The world has been suffering from Opensea for a long time. It burned a lot of users' GAS. Although Opensea did not make a profit on GAS, the high 2.5% handling fee made OS make a lot of money. According to previous data, the handling fee income should exceed 1 billion US dollars. Coupled with the high royalties from the OS support project parties, the market liquidity is scarce, making it very difficult for large whales to enter and exit, and they are forced to become diamond traders.
But today I am convinced that it is indeed possible for opensea to issue coins, not just the so-called former GEM, which is the Opensea Pro that was renamed today. But it is indeed possible for Opensea to issue coins. Let me start from three angles.
1: The current listing valuation will not be high: The market generally believes that Openeas, after raising $13 billion in financing, is unlikely to issue coins and is likely to cash out financing through listing. But now even Coinbase, whose revenue far exceeds that of Opensea, has suffered a sharp drop in its stock price, with a market value of only US$14 billion. So how can Opensea get a good valuation when it goes public? Obviously, unlike the currency circle, the stock market will not buy into Opensea’s high valuation.
2: Do not issue coins or die: Opensea faces the dilemma of do not issue coins or die. It is the tradition of WEB3 to reward users and the community. Back then, UNI was forced by Sushi to issue coins to regain lost users. The OS also faces the possibility that Blur will snatch away all users if the currency is not issued. Judging from the data of the past month, although the number of users and transactions of OS is three times that of Blur, the transaction volume is less than one-third of Blur. This is a very strange phenomenon, because Blur has attracted the vast majority of NFT intensive users and whales, because you can also earn coins by trading in Blur, covering transaction costs. A large number of small retail investors and non-intensive users stay in Opensea due to poor information and user habits. (By the way, OS’s transaction gas cost is low, making it more suitable for TuGou projects and low-market value projects.)
Therefore, Opensea now has to issue coins defensively, continue to charge 0 or low fees, follow Blur's strategy, and win back the users that Blur has taken away. Opensea Pro is where the ambition lies. Because Opensea Pro can add a bid pool like blur, it still provides depth.
3: Opensea currently earns more from issuing tokens than from listing: In fact, there is no legal risk in issuing governance tokens, and there is no legal risk in airdropping to users. Blur and Dydx are both purely American projects. They are both governance tokens and are airdropped to the community. The fallacy in the industry that there are no airdrops for US projects is actually quite ridiculous. Moreover, the valuation of OS’s currency issuance should be much higher than that of B’s listing. After all, the currency circle is playing with market-to-dream rates and speculation. The stock market requires real ROI and PE.
Moreover, after the token is issued, the protocol income can be completely attributed to the Opensea company and does not need to be distributed to the token holders. After all, you are a governance token, not a stock. Listing requires dividends and profit creation to be accounted to shareholders.
In short, from three perspectives, Opensea's currency issuance will do more harm than good or it must be issued. After all, in the changing market, you will be the one who dies if you are slow. The worst thing is that opensea pro will also issue coins, and the parent company will go public. Pro provides aggregation and bid pool functions, completely copying Blur. Of course, the bid pool can only use the os market to receive bids. It can also deal with Blur's attacks very well. However, Opensea's currency has a larger market value and higher valuation, which can attract greater liquidity and liquidity between buyers and sellers. PRO will issue a lot of coins.
