A cumulation for my suggests to upgrade the Lens protocol:

An important feature to increase scarcity within the Lens ecosystem could be allowing creators to specify the blocks in which their posts can be collected. This functionality would have several benefits. For one, it would allow creators to specify a limited window in which their posts can be collected, creating inherent scarcity. Additionally, it would allow creators to specify a specific, potentially scarce block for collection, such as a palindrome block. I believe that this added functionality would increase economic incentives for both collectors and creators, and allow creators to more accurately predict their expected income. Another tool to modify collects would be to have a linearly or exponentially collect price increase, so creators can get maximal value from a collect, get data on their collectoors price points, and create value for collectors that follow their profile with push notifications.

I also suggest leveraging Polygon's scalability by using a data layer in a way similar to Eigenlayer secured by staked Matic or a Matic derivative and a lens native token, so the data layer is incentivized to provide data space for lens protocol first. I believe that this approach could increase the scalability of the Lens protocol and align incentives with the use of a coin closely tied to the platform. 

I also would expect that a rent-based model for Lens profiles, rather than a permanent minting model, could create recurring revenue for the protocol and increase security. With the permanent profile model, hoarding has no upkeep expenses, burnt profiles are completely gone, and malicious actors could severely worsen the user experience. With this model though, I would suggest the launch of an opt-in insurance dao which allows you to pay for X years in advance to be used to extend your NFT expiration date, and notify the user via PUSH when they are no longer insured.

This suggestion is pretty simple, well not in implementation, but as a concept. ZKposting is a pivotal in allowing for baking in anonymity for posting. Would probably work best on a rollup, so there could be aliases tied to private keys for revenue collections. But, ZK tech goes pretty far above my nontechnical head when I haven’t binged the content in a couple months.

I consider this last suggestion to be the most important for value creation within the protocol, basically  I was wondering if it were possible to introduce a new type of NFT into Lens to provide more services for groups of creators to provide for users. Here's the gist: should there the ability for let’s say a minimum of 10 LPP come to a quorum to mint a Lens Feed Profile. The LFP would only have followers, but the 10 LPP creators could propagate their content via a single signature or let’s say LPP #1 wants to post, so 2 LPP from LPP #2-10 must sign off. This could also be used for revenue splits, and larger groups of creatoors have larger audiences which could increase sponsor presence and revenue in the space. A notable example of a successful attempt at this model would be T-series, however they did not have the ownership properties of their channel that these creators would have on lens. For normal users, this could mean creating a feed curated by close friends or investor buddies. An important final part of this idea is the ability to have each creator's followers receive the feed from the LFP to increase viewership and in the users case of a couple of friends to not have their followers be pointed to the feed.

Overall, I believe that these suggestions offer potential ways to increase scarcity, scalability, privacy, and monetization of the Lens platform. It will be important to carefully consider the benefits and drawbacks of each approach and determine the best path forward. In this post, I did mention the potential creation of a lens native token, while there is no known information of any such thing. In this industry, it’s very rare to see a protocol have angel investors and a seed investor and not create a token with utility within this protocol. There is a reason they are called angel investors and seed investors as opposed to generous donors. I am very interested in others opinions on these topics, so please comment down below 🙂!