Creator Token Value Controversy Sparks Heated Debate Among Public Chain Giants

The crypto community has recently been buzzing due to a heated debate over "creator tokens." The founders of two major public chains rarely stepped into the arena personally, engaging in a direct confrontation over different platforms. The cause and development of this debate are worth our in-depth exploration.

The Origin of Controversy

The trigger for the controversy came from a researcher's public questioning of a certain social networking platform. The platform operates on a certain ecological chain, aiming to help creators profit directly from content by tokenizing user profiles and posts.

However, the researcher believes that the platform is merely a renovation of the old model. He bluntly stated that most of the tokens issued on automated market makers, which have extremely low liquidity and show exponential price increases, are essentially "rebranded junk coins."

He also cited another platform as an example, pointing out that the median result of the ERC20 Tokens on it did not underperform the market but went straight to zero.

Intense Debate Among Public Chain Founders

In the face of such sharp criticism, the founder of a certain ecological chain quickly responded. He stated on social media: "I think you are wrong. Content is valuable, and creators are valuable." He further emphasized that equating assets issued on different platforms is a logical fallacy, as not all Tokens are the same; the fundamentals are key.

This remark quickly sparked a counterattack from another public chain founder. He sarcastically asked, "Can these tokens really allow holders to share in the creator's future cash flow?"

Subsequently, the two founders engaged in a heated debate:

The first round revolves around whether the content has "fundamental value". One side insists that the content itself is valuable, while the other side questions how to prove this.

The debate in the second round became even more intense. Both sides engaged in a fierce exchange over the actual value of the Token, but ultimately remained steadfast in their positions, making it hard to determine a winner.

Interestingly, while the latter questioned the value of creator tokens in this debate, he himself has been vigorously promoting meme coins in his ecosystem for the past few years. To enhance his argument, he added: "I have been saying for years that meme coins and NFTs are just digital garbage and have no intrinsic value. They are like loot box items in mobile games, and people spend as much as $150 billion a year on mobile games."

Performance of Controversial Focus Projects

At the center of this debate, the tokens of the controversial project have seen significant growth over the past month. This surge has been positively influenced by the tokenization feature of certain application integration content, as well as boosted by a trading platform launching related perpetual contracts.

The platform has recently set historical highs for both the number of creators and the number of issued tokens. However, on-chain data analysis provides a different interpretation. Some analysts point out that the contract trading volume of the token far exceeds the spot trading volume, suggesting that funds within centralized exchanges may be manipulating the market.

Conclusion

The intense confrontation among the founders of public chains not only reveals the profound divergence in the crypto world regarding the essence of "creator tokens," but also reflects the complex competitive relationships and ideological conflicts among different public chain camps.

This debate has no clear winner, much like the eternal discussion about the definition of value, which is always fiercely contested between ideals and reality, faith and doubt. It reminds us that in the rapidly evolving world of cryptocurrency, discussions about value, innovation, and sustainability will continue.