Assuming you’re actually serious about receiving feedback… Creator coins could be a good idea, but the execution has made anyone who would try it feel like Coinbase doesn’t actually care about them. The mechanism itself could have been used to help creators reliably accrue value for things they sell (art, merch, NFTs, etc) over the long term. Instead the mechanism has been geared towards maximizing transactions and short-term pumps; great for Base marketing and metrics but not useful for creators. The technology could have been integrated with multiple platforms, allowing creators to use it wherever they are currently active. Instead, it’s been Zora/Base only; again great for Coinbase mafia but not for builders in the space. It’s not just creator coins, it’s the Base app itself. I’m sure you’re all congratulating yourselves on the metrics but anyone using the app can see it’s not built for them, it’s built for you. You can see the intent of the team in the product they produce. In creator coins I see insiders straining for relevance instead of genuine desire to help creators. This is genuine feedback, there’s no hate in it. It’s my perspective as a Farcaster user, crypto builder, and technology enthusiast.

I have always liked the swing at creator coins (even though I don't like using them personally - they strain my attention in way that's not enjoyable). But the strong negative reactions you mention have crossed into something that feels unproductive, and frankly dangerous. That's because they are coming from Base builders and core community members. For example, this weekend I ran what should have been a super fun event on the Base App for the top 200 holders of $BRACKY (we're a sports prediction market, the most used AI agent on Farcaster and possibly all of Base). So: we're running this fun new game, that is essentially about giving out a significant amount of money in a way that's fun and social, and we located it on Base App, bc of some genuine superpowers we have there via the XMTP team. It's really cool stuff. And then: about 50% of our community – our top and most active holders with collectively millions invested in our product – are saying or seeming like locating our game on the Base App makes them more hesitant to play. And about 10% decided to sit out from the experience rather than use Base at all. This was alarming to me. I have always supported creator coins, because I support Jesse as an entrepreneur. As an entrepreneur myself, I understand how hard it is to make big bets and lead people into a frontier, and that sometimes not anyone except the leader has anything close to all the information. I believe in supporting leaders through committed, positive action. This is all to say, I trust Jesse, still do, and have wanted to see this specific shot on goal. I don't even have my own verdict on creator coins. It doesn't matter what I think, and I may not be a target audience. But the way that people in crypto are starting to feel – almost as if they would *like* to see it fail rather than succeed – makes my alarms go off. Somehow, creator coins are at the very center of this vibe. My observation is that they are not hated by outsiders (who hardly know about them), but rather by a plurality of our own believers. And the truth is that even if Jesse is actually right about creator coins themselves (I mean, he could be, there's some interesting traction) the dynamic around *perception* has reached a level that feels no longer about stated preferences, but about revealed ones. Creator coins – or, to be accurate here, important people's perception of creator coins – are beginning to feel like a liability to me as a builder on Base (maybe they have been for awhile, or maybe this is a recent change?) and I think that I am among the most reluctant to say that. I don't have answers, but I wanted to report my experience in the spirit of constructive data. LETS FUCKING WIN IN 2026.

how do you decide which creator coin to buy and be bullish on, or so to speak, what boxes does a creator coin need to tick for you to put some dollars into it? (i launched mine yesterday)

https://farcaster.xyz/arrotu/0x437cb721

would love to see an experiment around collecting posts via auction! hypothesis: 1 winner offers powerful recognition + discrete bids means no “rugging” Eg: I bid $100 on your above cast. when I win I get (some) recognition and also can’t complain about losing money bc it was clearly an illiquid purchase , like a collectible

Since you asked. Originally cast 7d ago > Know @base.base.eth is going on recharge… Yet guess I’ll drop this now and let it simmer If I was benevolent dictator of The Base App creator coin everything Yatta Yatta plan to onboard the masses I would > Start with the creator coin thesis intact. Shift to 95 percent of the coins liquid at launch (reduce creator share to 5 percent) and keep the trading fees to creator intact. *Big Change* Create a “tip” for whatever framework where folks can tip content with easy double taps etc. Get rid of content coins entirely. Each tip is monetized - 90 percent to the creator and 10 percent to their token holders. If the platform (Zora or Base) wants to benefit from creators, they have to buy a share of the creator coins just like everyone else. Monetize ads etc to create revenue for top creators and any platform payouts they receive also get shared with their coin holders. Give allowances to active users to tip their favorite creators or act as multipliers. These are your classic curators. Use the chain to determine who is keeping it real and reward authentic actors. Create sponsorship channels and subs that are onchain and follow similar fee split. Speculation will still be there out the gate. But drive a much bigger percentage of $ to creators, while giving the supporters / speculators a chance to still be part of the cycle. Tossing my penny in the air to see which way the wind blows. At the core > driving more $ to creators is a great thesis. Don’t see how current model achieves this on any scale. Basically a $Degen/Zora/sub/gifts/alfafrens mash up with a much greater share of spend going to creators. Make it opt in, if you want to be able to receive tips you have to have a base creator coin. Call these taps something better than tips. Basically put the ice cream, ice cream, so good so good yum yum onchain and create a smaller speculation loop. The double taps/like is a nice mechanic. Addresses issue with never ending liquidity dilution and concentrates flows. There is an irony that with composable platforms/apps you lose control and consistency… yet could bring streaming in-house or partner with mini apps to be trial partners for 6mo to a year. Bring creators onchain. Just iterate toward a better mechanic to allow capital to flow to where it’s most deserved. (Typed this a few days back, and just added a couple of sentences tonight. Could workshop to make it better and more coherent, but figure I’ll share in rough draft form). @jesse.base.eth

Course correct asap. Hire some actual trench Degen’s to tell you the stuff you’re obv not hearing internally. None of your core users like this. You’re risking driving away your core user base in the effort to attract new customers that might not even come. Stop running off your core users with liquidity fragmentation, trader mentality over investment mentality, and just the overall push towards stuff that your core users absolutely hate.

This is my highest engagement post ever. No one likes content coins: https://farcaster.xyz/maretus/0xd6ce234d

Huge fan of CB and Base, so sharing this to try to be constructive: Content Coins seem like very bad investments. So when you are aggressively selling what seem like bad investments it begs the question of whether you do not realize you are selling what seems like a scam or that you do not care that you are scamming your user base. If you really believe in creator coins some better marketing convincing the market why they are good investments could help. And I agree with @tldr that it hurts the larger ecosystem.

First, it's great of you, @jesse.base.eth, and the team to consistently remain open to feedback. One of the most encouraging things you do. Secondly, I love the chain. I love creators. I love what Base (the chain) could be. This feedback comes from a place of alignment in that we want what's best for the space. Also, I'll put aside my more general concerns with TBA and discuss the creator coin model in particular. Final caveat: this is feedback on creator coins as they are today. There may be iterations from here that work well. 𝐓𝐋;𝐃𝐑 ① Creator coins don't work. ② Creator coins misalign incentives. ③ Creator coins create more, not less, work for creators. ④ Creator coins turn people into assets. 1a. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵. Most importantly from Coinbase's perspective, I don't think it works for the primary KPIs you've made public: growth. I don't see them on Instagram. Or TikTok. Or Youtube. Were they a growth vector from Nick Shirley's audience to Base? Not that I saw. I follow Nick on Web 2 socials and I didn't see him share on existing channels. To the point where I wasn't even sure if it was legit when he first launched. Obviously he received a ton of press, and outside of a few crypto-specific outlets, the creator coin was nowhere mentioned. His content and creator coins seem to essentially be just a secondary income stream. This may work for volume KPIs, but not growth. Great experiment, but the results are in. We've been told that the reason TBA (and creator coins on TBA) exists is to help builders on Base with distribution. But if paying creators thousands of dollars doesn't lead to new users onboarding, it's time to pivot. This isn't just from Zora/TBA, by the way. We've seen iterations of creator coins since 2019/2020: Rally, Roll, Friendtech, etc. All with similar results. 1b. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻'𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘀. This is most evident on the current leaderboard: routinely TBA's top creator coins derive their value not from creativity, but proximity to Coinbase. Speculators and traders only like a few creator coins and are increasingly getting burned out (see Threadguy's recent video on them). Creators aren't flocking to them. Creator monetization is a solved problem for most creators – to be fair, de-platforming and audience portability remain a problem, although Farcaster/TBA don't solve that yet either. Fans aren't clamoring for them. The masses are completely happy liking/following/subscribing to support creators. Those that want to go deeper have Patreon or YouTube Memberships. Many builders like myself see creator coins as a massive distraction and misuse of resources. When I think about interesting onboarding opportunities, I think about @jacek's Degen or @sayangel's Warplets or @tldr's Bracky or @deployer's BNKR. Creator coins vs. builder support may be a false dichotomy, sure, but resources are finite and must be allocated in some way. Bluntly: if the option is to send a creator 1 BTC or a builder 1 BTC, I'm picking builders every. single. time. 2. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀. The chain is extraordinarily adept at aligning incentives, both inside and outside of financial contexts. Creator coins breaks this feature of the chain. In the current model, in order for creators to make money from their creator coins, they have to dump on their fans. This means that creator coins are just a more convoluted (at best) or dishonest (at worst) Patreon model. Additionally, creators make the most money when not-their-fans are involved: snipers, traders, speculators, etc. This creates an emotional roller coaster: "yay! my coin is up i have so many fans who appreciate my work" to "what did i do wrong? why is my coin down 80%". This is even more dangerous when attached to one's identity rather than one's work (see #4 below). Alternatively, creators have to take @realgarrytan.base.eth's approach of using funds to buyback their own coin, rather than using it to fund creation. This is a self-defeating ponzi scheme, where the creator is perpetually the next person up. 3. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿. We think that the primary burden on creators is financial. Sometimes it is. But in my work over the years with creators and in the creator economy, the primary burden is that of 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦. Money is just one way in which this lack of space manifests: "I don't have space to create because I need to pay my bills". Creator coins in their current form exchange the financial burden for a social one: "I don't have space to create because everyone who holds my token now is now putting pressure on me to increase token price". Anything that creates more burden on creators is not going to last very long, and in fact could burn relationships with creators rather than attract them. 4. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀. This means art becomes objective and quantified rather than subjective and qualitative. The flip side of "it helps creators get paid!" may be true, but there are already great ways to support creators that don't involve treating them transactionally. Creator coins literally turn people into assets. I think content coins may be closer to what we want, where outputs are tokenized. But having my identity so directly associated with a tradable likely leads to dangerous places. --- I sincerely hope this is read with the care and tone with which I intend. DMs open, always happy to discuss further in feed or in the inbox.

Great read

i don’t disagree… i’m an idealist and hope we can use the tech for more things than speculation - makes me believe a creator token can hold a different value, if we’d let it https://blog.aaronvick.com/creator-tokens-transcend-the-creator-economy

GA BASE 👍

Good morning my dear friend 🥰❤️🥰❤️

Fair point — real creator coin value should come from long-term utility and community alignment, not short-term hype or ‘get in early’ narratives.

You coming to the meet up Jan 2? This is a great topic for conversation!

Not a lot on creator economics, mostly critiques of current chaos....still good convos but you are right, they are far less. We're catching most of them on @sopha ... so if you scroll the curated feed there, you will see most of the good stuff happening on FC. Hope all is well!

i have not seen a compelling argument for *why creator coins* there's a lot of arguments against, and then a lot of *why not try* not clear what is being tried other than posts bring attention bring trading i also think youtube is great for creators, and some form of *video tutorials + patreon/offer courses/sell product* would be a welcome addition to farcaster imo

here are my thoughts: https://blog.aaronvick.com/creator-tokens-transcend-the-creator-economy and an ignored public good: https://stayradiant.xyz

Good questions a lot of folks are thinking about lately. There's a lot of alt clients in development with different approaches that could give us really interesting options in a few months. Hopefully.

100000 $OINC The next step of crypto social is for individuals to own their vector and to know you can move from point A to point B thanks to the use of this tools 🛠️

Valid and intentional post here. At @dcpfoundation, focused on indie filmmakers and supporting artists we've aimed to create utility and deep integration for our native $TALNT token. Integration and value creation occur through submission, community reviews, staking (to add weight to reviews), and bounty payouts once award round is complete. Utility is about to be greatly expanded once DCP+ (our new streamer) is released allowing film rentals, review/feedback incentives, dynamic revenue payouts to creators, and affiliate marketing opportunities. Check us out.

Totally feel this — crypto social still has huge potential for real creators.

yeah it all feels kinda stale now

Here’s my understanding. As @jrf said it’s “posts bring attention brings trading”. And clearly the algo is surfacing very shallow conversation at the moment.

🔥🔥🔥🔥

Assuming you’re actually serious about receiving feedback… Creator coins could be a good idea, but the execution has made anyone who would try it feel like Coinbase doesn’t actually care about them. The mechanism itself could have been used to help creators reliably accrue value for things they sell (art, merch, NFTs, etc) over the long term. Instead the mechanism has been geared towards maximizing transactions and short-term pumps; great for Base marketing and metrics but not useful for creators. The technology could have been integrated with multiple platforms, allowing creators to use it wherever they are currently active. Instead, it’s been Zora/Base only; again great for Coinbase mafia but not for builders in the space. It’s not just creator coins, it’s the Base app itself. I’m sure you’re all congratulating yourselves on the metrics but anyone using the app can see it’s not built for them, it’s built for you. You can see the intent of the team in the product they produce. In creator coins I see insiders straining for relevance instead of genuine desire to help creators. This is genuine feedback, there’s no hate in it. It’s my perspective as a Farcaster user, crypto builder, and technology enthusiast.

I have always liked the swing at creator coins (even though I don't like using them personally - they strain my attention in way that's not enjoyable). But the strong negative reactions you mention have crossed into something that feels unproductive, and frankly dangerous. That's because they are coming from Base builders and core community members. For example, this weekend I ran what should have been a super fun event on the Base App for the top 200 holders of $BRACKY (we're a sports prediction market, the most used AI agent on Farcaster and possibly all of Base). So: we're running this fun new game, that is essentially about giving out a significant amount of money in a way that's fun and social, and we located it on Base App, bc of some genuine superpowers we have there via the XMTP team. It's really cool stuff. And then: about 50% of our community – our top and most active holders with collectively millions invested in our product – are saying or seeming like locating our game on the Base App makes them more hesitant to play. And about 10% decided to sit out from the experience rather than use Base at all. This was alarming to me. I have always supported creator coins, because I support Jesse as an entrepreneur. As an entrepreneur myself, I understand how hard it is to make big bets and lead people into a frontier, and that sometimes not anyone except the leader has anything close to all the information. I believe in supporting leaders through committed, positive action. This is all to say, I trust Jesse, still do, and have wanted to see this specific shot on goal. I don't even have my own verdict on creator coins. It doesn't matter what I think, and I may not be a target audience. But the way that people in crypto are starting to feel – almost as if they would *like* to see it fail rather than succeed – makes my alarms go off. Somehow, creator coins are at the very center of this vibe. My observation is that they are not hated by outsiders (who hardly know about them), but rather by a plurality of our own believers. And the truth is that even if Jesse is actually right about creator coins themselves (I mean, he could be, there's some interesting traction) the dynamic around *perception* has reached a level that feels no longer about stated preferences, but about revealed ones. Creator coins – or, to be accurate here, important people's perception of creator coins – are beginning to feel like a liability to me as a builder on Base (maybe they have been for awhile, or maybe this is a recent change?) and I think that I am among the most reluctant to say that. I don't have answers, but I wanted to report my experience in the spirit of constructive data. LETS FUCKING WIN IN 2026.

how do you decide which creator coin to buy and be bullish on, or so to speak, what boxes does a creator coin need to tick for you to put some dollars into it? (i launched mine yesterday)

https://farcaster.xyz/arrotu/0x437cb721

would love to see an experiment around collecting posts via auction! hypothesis: 1 winner offers powerful recognition + discrete bids means no “rugging” Eg: I bid $100 on your above cast. when I win I get (some) recognition and also can’t complain about losing money bc it was clearly an illiquid purchase , like a collectible

Since you asked. Originally cast 7d ago > Know @base.base.eth is going on recharge… Yet guess I’ll drop this now and let it simmer If I was benevolent dictator of The Base App creator coin everything Yatta Yatta plan to onboard the masses I would > Start with the creator coin thesis intact. Shift to 95 percent of the coins liquid at launch (reduce creator share to 5 percent) and keep the trading fees to creator intact. *Big Change* Create a “tip” for whatever framework where folks can tip content with easy double taps etc. Get rid of content coins entirely. Each tip is monetized - 90 percent to the creator and 10 percent to their token holders. If the platform (Zora or Base) wants to benefit from creators, they have to buy a share of the creator coins just like everyone else. Monetize ads etc to create revenue for top creators and any platform payouts they receive also get shared with their coin holders. Give allowances to active users to tip their favorite creators or act as multipliers. These are your classic curators. Use the chain to determine who is keeping it real and reward authentic actors. Create sponsorship channels and subs that are onchain and follow similar fee split. Speculation will still be there out the gate. But drive a much bigger percentage of $ to creators, while giving the supporters / speculators a chance to still be part of the cycle. Tossing my penny in the air to see which way the wind blows. At the core > driving more $ to creators is a great thesis. Don’t see how current model achieves this on any scale. Basically a $Degen/Zora/sub/gifts/alfafrens mash up with a much greater share of spend going to creators. Make it opt in, if you want to be able to receive tips you have to have a base creator coin. Call these taps something better than tips. Basically put the ice cream, ice cream, so good so good yum yum onchain and create a smaller speculation loop. The double taps/like is a nice mechanic. Addresses issue with never ending liquidity dilution and concentrates flows. There is an irony that with composable platforms/apps you lose control and consistency… yet could bring streaming in-house or partner with mini apps to be trial partners for 6mo to a year. Bring creators onchain. Just iterate toward a better mechanic to allow capital to flow to where it’s most deserved. (Typed this a few days back, and just added a couple of sentences tonight. Could workshop to make it better and more coherent, but figure I’ll share in rough draft form). @jesse.base.eth

Course correct asap. Hire some actual trench Degen’s to tell you the stuff you’re obv not hearing internally. None of your core users like this. You’re risking driving away your core user base in the effort to attract new customers that might not even come. Stop running off your core users with liquidity fragmentation, trader mentality over investment mentality, and just the overall push towards stuff that your core users absolutely hate.

This is my highest engagement post ever. No one likes content coins: https://farcaster.xyz/maretus/0xd6ce234d

Huge fan of CB and Base, so sharing this to try to be constructive: Content Coins seem like very bad investments. So when you are aggressively selling what seem like bad investments it begs the question of whether you do not realize you are selling what seems like a scam or that you do not care that you are scamming your user base. If you really believe in creator coins some better marketing convincing the market why they are good investments could help. And I agree with @tldr that it hurts the larger ecosystem.

First, it's great of you, @jesse.base.eth, and the team to consistently remain open to feedback. One of the most encouraging things you do. Secondly, I love the chain. I love creators. I love what Base (the chain) could be. This feedback comes from a place of alignment in that we want what's best for the space. Also, I'll put aside my more general concerns with TBA and discuss the creator coin model in particular. Final caveat: this is feedback on creator coins as they are today. There may be iterations from here that work well. 𝐓𝐋;𝐃𝐑 ① Creator coins don't work. ② Creator coins misalign incentives. ③ Creator coins create more, not less, work for creators. ④ Creator coins turn people into assets. 1a. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵. Most importantly from Coinbase's perspective, I don't think it works for the primary KPIs you've made public: growth. I don't see them on Instagram. Or TikTok. Or Youtube. Were they a growth vector from Nick Shirley's audience to Base? Not that I saw. I follow Nick on Web 2 socials and I didn't see him share on existing channels. To the point where I wasn't even sure if it was legit when he first launched. Obviously he received a ton of press, and outside of a few crypto-specific outlets, the creator coin was nowhere mentioned. His content and creator coins seem to essentially be just a secondary income stream. This may work for volume KPIs, but not growth. Great experiment, but the results are in. We've been told that the reason TBA (and creator coins on TBA) exists is to help builders on Base with distribution. But if paying creators thousands of dollars doesn't lead to new users onboarding, it's time to pivot. This isn't just from Zora/TBA, by the way. We've seen iterations of creator coins since 2019/2020: Rally, Roll, Friendtech, etc. All with similar results. 1b. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻'𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘀. This is most evident on the current leaderboard: routinely TBA's top creator coins derive their value not from creativity, but proximity to Coinbase. Speculators and traders only like a few creator coins and are increasingly getting burned out (see Threadguy's recent video on them). Creators aren't flocking to them. Creator monetization is a solved problem for most creators – to be fair, de-platforming and audience portability remain a problem, although Farcaster/TBA don't solve that yet either. Fans aren't clamoring for them. The masses are completely happy liking/following/subscribing to support creators. Those that want to go deeper have Patreon or YouTube Memberships. Many builders like myself see creator coins as a massive distraction and misuse of resources. When I think about interesting onboarding opportunities, I think about @jacek's Degen or @sayangel's Warplets or @tldr's Bracky or @deployer's BNKR. Creator coins vs. builder support may be a false dichotomy, sure, but resources are finite and must be allocated in some way. Bluntly: if the option is to send a creator 1 BTC or a builder 1 BTC, I'm picking builders every. single. time. 2. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀. The chain is extraordinarily adept at aligning incentives, both inside and outside of financial contexts. Creator coins breaks this feature of the chain. In the current model, in order for creators to make money from their creator coins, they have to dump on their fans. This means that creator coins are just a more convoluted (at best) or dishonest (at worst) Patreon model. Additionally, creators make the most money when not-their-fans are involved: snipers, traders, speculators, etc. This creates an emotional roller coaster: "yay! my coin is up i have so many fans who appreciate my work" to "what did i do wrong? why is my coin down 80%". This is even more dangerous when attached to one's identity rather than one's work (see #4 below). Alternatively, creators have to take @realgarrytan.base.eth's approach of using funds to buyback their own coin, rather than using it to fund creation. This is a self-defeating ponzi scheme, where the creator is perpetually the next person up. 3. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿. We think that the primary burden on creators is financial. Sometimes it is. But in my work over the years with creators and in the creator economy, the primary burden is that of 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦. Money is just one way in which this lack of space manifests: "I don't have space to create because I need to pay my bills". Creator coins in their current form exchange the financial burden for a social one: "I don't have space to create because everyone who holds my token now is now putting pressure on me to increase token price". Anything that creates more burden on creators is not going to last very long, and in fact could burn relationships with creators rather than attract them. 4. 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀. This means art becomes objective and quantified rather than subjective and qualitative. The flip side of "it helps creators get paid!" may be true, but there are already great ways to support creators that don't involve treating them transactionally. Creator coins literally turn people into assets. I think content coins may be closer to what we want, where outputs are tokenized. But having my identity so directly associated with a tradable likely leads to dangerous places. --- I sincerely hope this is read with the care and tone with which I intend. DMs open, always happy to discuss further in feed or in the inbox.

