts here. But, tokenizing a piece of art (maybe not content, some other interesting discussions there) into a coin with 1B supply does nothing to "support" the artist. Rather, it turns their work into a vehicle for quick trading and flipping... theoretically. And I say "theoretically" because trading can only occur with volume... apart from maybe a few runners from well-known artists, there is little to no liquidity in this uber-niched "coined art" market. I'd be interested to see how the builders expect for that to change. Furthermore, shifting the focus to trading art as a coin literally drains the soul of the art itself. I'd bet very few people are actually taking time with the art. Considering how it connects with them. Seeing if they "feel something" apart from the dopamine rush of the click / trade... I'm not saying people shouldn't use it. I'm just saying it's now for me.
2 replies
3 recasts
22 reactions
Callum Wanderloots ✨ pfp
Callum Wanderloots ✨
@wanderloots.eth
Yeah I hear you! A few thoughts I'm curious to hear your perspective on: Right now, all content = $0, 0 liquidity. This includes every time you share one of your photos. What if you could coinify this content (watermarked, low-res, etc, distinguished from the fine-art) and then, instead of just sharing the picture, you share the link to zora. Now every time you reshare that photo, you have the opportunity for someone to buy a coin as a thanks for giving them beauty on their feed? With this model, you earn every transaction (1% fee) while getting 10 M tokens (1% of supply), so that if the liquidity becomes big enough, you can sell your 1 M supply and earn more than a few cents. You can then share this art forever, and if it happens to go viral on fc or elsewhere, maybe you earn a few $100 for that content. Also, 99% of memecoins go to zero, so the status quo is currently no liquidity, no value. If even 1% of your content earns liquidity, isn't it better than current social posting (as distinct from art)?
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
triumph pfp
triumph
@triumph
there is finite total liquidity tho so what ultimately happens is it mainly sloshes around among the top 1% of posts at the time (and the posts included in that churn quickly) while the remaining 99% are left for dead further on liquidity as a collector: spending peanuts on posts (or art) i enjoy frankly sounds like a pain in the ass as well as an easy way to burn thru a lot of $ fairly quickly. similar to zora’s “free mint” open edition era except when you turned around you realize you accidentally ended up spending $1000 on those “free mints” at least in that case i’d have a token to show for it that is fully mine, even if it went to zero. in this case i’d have “coins” representing fractionalized ownership of a single token that also ends at zero put another way: i like alex’s art so I mint an open edition photo fully expecting it may go to zero. ok. i like this. OR i buy 10% of coin supply of that post. that…does not hit the same to me personally
3 replies
1 recast
10 reactions
triumph pfp
triumph
@triumph
and to your point about getting “something” instead of “nothing” like the current setup: i hear you but also feel that comes back to the liquidity point i made^^ in an endless sea of content to scroll the amount of $$ people will personally pay for it will spread thin very very very quickly so yeah…maybe a great photo you took + post ultimately earns you $5. i guess that’s “something” but idk, feels a little much to celebrate this from zora as some revolutionary social technology **maybe i am midcurving it and will be totally wrong. would love that for creators, artists, my zora homies, etc!!
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Alex Mack 🏔️ pfp
Alex Mack 🏔️
@alexmack
EXACTLY on the liquidity point. And the minting for "I like the art" knowing it could go to zero, rather than the "this art could run" then inadvertently goes to zero and realizing you have "Art" or a token you don't connect with becoming dust.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Callum Wanderloots ✨ pfp
Callum Wanderloots ✨
@wanderloots.eth
yeah all totally fair! I think, again, that this is the difference between social content & art: art is to be collected and valued, content is to be appreciated via attention. if you give $0.10 to your favourite creators every day, only $3 across the month. But if 1000 people do that, it starts to be a way to show appreciation and value to creators for their time. Re: liquidity, every transaction rewards the creator in this case, so even as people exit and bring the token back to 0 (which will likely happen in most cases) at least the creator earns on the buy & sell. re: accidentally spending too much money, I think that's why rodeo & zora deal with things like sparks now, because you can load your wallet with $X you want to spend that month on creators, and can stop when you run out
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction