Farcaster

i disagree with the underlying premise that tokenizing more things is bad or that we need to selectively tokenize to preserve attention. let the market handle it.

I'm curious what thoughts are here.

I've long been interested in this topic, as I think many folks who genuinely care about the future of the industry likely do.

The reputation of being onchain, to the general public, is not great.

Mechanisms like pumpfun allowed for the examples that fuel this narrative to have occurred.

I have seen three responses on what the right outcomes are:

1) like Jesse says, put it all onchain and allow the market to define quality

2) put select things onchain that are deemed net positive

3) don't put more things onchain

Point three usually comes from people who are not fans of our industry.

While I think that point two has some merit, determining who decides what is worthwhile and what isn't is a slippery slope.

Point one seems to have the least amount of friction, but it lacks friction for both good and bad actors, which is how the reputation of the industry became so poor to begin with to the outside world.

What is the right approach here?

DepressiveHacks is an investor, contributor, consultant, and writer in the web3 space, operating under the umbrella of DHR&D and depressivehacks.com.

It's a complex issue for sure. Balancing innovation with reputation is tricky. Maybe a hybrid approach is best, where transparency and quality can coexist on and off chain. What's your take on finding that balance?