The overwhelming assumption that many Web3 investors have is that all people involved in NFTs are purely out to make money. This is, for the most part, an undoubtedly justified assumption since it is undeniable that there is a lot of money to be made in this space — but that is simply not true of all NFT owners.

Some NFT owners are in this space because they like collecting the actual NFTs themselves. For these collectors, the floor price of the NFT genuinely doesn’t matter at all. This is because they see the NFT itself as the endgame. There is simply no next step in the journey. In a way, one could say that these collectors aren’t truly investors at all.

This can be difficult to understand especially for those that come from a cryptocurrency background. Cryptocurrencies are not exactly collectible as they’re fungible and don’t typically have unique images or gifs that are linked to them via metadata on the distributed ledger. A vast majority of cryptocurrency enthusiasts are therefore understandably purely investors — with their goal being to make as much money as possible.

So why collect? What’s the point of collecting NFTs?

NFT collectors are essentially collectors, not investors, at heart — and the act of collecting itself gives collectors great joy. Consider stamp collectors, bottle cap collectors, or even vintage car collectors. Both the former have minimal resale value, but collectors still value them. Vintage cars do have resale value, but their owners rarely buy them to sell them at a profit. They may sell them in future of course, but that may be because they’ve given up on the hobby or they simply want to make space for “new” vintage cars.

Resale value is often the least of these collectors’ concerns. They’ve obtained the item through purchase or other means, they’ve possessed the item, and they’ve admired the item while it was in their possession. They’ve thereby already gained the benefit from the cost that they’ve paid if any — and what comes next won’t change the fact that they’ve already received a benefit.

If you were to pay for a movie ticket and watch the movie, you won’t care that the movie ticket is worthless after the movie because you’ve already derived enjoyment from watching it. If you were to pay for a plane ticket, you wouldn’t care that after the flight, your plane ticket would be worthless. If you pay for a nice meal, you wouldn’t care that you can’t resell the meal at a higher price after eating it. NFT collectors consider NFTs in the same way.

In reality, there is often a mix of both. NFT enthusiasts usually sit somewhere in the spectrum between investor and collector — but it is worth being mindful that pure NFT collectors do exist, and when they say that they genuinely don’t care about the floor price, they honestly mean it.

If you’re an investor, try not to judge these people based on what you think their priorities should be.

There’s a place for collectors in Web3 too.

Written by: Jpegtologist

NFTs As The Endgame was originally published in 021pulse on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

There have been some attempts by NFT project leaders and community members to organise physical meet-ups ever since the birth of this space. However, due to the combination of both real and perceived barriers and threats related to doing so, a vast majority of projects are still reluctant to organise real life meet-ups.

Issues like being afraid to dox, finding it awkward to meet “faceless” individuals that one’s only known through the internet (someone could turn out to be an axe-wielding psychopath), not being able to control who approaches and interacts (there’s no block or ignore button in physical life yet unfortunately), or even logistic complications such as the fact that many NFT communities are truly global and a single physical meet-up can only take place at one specific location at a time. Of course, projects may choose to organise many concurrent meet-ups in different locations around the world instead, but that still doesn’t beat the atmosphere of one single official meet.

The benefits of gatherings in the real world were reinforced during the recent NFT Paris event — where many project leaders and NFT enthusiasts from all over the world gathered for a few days for like-minded bonding and discussions. The event was such a huge success for NFTs on so many levels, not least of which was the indisputable fact that faith in the space had returned en masse. This was despite the Solana network being down during a large portion of that time! Project leaders got to see their community members in person for the first time — some of whom they’ve been speaking to for months on an online basis only but have already formed a strong rapport with.

So what are these benefits? Broadly speaking, I can think of a few.

Legitimacy

In a space where a vast majority of projects are simply outright scams and failures, it is often understandable that investors want some sort of peace of mind — especially if they’re planning on investing a lot of money in a project. This is why the doxxing of project leaders is so important. Some may argue against this point and say that doxxing doesn’t necessarily mean that a project can’t be a scam, or that it can’t fail. However, doxxing does drastically decrease the chance that founders will run away as can be proven by the tallying doxxed and undoxxed rugs thusfar; there are far more undoxxed rugs, even when corrected percentage-wise against the total number of undoxxed projects.

