It's fun to look back at all the people who started around the same time as me and what they are doing now.
Some have made life-changing money and retired.
Some blew all the money they made and went back to their 9-5 job.
Some became top traders.
Some are now top creators.
Some became builders or now work with the best brands in the industry.
Some ruined their reputations or became scammers.
Most of the time the difference between all their journeys were just small decisions they made along the way that, over time, got them to where they are today
In terms of attention and hopium/expectations, I think it's impossible to beat loud*o.
70% mindshare will never be achieved again by a similar InfoFi product.
From an idea, tech and launch perspective, I think what @useBackroom and Seedify are doing is also interesting.
Both took the Initial Attention Offering (IAO) concept and embedded it into what they're doing.
The only question is whether that’s enough to generate interest beyond the leaderboard accounts waiting dump (especially long term).
The problem for loud*o was that 99% of CT lost interest as soon as the leaderboard incentives ended, the only people who kept talking about it were those fighting for the top 25 (week 1 fee share), and with diminishing returns that becomes significantly less interesting for them as well.
Gonna be interesting to see how the other two play out this week, I'm sidelined on both (ready to fud your bags)
I had quite a few meetings with established Web2 brands last week.
Entertainment companies in particular are looking to expand into Web3 this year.
Wether it's about integrating blockchain elements into the way they engage with their existing fan base or taking more control of their ecosystem economy with a token launch.
Gonna be fun to see how this plays out.
Web3 native companies have a lot of goodwill within CT and the core crypto audience, which is essential for the successful launch of any crypto product.
Web2 companies have a huge audience they can tap into, tons of retail users, expanding beyond the hot potato game within core CT.
The lines will continue to blur this year as many Web3 IPs expand their content heavily into Web2 (Pudgy Penguins, Azuki, Claynosaurz etc).
While Web2 companies make a push into crypto with their existing name recognition, fan base and with a lot of capital/connections.
We are currently seeing a trend in NFTs towards more lending transactions, especially for grails.
A ton of CryptoPunks (worth over $30M USD total), Pudgy Penguins, Bored Apes and other bluechip NFTs are currently on loans via the three major NFT lending platforms: NFTfi, Blend (Blur's "buy now pay later"), and Gondi.
The left-facing (and top rarity) Pudgy Penguin was out on a loan before the 200 ETH sale.
The last Azuki Spirit sale was three months ago, but several Spirits are currently on loan on NFTfi.
And that’s only pfp projects, NFT art has been heavily relying on loans for a long time now.
NFT lending tends to have a different audience than the normal NFT marketplaces, more collectors, and the majority of the volume seems to be driven by a smaller group of whales and power users.
NFT floor prices of major collections have been pretty flat lately, real money is made increasingly not in trading but in lending (APR can be really juicy if you understand NFTs well and can manage the risk).
Makes sense to keep an eye on this if you’re in NFTs imo, NFTfi released a dashboard/aggregator that aggregates the entire lending market (all loans across platforms, top users etc), good way to get an overview
We've seen with Initial Attention Offerings how this can be done for fungible coins and TGEs.
But I'm pretty sure it will be used in other sectors as well.
KAZE is currently doing this with their NFT WL process.
The number of NFTs one can mint is determined by various InfoFi variables that indicate connections to the project, for example engagement with the project on X, posts, loyalty, wallet activity etc.
Community curation has always been a big concern for NFT projects, in the past it's been done with applications (y00ts, we've also seen it with AVAX memecoins like $BLUB).
But this is flawed by definition, subject to corruption/favorism, and hardly scalable.
InfoFi can improve the process here by making it more metric and data-driven.
Excited to see how the friends at @KazeCreations do this and if we see an impact on post-mint activity and the long-term holder landscape.
We've seen with Initial Attention Offerings how this can be done for fungible coins and TGEs.
But I'm pretty sure it will be used in other sectors as well.
KAZE is currently doing this with their NFT WL process.
The number of NFTs one can mint is determined by various InfoFi variables that indicate connections to the project, for example engagement with the project on X, posts, loyalty, wallet activity etc.
Community curation has always been a big concern for NFT projects, in the past it's been done with applications (y00ts, we've also seen it with AVAX memecoins like $BLUB).
But this is flawed by definition, subject to corruption/favorism, and hardly scalable.
InfoFi can improve the process here by making it more metric and data-driven.
Excited to see how the friends at @KazeCreations do this and if we see an impact on post-mint activity and the long-term holder landscape.