NFTs

The Spaces examined NFTs’ “existential crisis”: why floors and volume are misleading vanity metrics, and how to rebuild alignment between founders and holders. Aaron (Unvault/Divvy) argued success should be measured by community health, creation, and usable IP, not floor price. Loki stressed that floors still matter under today’s low-supply club model but will fade as supplies scale and collecting normalizes. Chinsanity raised concerns that Azuki’s token-gated events and web2 pivot risk alienating core web3 superfans. Sergito (Meebits) urged people to understand each project’s purpose and time horizon, highlighting Meebits’ long-term alignment via a growing treasury, and reminded that buyers of JPEGs are speculators, not equity investors. Poppy (Quirkies) pushed for founder “in the trenches,” bespoke strategies (not everyone needs TCG/tokens), and authenticity. Shiv (Pudgy Penguins) framed royalties as one revenue stream among many, noting their business focuses on licensing and products; “extraction” critiques of consumer products miss brand-building realities (e.g., DreamWorks Telegram stickers). Shields praised GVC’s vibe-led model. The room converged on the need for a new playbook: better metrics, sustainable revenue (licensing, products, legal rev-share), dual web2/web3 strategies, and renewed community alignment.

Sunday Funday NFT Space — Existential questions, royalties, alignment, and the next playbook

Who spoke and key roles

• Loki (host/co-host): frames the “existential crisis” of NFTs; pushes for alignment and a new playbook; balances web3 vs web2 strategy debate.
• Proof (co-host): steers flow, probes guests on alignment, royalties, new playbooks; stresses community building and product proliferation.
• Mac (Machiavelli; co-host): builder on ApeChain; advocates brand proliferation, community-led IP building, and fair framing of “extraction.”
• Aaron (Unvault; formerly Board Council): veteran builder; argues floor price/volume are the wrong metrics; introduces royalty-sharing mechanism (Divi); calls for less tribalism.
• Sergio (Sergito; Meebits): leads Meebits Co. (acquired from Yuga; VC-backed); advocates project-specific timelines, sustainable alignment, and collectors’ mindset vs “investor” mindset.
• Poppy (Quirkies): emphasizes founder-in-the-trenches leadership, distinct brand identity, and rejecting one-size-fits-all metas (tokens/TCGs not mandatory).
• Chinsanity: flags Azuki community concerns around exclusivity and potential web3 alienation amid web2 moves.
• Shields: product manager and GVC maxi; highlights GVC’s model (royalty-enforced rails, “vibe” system, community co-building) and the importance of safe, educative ecosystems.
• Shiv (Pudgy Penguins team): explains Pudgy’s business-first approach post-acquisition; diversified revenue (licensing, products); royalties non-core; argues that lack of royalties forced industry maturation.
• Mason: passionate defense of imagination and community co-creation; warns of hyper-financialization; argues royalty removal hurt alignment/dreaming.
• Bert (Bad Bikers): pushes “founder–holder alignment,” ships-over-raises, and fair value return; skeptical that floor/volume should rule, but believes sustainable value flows matter.
• Cairo: challenges the “extraction” narrative with data; cites Pudgy x DreamWorks Telegram sticker sales as real, non-zero-sum revenue.
• Coco: prospective founder asking what’s changed in launches; seeks actionable tips.
• Jashaka (launching G Koi): urges cross-brand collabs and “new blood,” draws a line between trading culture vs community culture.
• Dan, Maha, Clubs, Illa (producer), and others: contribute perspectives on 721C remints, brand relevance (Rolex/Supreme analogies), onboarding, and the next cycle.

Market mood and framing

• An “existential crisis” for NFTs: depressed floors and low volumes are fueling angst. Yet many speakers argue the wrong metrics (floor/volume) dominate discourse and obscure real progress.
• Tribalism weakens the space: several participants note ultra-tribal behavior fractures an already niche market, hindering shared growth and collaboration.

What metrics matter (and what don’t)

• Aaron’s thesis: floor price and trading volume are vanity metrics for builders and long-term collectors. They’re transient, farmable, and often misrepresent actual health.
• What to value instead:
  • Community sentiment and engagement (people who build and show up).
  • Team’s shipping cadence and real-world activations/products.
  • IP development and usage, licensing opportunities, and creator alignment (including mechanisms like royalty sharing).
• Loki’s nuance: floor matters in today’s “exclusive club” model with scarce supply and limited demand, but over time (with larger supply, 100k–500k ranges) the model will look more like web2 collecting (chasing grails/legendaries) where “floor” fades as a primary metric.

Azuki as a case study: exclusivity, pivots, and backlash

• Chinsanity’s observations:
  • Recent IRL events (in Asia) felt gated (e.g., token-heavy barriers like “1M anime coin” requirements), seemingly at odds with stated web2 expansion.
  • Concern that prioritizing web2 could alienate the web3 superfans who should be ambassadors to web2.
  • Pivots to TCGs make sense as a revenue vehicle, but anime output and sequencing created confusion vs expectations.
• Loki’s response:
  • Some Singapore activities were community-led, not official; budget constraints don’t prevent activation, but execution varies widely across projects.
• Bert’s “rate-to-ship” critique:
  • Not anti-fundraising; anti-under-delivery. Points to a mismatch between capital raised (mints/royalties) and shipped outputs.
  • Advocates funding creators to produce meaningful content that circulates value back toward holders (not necessarily securities—there are many ways to reward).

Web3 vs web2 strategy: different audiences, different playbooks

• Sergio’s “cities” analogy: different projects operate like different cities—each with unique trade-offs (runway, community, timelines). Not every project should mimic Yuga, Pudgy, or GVC.
• Concrete strategy split:
  • Meebits: builds a treasury of Meebits to align long-term (870+ held), reinvests in IP, and pursues varied distribution (e.g., plushies via influencer-mom TikTok vs apparel via ComplexCon).
  • Quirkies (Poppy): rejects copying other metas (e.g., TCG/token) just because they trend. Strategy must be authentic to IP and brand vision.
  • GVC (via Shields): a “safe” ecosystem with clear metrics of community contribution (“vibe wheel”), royalty protection, reinvestment, and deliberate co-building with the community.
  • Pudgy Penguins (Shiv): built a diversified business post-acquisition (licensing, products, ETFs including NFT exposure), where royalty enforcement is non-core and focus is sustainable IP growth and community empowerment.

Royalties and alignment (721C, platforms, and new rails)

• Enforcement reality:
  • 721C/1155C can enforce royalties at contract level by blocking non-compliant marketplaces, but history shows liquidity often seeks paths around enforcement when volumes spike (e.g., past pool-based bypasses). Clubs doubts royalties will be a dependable business model again.
• Unvault/Divi (Aaron):
  • A tech-plus-policy approach enabling collections to share royalties back to holders as licensors (opt-in by default; often “don’t list” is the main requirement).
  • Royalties distribution happens automatically, independent of whether a specific holder’s IP is used that period.
  • Goal: create a discovery layer highlighting collections that share back, aligning collector incentives with project success.
• Should projects re-mint to 721C?
  • Maha raises the question of migrating legacy collections to enforce royalties. Mixed reception:
    • Shiv: royalties are just one revenue stream; Pudgy prioritizes broader business sustainability.
    • Some (e.g., Jashaka) note small collections have asked communities and successfully re-minted; large brands risk optics and complexity.
• Did removing royalties help or hurt?
  • Shiv: it forced brands to build sustainable businesses beyond volatile trading; filtered out weak actors repeating “mint-secondary-more mint” playbooks.
  • Mason: removal damaged the imaginative “we-build-together” alignment; hyper-financialization and speculation overtook community dreaming.
  • Consensus middle ground: royalties can be additive, but are insufficient alone; business fundamentals must carry the brand.

“Extraction” vs real business: the product sales debate

• Mac/Proof emphasize: selling products is normal business, not “extraction.”
• Cairo’s data point: Pudgy x DreamWorks Kung Fu Panda Telegram stickers (on TON) minted ~485,500 units, citing roughly ~$1.997M in sales—evidence that non-NFT product rails can generate real demand and revenue. Multiple parties participate in the rev share (IP holder, partner studio, brand). The take-away: measure the success beyond dunkable headlines.
• Broader point: calling every product drop “extraction” is counter-productive; diversified revenue is essential. The right lens is alignment and value creation for communities, not policing basic commerce.

Launching in today’s environment (Coco’s question)

• What’s changed vs 2021:
  • Sophisticated participants: fewer tourists; more informed, more demanding, less forgiving of copycat metas.
  • Meta fatigue: tokens, TCGs, “airdrop casino” mechanics—none are one-size-fits-all.
  • Scarcer attention: product-market fit and community narrative matter more than “hype mint.”
• Practical guidance distilled from the room:
  • Build a distinct identity; don’t copy “what worked last cycle.”
  • Design for sustainability: plan revenue outside royalties; avoid treating your holders as exit liquidity.
  • Founder in the trenches: be present, visible, responsive; alignment is earned.
  • Separate web2 vs web3 go-to-market: tailor channels, messaging, and partnerships per audience.
  • Replace vanity metrics: define north-star metrics that reflect your thesis (engagement, creator output, licensing deals, retention, collector happiness).