Being physically present at an event drastically increases the faith that community members will have in their founders. The presence of someone standing physically before you is perhaps the ultimate dox that you can hope for.

Legitimacy is also gained by the fact that project leaders, especially if they’ve travelled from far away to be present at a physical meet-up, were willing to take the time out of their busy schedules and pay for their flights in order to do be there in the first place. Your usual Web3 scammer wouldn’t normally put in that much effort.

Of course, as alluded to earlier, all this doesn’t make a project 100% rug-proof. Nothing does. Sometimes, the biggest and most elaborate scams can do all these things just to gain the trust of their investors before rugging them. That, however, is arguably quite rare.

Bonding

There is no doubt that meeting in real life strengthens the bond within a project’s community. Communities are undoubtedly the single most important aspect of a project, and can make or break a project. When project leaders meet their community members, and when community members meet each other, good times are shared, memories are made, and friendships are strengthened.

During large events such as NFT Paris, project leaders can even meet up with other project leaders and discuss ways that their projects can collaborate. Of course this can be done online, but a face-to-face component really helps to seal the deal. These discussions and collaborations ultimately strengthen the entire ecosystem and benefits everyone in it.

Bringing the Web3 community spirit into the real world is something beautiful to witness indeed.

Showcasing

During large-scale NFT events, project founders can showcase their projects to all present and talk about their projects to potential investors in person. This is extremely effective, and still works best despite the fact that the world is increasingly going digital.

Projects can also choose to have physical giveaways during events. During NFT Paris, the Claynosaurz team were giving out physical cards that were redeemable for “croissant” NFTs. This gave everyone there the opportunity to talk to the team about their project as well as to get something tangible from it. Receivers of croissants did not necessarily need to hold Claynosaurz NFTs in order to get them — they just needed to be physically at the event.

So what are you waiting for? If you’re a project founder, go out there and organise real-life meet-ups! More importantly, you need to attend them yourself. This is far, far more effective than many of the marketing gimmicks that the Web3 world often attempts to deploy.

Written by: Jpegtologist

NFT Community Meet-ups was originally published in 021pulse on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Time in Web3 moves differently. Days feel like weeks, weeks feel like months, and months feel like decades. Even in the depths of a bear market, the speed at which the Web3 space moves is still far greater and more terrifying than anything in Web2. There is no time for rest or relaxation. The blockchain never sleeps, and for the most part, neither do founders nor investors.

From the moment a project mints its digital assets, and sometimes even before that, it’s all systems go. Things have to be released on a weekly basis at the very minimum, especially during the first few weeks of that project’s existence. Compared to its Web2 counterparts that have the relative luxury of weeks or even months to progress, Web3 projects often have only days, to begin with, and weeks when enough initial momentum is gathered.

This is why you often see good Web3 projects progressing at a ridiculous rate. This extreme speed is celebrated as an achievement by project leaders as they smash milestones left, right, and centre. While these speedy achievements are certainly something to be proud of, make no mistake — the speed was never an option, but rather, a necessity. Any slower, and chances of survival in the long run greatly diminish.

Occasionally, projects that survive long enough may eventually be able to stabilise and exist for longer periods without maintaining the same speed and intensity that they required at the start. However, this is not a given — and some older projects still need to work at high speeds in order to stay afloat.

The reason why Web3 projects have to move so fast compared to their Web2 counterparts is that most asset prices and project sentiments are based on hype — and speed and intensity help to maintain that hype. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that the prices of Web3 assets in general fluctuate wildly from day to day — a direct reflection of the short attention span that a majority of Web3 investors have. Projects, therefore, need to capitalise on this intrinsic volatility to pump the prices of their assets — and achieving things quickly helps with this.

Things move really quickly in Web3. While this may be daunting, it is also what makes Web3 so fun, exciting, and constantly refreshing. Let’s show the Web2 world the true meaning of efficiency. Let’s show the Web2 world the true value of time.

Written by: Jpegtologist

Time In Web3 was originally published in 021pulse on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

NFT raffles are extremely popular in Web3, as evidenced by the constant stream of raffles that are being hosted on raffle platforms 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They’re no doubt fun precisely because participants have the opportunity to win big with a relatively small wager.

But are they really worth it?

The answer to this lies primarily in how you’re getting involved — as a host or as a participant.

We’ll discuss the latter first, since most fall into this category.

Raffle Ticket Purchaser

As a raffle ticket purchaser, you’re usually severely disadvantaged when you participate in any sort of raffle – even if you buy multiple tickets. The prospect of winning an expensive NFT with a relatively small wager is understandably tempting indeed. Unfortunately, it is often the case that this gamble is simply not worth it. The odds are severely stacked against you – and some quick math can easily reveal this.

Many raffles have far more than 100 tickets sold when the timer hits 0. So based on a typical 100-ticket raffle, purchasing one single ticket (which may not have been necessarily cheap to begin with) would only give you a mere 1% chance of winning. This means that if you were to participate in 100 of these raffles with one ticket each, you’d probably win only once. The more superstitious among us may feel that they’re “eventually winning” after losing many times. Unfortunately, in reality, this is not the necessarily the case since every new raffle presents a brand new set of probabilities. Just because you’ve lost the last hundred raffles, it doesn’t mean that you will win the next one. In fact, probability states that you’ll lose the next one as well. You can (and many will) lose every single raffle that you’ll participate in in your lifetime. If such a situation turns out to be the case, then you might as well have pooled all the money you’ve spent on raffles and bought an NFT of your choice outright.

Buying a few more tickets for a specific raffle isn’t likely to help much either. Increasing your minuscule chance of winning by a minuscule amount will still render your overall chance of winning minuscule. You could, of course, choose to buy a large proportion of the tickets. However, this would increase your potential risk by an equally large margin — and unless you buy more than 50% of the total tickets that are ultimately sold, you’re still more likely to lose than win anyway.

“So if the odds are so poor, why do people always seem to be winning? I’ve seen people win multiple NFTs worth 5 digits each despite only paying a small amount for one or two tickets.”

Indeed, with the exception of instances where raffle creators buy out their own tickets, almost every raffle will have a real winner.

Winners, more often than not in their sheer excitement and joy, immediately take to social media to show off their wins. They proudly boast about how little they’ve spent and how big of a win they’ve achieved.

And this is entirely justified!

Why wouldn’t you celebrate if something good happened to you? They should rightly boast and share their joy with the world. And the more generous among us may even feel some sort of vicarious joy.

Through no fault of this lucky group of happy winners, this inevitably creates the appearance that everyone is always winning. While this could not be further from the truth, it certainly works wonders in encouraging people to cast probability and mathematics aside and expect raffle wins. If all raffle losers equally shared their losses on social media every time they participated and lost, then the optics of raffle probabilities would be far more aligned with true probabilities.

However, in the same way that I don’t blame raffle winners for posting their wins on social media, I don’t blame raffle losers for not posting their losses on social media. It is unexciting, mildly shameful to some, and not much to write home about. At the end of the day, it’s down to the raffle participants to know exactly what they’re getting themselves into regardless of what they’ve seen on their feeds.

Raffle Organiser

Should you sell your NFT via a raffle? The answer to this is actually less straightforward. There are a few advantages to selling your NFT via a raffle.

Firstly, you’ll almost definitely sell your NFT when the raffle period ends – that much is a given.

Secondly, there is a reasonable probability that you’ll earn more than simply listing your NFT on the marketplace.

Thirdly, it’s far more exciting than simply selling your NFT on a marketplace.

As a raffle creator, you get to decide how many tickets in total you want to issue for the raffle as well as the price of each ticket. The less tickets issued, the higher the perception that raffle participants will have of their winning chances. The amount you earn is the number of tickets eventually sold multiplied by the price of the ticket. Therefore, it makes sense that if there are less tickets, the price of each ticket should be higher and vice versa.

Typically, when raffles sell out all their tickets, the total value comes up at far higher than what raffle creators would otherwise have earned had they just listed their NFTs on a marketplace. Sometimes, raffles do not sell out their tickets and raffle creators earn less than they otherwise would. But this is less common. A majority of the time, raffle creators get a fair amount for their NFTs even after fees have been deducted.

It is worth noting that if a raffle seems as though it is not going to sell out, and the timer is running out, don’t panic. There are often lurkers waiting to buy a big bunch of tickets right at the end. This increases their chance of winning because it makes the raffle seem less desirable up until moments before the very end. It also helps them better gauge their probability of winning based on the number of tickets they’re buying since it is unlikely that more tickets will be bought after them.

