will
@w
boosting this because i really want to know: what's the most compelling "_definite_ optimist" take on content tokenization i vaguely suspect that the tokenistas are right on a long timeline (just look at the trend to date), but i still personally haven't heard anyone make a great case for it. Arguments for it kind of remind me in ~2016 when everyone would talk about decentralized-uber as a killer ethereum use case because "uber takes so much value from the drivers/riders"
6 replies
1 recast
11 reactions
will
@w
I think I can summarize my intuition against tokenizing everything as: some (many?) things (particularly social?) benefit from illegibility, which tokenizing ruins. I do not want a price ticker on my warpcast profile. I do not want a price ticker next to my casts. Creators want to get paid, but I don’t think they want tickers next to everything creation. Illiquidity is a feature for startups, and maybe? illegibility is a feature for creators
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
xh3b4sd ↑
@xh3b4sd.eth
I am reframing the issue here a bit. Tokenization isn't about price, but property rights. Price may be a feature enabled by property rights, but what tokenization actually solves for is attribution, which is effectively an ownership claim of some value. That value doesn't have to be financial in first order. Tokenizing content may allow for the verification of truth. E.g. was the video of Trump and Zelensky fighting in the Oval Office real? Verifiable truth on the geopolitical stage equals national security. CNN should sign and verify all their content onchain, which I would consider to be a form of tokenization. The attribution aspects are then also wildly relevant for commerce. Think onchain cookies ala performance marketing. My ENS does technically have a price. I am just not looking at it, because I use my ENS to say "this is me" across any dApp.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
