Callum Wanderloots ✨ pfp
Callum Wanderloots ✨
@wanderloots.eth
Pretty tired of the tokenization conversation tbh 🙄 It’s something I’ve thought a lot about, written even more on, and am very hopeful for in the long run, but we keep going in circles. We need to do something different, and that difference has to have MUCH more value accrue to the tokenizer rather than the platform. 50% split is not the way. YouTube gives me 55% for ads and 70% for membership, and it’s been that way for a decade or more. Do we really not want to build better systems than the web2 incumbents? More thoughts here: https://paragraph.com/@wanderloots.eth/post-tokens?referrer=wanderloots.eth
1 reply
1 recast
8 reactions
Steen pfp
Steen
@usersteen.eth
I will argue to the end of the earth that value creation is a collaboration between creator and curator. Potential value is created then validated. The problem is not the 50%, it's that every platform "charging" that 50% doesn't provide nearly that amount of value. When you get to be as big as yt, and rely on algos, it makes sense to give less than 50% because it's automated, albeit extremely effectively. Let's use zora as an example. Forget their app-side fee for the moment. When you create a token on zora they take 50% of market trades. Publishing is a commodity, the fee on that should be nominal. So what you're paying for is alleged distribution. Zora provides, at best, dist worth 5%. It's automated but ineffective, unlike yt. If we look at the app-side fees, we see referrals capture 15% of the total fee. This is effectively meaningless, despite users being the primary driver of dist. Now this fee structure more broadly can be iterated on (uni v4), but even w current limits, it is poorly designed
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Callum Wanderloots ✨ pfp
Callum Wanderloots ✨
@wanderloots.eth
That’s a great way to frame it, thank you! I think with the splitting of platforms all over the place it will be very difficult to get the distribution value up to 50%. Especially when distribution can happen via social media like farcaster, for free. I also take issue with the 1% supply. I think creators should be able to gain much more from any upside on their own work. I do feel like we’re close to figuring out “the” method of operating with content/art in web3, but not quite there yet
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Steen pfp
Steen
@usersteen.eth
50% is likely too large for any one distributor, agreed. However in a world with hundreds of brands, where you publish will mean a lot more. There are few competitors. Also agree on the supply side. It's weird though, the pressure not to sell is real. For buyers, it's a good deal to have the creator as the prime whale; creator is incentivized (socially) to be responsible and patient. All this talk is partially superfluous; we need brands more than features now!
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Callum Wanderloots ✨ pfp
Callum Wanderloots ✨
@wanderloots.eth
Yes exactly, I think the long term value retention will occur when the creator is the whale for their asset class. They’re the ones who will withstand sell pressure the most, unless they truly need the money, which is kind of the point of the creator economy in the first place. But to your first point that the value is primarily created as a collaboration between creator and collector (I like that framing a lot), why do we need more brands to be intermediaries between the direct connection? I think with sovereign contracts available for both NFTs and coins, we should want distribution to be decentralized?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction