🧭Recalibrating 🌍Worldbuilding

Curious what people’s thoughts are: 🤔 

The poll is anonymous, but would love to hear your reasons if you would like to comment & share ✨

Curious what people’s thoughts are: 🤔 

The poll is anonymous, but would love to hear your reasons if you would like to comment & share ✨ 

https://frame.weponder.io/api/polls/28693

/cal 

Photographer, Artist, Web3 Educator, IP Lawyer, Patent Agent, Explorer 📸⛰️✨ 

 Building /flowcast with /mindfulness 🌊

https://wanderloots.com/links

the exact same image? 1 billion % that's bad practice

why? If Rodeo is facilitating the sale of stickers, why should that prevent an archival print sale? 

IRL, we would never have this issue, because people would instantly recognize the relative value of the physical good. imo, a platform like Rodeo = sticker printing, and is instantly recognizable as such

these physical world analogies do not translate. tokens are tokens are tokens. each represents a single idea, how it's fractionalized is irrelevant. we unneedingly devalue tokens and create confusion by drawing analogies like stickers; they are all just receipts

I think by introducing the concept of "digital scarcity", we inherently bring in the physical realm, as that is the realm of scarcity.

Receipts, by definition, are indicative of the thing being purchased (and are also inherently a physical analogy). Buying a poster is different than buying a fine-art print; each would result in a different receipt based on the purchase price, store that sold it, etc. 

If the tokens are representative of an idea (which I agree, they are value encapsulations), why does that preclude differentiating tokens based on the contract that produced them? 

If someone is buying a social media post vs buying a 1/1, would that not be an entirely different idea encapsulation, as represented by the token, a direct byproduct of the contract? In both cases, the creator retains the IP associated with the good; the only difference is how the value is bundled.

well when purchasing something and receiving a receipt, you do get a singular utility: the right to resell. 

There is inherent value associated with that right, determined by the context of the purchase. E.g., a poster purchased on amazon comes with it the context of a mass-produced item, likely at lower value, as understood by society at large. 

Purchasing a 1/1 from a museum/auction, signed by the artist, comes with it a different societal understanding of value. 

So the context of the purchase does impart an understanding of value. In that sense, an 1155 minted on Rodeo comes in the context of social post minting, not fine-art minting, which collectors recognize through their payment of $0.30. 

That's not to say that the 1155 can't rise to a higher value if the social context dictates it (secondary market), but that value would be tied to the token itself, not related to other tokens on different social contexts.

the receipts for my uber, dinner, shoes, art, or whatever are all functionally the same; they prove i bought something. in these cases a physical good.

you do not buy a social media post on lens, rodeo, or wherever, you buy an 1155. like 721, 20, 404, just receipts for an idea. none of these is inherently more valuable than the next. any utility attributed to the receipt, like governance for eg, is entirely separate. even if it's guaranteed, it's not what i actually bought.