That said, and as already alluded to, the risk of selling your NFT through a raffle is the fact that you could end up getting far less for it than you’d have hoped.

Conclusion

In summary, if you participate in a raffle, you’ll most likely lose. Raffling off an NFT, on the other hand, is a reasonable option for liquidation. That said, good luck in your raffle adventures!

You’re going to need it!

Written by: Jpegtologist

Are NFT Raffles Worth It? was originally published in 021pulse on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

There comes a point in time in many Web3 investors’ minds when they just want to sell all their digital assets and leave the space forever, even if it means solidifying monumental losses. Needless to say, this sentiment usually hits hardest when the bear market is prolonged, as is the case during “crypto winters”.

Of course, every single investor has a different and unique circumstance in life, and sometimes, complete capitulation is necessary and the absolutely correct thing to do — especially if there are more pressing matters that require financing in an investor’s real life. Few would judge a community member for “paperhanding” all their monkey JPEGs if it is to pay for an operation that could save their child’s life, for instance.

However, for those that can afford it, it is best to avoid complete capitulation. It’s certainly still worth capitulating a large chunk of your portfolio if you’ve personally lost all hope in Web3, but try to hold the remainder — until, at least, the market gets better. Viewing these remaining assets as sunk costs could help to a degree.

Why is this recommended?

Because, simply, an investor will never know pain like missing out on a bull run precisely because they’ve sold everything prior to that run at a loss. The deep horror and regret that sinks in when they watch helplessly as prices fly way past even their original buy-ins is not pleasant in the slightest.

Here’s a thought: if every single person that invested in Bitcoin prior to the last crypto winter (tail end of the last decade) held all their Bitcoin and did not capitulate until now despite the big, prolonged crash in between, then all of them, without exception, should be in massive profit right now. For many, the only reason they aren’t in profit now is that they’ve chosen to capitulate when they were at a loss. While capitulating some but not all assets may mean that there is still a net loss when the bull market returns, it’s certainly not as bad as if there was full capitulation at the bottom.

On top of merely recuperating losses, continuing to hold assets can still yield benefits such as continued membership to exclusive communities and passive income.

It’s not all bad.

Every investment strategy comes with risks, and investors should carefully consider their financial situation, risk tolerance, and investment goals before making any decisions. However, by adopting a “never fully capitulate” approach, investors in Web3 can potentially benefit from long-term growth opportunities while avoiding the negative consequences of market volatility.

Written by: Jpegtologist

Avoid Full Capitulation was originally published in 021pulse on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

People are always looking for more “alpha”. Everyone wants to buy into the next project early so that they can flip it for profit when it moons. Sometimes, when there’s too much going on, or if investors are simply too busy to do their own research, they turn to alpha callers. When I say alpha callers, I mean anyone who shills projects at any time and in any place. They don’t have to be professionals.

I no longer listen to what people say, I just watch what they do. Behaviour never lies.

So here’s the thing about alpha callers. If viewed through a completely sceptical lens, the act of alpha calling is somewhat paradoxical in itself.

If someone truly believes that a project will do well and will increase in price, why will they want to tell people about it? Surely, they’d want to buy it themselves, so that they can make more profit than anyone else. Why would they want to share the information and risk paying more themselves when someone else buys in before them? It makes sense if they themselves have bought their fill first before recommending it as an entry to other people — but that would still mean that those other people are pumping the caller’s bags.

In fact, it makes far more sense for callers to do the opposite if they’re extremely bullish. Surely, they’ll want to heap fear, uncertainty, and doubt on the project. This may cause people to lose faith and sell, bringing down the price of the asset and giving the caller a better entry.

With that in mind, it’s worth considering the possible reasons for why someone would make a particular alpha call.

1. As mentioned earlier, for other people to pump the bags that they’ve bought beforehand. They may even use them as exit liquidity.
2. They’ve been paid by the projects themselves to make the call.
3. They’re paid professionally as alpha callers for a community and it is their job. This, however, does not automatically mean that both points 1 and 2 can’t still apply.
4. They are nurturing a social media presence and want to gain Web3’s respect by showing that they have knowledge and can predict future trends.
5. They may not have liquidity themselves, but they truly want other people who do have liquidity to benefit. They are so genuinely passionate about the project and about helping people.

The charitable assumption is that everyone’s motivation is always reason 5. Unfortunately, as we well know, this isn’t always the case. Reason 4 is the next best, since the caller’s motives are still fully aligned with that of their audience even if they are a little self-centred. Once we go to reasons 1, 2, and 3, the quality of the calls start to degrade as motivations muddy the objectivity of the assessments.

So are alpha calls even useful at all?

The answer to this is actually a resounding yes. All calls are useful, even if the call is malicious and designed to create exit liquidity for the caller. They should never, however, be taken at face value no matter how good they may seem. The usefulness of each call lies in the analysis of the call itself. Even the worst call is useful because investors who have properly analysed the caller and the call itself can know to avoid the precise project being shilled.

Occasionally, alpha callers may even make you aware of a project that you’ve never known about before. This is useful in itself as it puts a project, regardless of how good or bad it is, within your radar. You would still need to do your own research after knowing about it, of course, but at least you’d know to start.

So how should you analyse a call?

Caller Integrity

Look first at the person making the call. Are they known to sell their services to projects? Are they known to be big whales that have used their followers as exit liquidity in the past? Or perhaps they are simply an enthusiastic caller that calls what they are truly bullish on (these are rarer than you may think).

As part of caller integrity, try to decipher the motive behind each particular call. For instance, if a project is called on a presale and the caller’s buy-in is the same as yours, then there can’t be much of a selfish motive since, if anything, callers would want more people to buy on normal whitelists or secondary so that they can use those people as exit liquidity. Of course, this does not apply if the caller is simply a paid shiller whose job it is to sell as much of the presale as possible.

Caller Competence

Consider also the competence of the caller. Look at the historical record of a particular alpha caller. Consider all their calls, not just the calls that they’ve been successful with. Many alpha callers will naturally want to showcase their successes and downplay their failures. Some may even try to delete historical evidence of their failures. Be wary of these individuals.

The Call Itself

Consider the actual project that the alpha caller is shilling. Consider the explanation about why a particular call has been made if an explanation has been offered. This may involve a bit more digging and research on your end. Look at the project’s Twitter account, look at the team and read through their profiles if they’re doxed, look at their Discord channel. Look at how long they’ve been around. Study the charts — look at whether a particular buy-in makes sense based on recent a longer-term price movements. Gain a general feel of the project independent to what the alpha caller has proclaimed.

Also survey other preferably trustworthy and unrelated alpha callers. Are they bullish on the same project? As many of us are aware, hype plays a big part in whether a project is successful or not, especially in the Web3 ecosystem. The fact that many separate, unrelated callers are shilling the same project all at once may be reason, in itself, to buy in since they could be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by creating an artificial hype-pump later down the line.

Avoid Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is where you’ve already made up your mind about something, but continue to do your own research and subconsciously take on board only information that supports your conviction. Alpha calls can create a lot of confirmation bias as they’re more often than not hyper-bullish about projects regardless of how good those projects actually are. In such scenarios, it is a case of consciously trying to remain objective.

Closing thoughts

The purpose of this article is not to villainise all alpha callers — but rather, to remind you, as investors, that there is almost always more than meets the eye behind each and every single alpha call. If investing in Web3 was as easy as simply buying and selling whenever someone else tells you to, everyone would be rich now.

All alpha calls are useful, but only when coupled with deep objective thought, research, and analysis.

The Alpha Paradox was originally published in 021pulse on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

When it comes to buying into NFT collections and brands, NFT enthusiasts often agonise over whether they should buy a rarer piece for a higher price or a floor piece for floor price. Of course, the best outcome is to buy a rare piece at the floor — but this is not usually possible simply because rarer pieces are often rightly priced higher. In some collections, rarer pieces may even have added utilities compared to more common pieces especially if certain traits within a collection yield added advantages.

I guess the answer to this question lies mainly in what you want out of your NFT.

If your main reason to buy in is the art and the collectability, and you’re planning to diamond-hand your NFT until the end of time, then choose an NFT that you like the look of the most so long as it is within your budget. Forget about rarity.

If your main reason is to join a gated community and nothing else, then buy a floor piece.

If your main reason is financially-driven, then the answer as to whether you buy a rare piece or a floor piece really depends on the state of the NFT collection and the market in general.

