For onchain to grow into its next phase it seems a reprioritization of values is needed. Ordinance principles have been top of mind. Currently I’m favoring:

1. is it fun?

2. does it facilitate value convergence?

Mix in recent conversations around minting, dao plateauing, etc, and it feels like the serendipity machine is at work yet again.

Enter Basepaint.

TLDR:

• daily theme for creating pixel art

• buy a brush NFT and you have 100 pixels to use

• collaborate with others & chat in the browser

• 24hrs later it goes up as an open edition

There’s a rev-share breakdown as well. So depending on the effort put in, creators are apportioned their share of the mint revenue.

Fun may be as subjective as beauty, but the feeling is quite objective.

To me, Basepaint is fun. It’s fun to create. It’s fun to watch others create. It’s fun to collect. It’s fun to speculate on the future of the project and its creators.

The composability of crypto is a bedrock for positive sum network effects. This dynamic, when successfully expressed, is what I’m calling value convergence.

Staying within the context of Basepaint, we have a few players:

1. Basepaint platform

2. creators of the editions (basepainters)

3. collectors of the editions

4. Base chain

Through this term could estimate their individual interests to be:

1. thriving usage and increase in mints

2. thriving usage and increase in mints

3. thriving usage and increase in mints

4. thriving usage and increase in mints

Basepaint finds value in creating a novel project. Basepainters find it in creating novel pieces and earning Ξ. Collectors, in collecting those pieces and possibly selling at higher premiums. And at the chain level, Base chain finds value in facilitating novelties, and earning revenue from sequencing. It’s a win-win-win-win.

A thought experiment:

• let’s say Basepaint contines to increase gravity

• this means more creators start bridging

• which means more collectors start getting curious

How far does this domino go?

On the anecdotal level, a modicum of this proliferation means higher revenue to creators, secondary sales to collectors, and more L2 adopters.

At the industry level, it means more forks.

If Basepaint gains velocity, it will be forked. If/when that happens, people would be creating projects based on fun as the fundamental value prop.

While forks can often be low-effort, what would be interesting, is the memetic proliferation. This idea summates to fun-forks.

Their individual successes or failures are not the main concern. It is the potential novelties sprung about watching these fun-forks arise.

Basepaint mixes the initial value prop of BAYC (bathroom board), with a familiar nouns daily model, adds in effort-rev-share, while leveraging L2 fees.

1. fun ✔️

2. facilitates value convergence ✔️

Who knows what other novelties could be coming onchain as a result.

For onchain to grow into its next phase it seems a reprioritization of values is needed. Ordinance principles have been top of mind. Currently I’m favoring:

1. is it fun?

2. does it facilitate value convergence?

Mix in recent conversations around minting, dao plateauing, etc, and it feels like the serendipity machine is at work yet again.

Enter Basepaint.

TLDR:

• daily theme for creating pixel art

• buy a brush NFT and you have 100 pixels to use

• collaborate with others & chat in the browser

• 24hrs later it goes up as an open edition

There’s a rev-share breakdown as well. So depending on the effort put in, creators are apportioned their share of the mint revenue.

Fun may be as subjective as beauty, but the feeling is quite objective.

To me, Basepaint is fun. It’s fun to create. It’s fun to watch others create. It’s fun to collect. It’s fun to speculate on the future of the project and its creators.

The composability of crypto is a bedrock for positive sum network effects. This dynamic, when successfully expressed, is what I’m calling value convergence.

Staying within the context of Basepaint, we have a few players:

1. Basepaint platform

2. creators of the editions (basepainters)

3. collectors of the editions

4. Base chain

Through this term could estimate their individual interests to be:

1. thriving usage and increase in mints

2. thriving usage and increase in mints

3. thriving usage and increase in mints

4. thriving usage and increase in mints

Basepaint finds value in creating a novel project. Basepainters find it in creating novel pieces and earning Ξ. Collectors, in collecting those pieces and possibly selling at higher premiums. And at the chain level, Base chain finds value in facilitating novelties, and earning revenue from sequencing. It’s a win-win-win-win.

A thought experiment:

• let’s say Basepaint contines to increase gravity

• this means more creators start bridging

• which means more collectors start getting curious

How far does this domino go?

On the anecdotal level, a modicum of this proliferation means higher revenue to creators, secondary sales to collectors, and more L2 adopters.

At the industry level, it means more forks.

If Basepaint gains velocity, it will be forked. If/when that happens, people would be creating projects based on fun as the fundamental value prop.

While forks can often be low-effort, what would be interesting, is the memetic proliferation. This idea summates to fun-forks.

Their individual successes or failures are not the main concern. It is the potential novelties sprung about watching these fun-forks arise.

Basepaint mixes the initial value prop of BAYC (bathroom board), with a familiar nouns daily model, adds in effort-rev-share, while leveraging L2 fees.

1. fun ✔️

2. facilitates value convergence ✔️

Who knows what other novelties could be coming onchain as a result.