Creator Token Sparks Heated Debate Among Public Chain Pros

The crypto community has recently erupted in a heated debate over "creator tokens", with the founders of two well-known public chains rarely stepping into the ring for a direct confrontation on the relevant platforms. This debate not only highlights the profound differences in the essence of "creator tokens" within the crypto world but also reflects the ideological clashes between different camps.

Origin of the Controversy

The controversy began with a researcher's public questioning of a certain social networking platform. This platform tokenizes user profiles and posts, claiming to help creators profit directly from their content. However, the researcher believes that this model is essentially "a rebranded garbage coin." He pointed out that the vast majority of tokens issued on automated market makers, which have extremely low liquidity and exhibit exponential price curves, often end up going to zero.

Fierce Confrontation Among Public Chain Founders

In response to this doubt, a certain public chain founder quickly refuted it. He stated on social media: "Content is valuable, and creators are valuable." He also emphasized that assets issued on different platforms cannot be equated; the fundamentals are key.

This remark immediately provoked a response from another public chain founder. He sarcastically asked: "Do these Tokens really have the rights to the creator's future cash flow?"

Then, the two founders engaged in a heated debate:

The first founder firmly believes that content itself has intrinsic value and compares it to works of art, asserting that even without direct profits, it still possesses its inherent value.

The second founder questioned how this value is measured and proven, and challenged: "So is it a good thing for retail investors when creators sell their Tokens? Because they can buy in below the fundamental value of the content?"

In response to the doubts, the first founder explained that these tokens represent a repetitive, infinite game of chance, where the actions of participants will affect the operation of the entire system.

However, the second founder disagreed and bluntly stated that the "intrinsic value" of these Tokens might be zero. He even sarcastically suggested that if one truly believed these Tokens had value, they should persuade the coin holders to use their profits to buy those Tokens that are close to zero.

The Contradiction Between Market Performance and On-chain Data

At the same time, the price of the platform's Token has skyrocketed by 883% in the past month. Factors driving this wave of market movement include functional upgrades and positive news such as the launch of perpetual contracts on major exchanges. Data from the platform shows that both the number of creators and the number of issued Tokens have reached historical highs.

However, on-chain data presents a different interpretation. Analysis shows that the contract trading volume far exceeds spot trading, and there haven't even been large transaction records on-chain recently, which has sparked speculation about market manipulation.

Conclusion

This debate reveals the profound differences in the crypto world regarding the nature of "creator tokens" and reflects the complex competitive relationships between different public chain camps. Whether supporters or skeptics, everyone is arguing for their own ideas. However, in the end, this debate seems to have not reached a clear conclusion, but rather leaves more questions worth pondering.