Community vs customers: respect and rewards

• Bert’s framing: don’t treat holders purely as customers; treat them as team and partners—respect them, reward fairly (not only in cash; airdrops, access, licensing, recognition, and narrative equity all count). Sustainable incentives > short-term hype.
• Mason’s push: bring back “dreamers.” Community members gained skills by contributing; feeling seen/heard drove the magic. Founders should create systematic ways for communities to co-own the journey (beyond Discord likes and retweets).

Onboarding and safety for “new blood”

• Jashaka and Proof: proactively guide newcomers; reduce scam exposure; cultivate good experiences to compound adoption. Veteran participants bear responsibility for education and security norms.

Supply, brand relevance, and the next cycle

• Local’s caution: 10k supply feels big vs current demand; fewer newcomers to absorb supply. Mac counters: market/collectors should decide supply; web2 distribution channels (e.g., Amazon) can seed entirely new audiences.
• Illa’s analogy: brand relevance (Rolex/Supreme) drives long-term value more than feature lists. NFTs uniquely allow co-building with the brand—partnerships that include the community (e.g., commissioned art/design for collabs) scale relevance while rewarding contributors.
• Cycle outlook: some expect renewed NFT cycles even in mixed macro conditions—traders will trade, but brands that continue shipping will accrete cultural relevance regardless.

Emerging “playbooks” discussed

• GVC-style model: enforce royalties where possible, define clear contribution metrics (“vibes”), reinvest revenue, and cultivate a safe onramp for families and newcomers (Toast Animation as a bridge to web2 IP).
• Meebits alignment: treasury accumulation to signal conviction, plus IP and product diversification (plushies, streetwear) with channel-specific distribution.
• Royalty-sharing rails (Unvault/Divi): share back via licensing structures to align collectors with project success.
• Product-first IP proliferation: retail/brand collabs (Pudgy, Doodles, DreamWorks examples), Telegram stickers, mass-market toys, etc.—measured by revenue/users vs floor.

Key disagreements (healthy tension)

• Are NFTs investments or collectibles?
  • Sergio: you’re a speculator buying a product (a JPEG/voxel) with optional future upside—don’t confuse with securities or expect dividends.
  • Others: the space can design sustainable value flows to holders (not necessarily “securities”), and that pursuit is a legitimate frontier for web3.
• Did royalty removal help or harm?
  • Helped (Shiv): forced real businesses, filtered unsustainable models.
  • Harmed (Mason): drained imagination and shifted culture to short-term trading.

Open questions and to-watch

• What replaces floor and volume as north-star metrics? Can “vibes,” engagement, and shipping scoreboards standardize enough to matter?
• Can legacy collections migrate to 721C (or similar) without fragmenting markets or losing goodwill? When is it worth it?
• What does a mature, repeatable alignment playbook look like in 2025+? (GVC, Meebits, and Unvault/Divi each present partial answers.)
• How do we normalize product sales as healthy brand-building while keeping founders accountable for “rate-to-ship” and alignment?

Notable highlights and soundbites

• “We’re too tribal for a niche market.” (Aaron)
• “Floor and volume are vanity metrics; judge by community, shipping, and IP.” (Aaron)
• “Not every project needs a TCG, token, or metaverse. Build what’s true to your IP.” (Poppy)
• “Buy with the right mindset—you’re buying a product, becoming part of a distributed IP. Don’t expect dividends.” (Sergio)
• “Removing royalties forced brands to act like real businesses.” (Shiv)
• “Royalty removal also killed some imagination and alignment.” (Mason)
• “Stop calling every product drop ‘extraction’—that’s how brands survive.” (Mac/Proof/Cairo)

Bottom line

• The space agrees on the diagnosis: over-indexing on floor and tribal drama has obscured real work. The cure is a blend of: authentic brand strategy (distinct per project), sustainable revenue (beyond royalties), founder–holder alignment (including fair reward rails), safer onboarding, and a culture that celebrates products shipped and communities empowered.
• A definitive “new playbook” isn’t fully settled—but actionable elements are already in motion (GVC’s community rails, Meebits’ alignment treasury and channel strategy, Unvault’s royalty-sharing), alongside a shared rejection of extraction narratives that penalize normal business-building.