Great read

i don’t disagree… i’m an idealist and hope we can use the tech for more things than speculation - makes me believe a creator token can hold a different value, if we’d let it https://blog.aaronvick.com/creator-tokens-transcend-the-creator-economy

GA BASE 👍

Good morning my dear friend 🥰❤️🥰❤️

Fair point — real creator coin value should come from long-term utility and community alignment, not short-term hype or ‘get in early’ narratives.

You coming to the meet up Jan 2? This is a great topic for conversation!

Not a lot on creator economics, mostly critiques of current chaos....still good convos but you are right, they are far less. We're catching most of them on @sopha ... so if you scroll the curated feed there, you will see most of the good stuff happening on FC. Hope all is well!

i have not seen a compelling argument for *why creator coins* there's a lot of arguments against, and then a lot of *why not try* not clear what is being tried other than posts bring attention bring trading i also think youtube is great for creators, and some form of *video tutorials + patreon/offer courses/sell product* would be a welcome addition to farcaster imo

here are my thoughts: https://blog.aaronvick.com/creator-tokens-transcend-the-creator-economy and an ignored public good: https://stayradiant.xyz

Good questions a lot of folks are thinking about lately. There's a lot of alt clients in development with different approaches that could give us really interesting options in a few months. Hopefully.

100000 $OINC The next step of crypto social is for individuals to own their vector and to know you can move from point A to point B thanks to the use of this tools 🛠️

Valid and intentional post here. At @dcpfoundation, focused on indie filmmakers and supporting artists we've aimed to create utility and deep integration for our native $TALNT token. Integration and value creation occur through submission, community reviews, staking (to add weight to reviews), and bounty payouts once award round is complete. Utility is about to be greatly expanded once DCP+ (our new streamer) is released allowing film rentals, review/feedback incentives, dynamic revenue payouts to creators, and affiliate marketing opportunities. Check us out.

Totally feel this — crypto social still has huge potential for real creators.

yeah it all feels kinda stale now

Here’s my understanding. As @jrf said it’s “posts bring attention brings trading”. And clearly the algo is surfacing very shallow conversation at the moment.

🔥🔥🔥🔥