My personal observation is that it is better to buy rare pieces and pieces with sought-after traits when prices are low and hype has died down. When prices are high and entry is expensive, then floor pieces would suffice.

This is because the price variation between rare and common NFTs narrow greatly when the prices and volume are low. When an NFT is relatively cheaper, then it would naturally follow that the rarer pieces within that NFT’s collection will also be cheaper in absolute terms. The actual amount paid, though higher than floor, is still low.

I’ll use a Web2 example to illustrate this. If I were to buy a plane ticket and it costs me only $10, with upgrades to my seat costing another $10, that’s technically a 100% price difference. However, I still wouldn’t think twice about paying for the upgrade since the total cost is only $20. I don’t care that the premium is 100% of the ticket’s original price. If, however, the plane ticket costs me $1000, I wouldn’t pay for an upgrade even if the upgrade “only” costs 10% of the “floor” ticket’s price, since that would mean that I need to pay $100 extra to upgrade. The absolute amount I’m paying is still a lot even though percentage-wise, it may seem like a good deal on paper.

To add to this, it seems that for many NFT collections, the percentage difference between floors and rares paradoxically narrows when prices go low. So while under normal circumstances, a certain rare trait may be 50% above floor price, when that collection tanks, that same rare trait may only be 20% above floor price. This is not always the case of course, especially when traits are so rare that their price can be artificially maintained by a few individuals. However, when it is the case, it represents an added “discount” on top of the absolute-price concept. Not only would you be getting a cheaper price in absolute terms, you’d also be getting a cheaper price because people don’t value their NFTs that much above the floor anymore.

It is worth nothing that rarer traits do have less liquidity than floor pieces if you’re looking to price your specific NFT fairly based on its traits. Of course, if you floor your rare NFT then it would be more liquid than an actual floor NFT — but you wouldn’t be getting as much as you otherwise could for it.

In summary, whether or not you buy a rare NFT for more money or a common floor NFT for less money depends on why you’re buying the NFT in the first place. If you’re doing it for financial gain, then buying rares when the floor price is low may be a play since your potential for upside is far greater than if you were just going to invest in a floor piece.

Written by: Jpegtologist

Rarity Versus Floor was originally published in 021pulse on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Self-sufficiency is incredibly important in Web3. Projects that can produce what they require in-house without relying on external support or funding stand exponentially higher chances of success than those that don’t.

The two main aspects of self-sufficiency that need to be achieved in order for a project to be considered truly self-sufficient are expertise and funding.

Expertise

As part of its core team, self-sufficient projects have individuals capable of doing everything it requires. In Web3, this typically includes a full suite of leaders, front-end developers, back-end developers, marketing experts, and community managers.

Funding

A truly self-sufficient project can generate enough cash to fund itself through a sustainable revenue stream or streams. It does not need to rely on external funding to exist or even grow.

What about as an investor?

When choosing an NFT to invest in, there are several reasons why self-sufficient projects are just better.

Sustainability

Projects that are self-sufficient are more likely to be sustainable in the long run. They are not dependent on external funding and can continue to operate even if the market conditions change or funding sources dry up.

Control

Projects that are self-sufficient have more creative freedom and control over themselves. They can focus on what they believe in without being influenced by external parties — some of whom may have different goals or interests.

Community Building

Self-sufficient NFT projects are more likely to build strong and dedicated communities around their work. These communities can help support the project and promote its growth over time.

Self-sufficiency is a spectrum!

It is extremely rare for projects to be truly self-sufficient. Most projects fall within a spectrum of self-sufficiency. So as a project leader, don’t despair if occasionally, you require the help of an external developer or even require external funding. This article simply serves as a reminder that it is good to work towards self-sufficiency.

In summary, self-sufficiency allows projects to build sustainably and form long-lasting communities around their work. These solid foundations greatly increase a project’s chances of future success. As an investor, it’s worth considering a project’s degree of self-sufficiency before deciding to invest.

Written by: Jpegtologist

Project Self-Sufficiency In Web3 was originally published in 021pulse on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

I once told a co-worker in real life about Solana NFTs and why he should get involved with them. I made some compelling arguments, and showed him the wide variety of NFTs he could choose from by scrolling through a marketplace. He was excited and said that he’d take a closer look at them once he got home.

The next day at work, I went up to him and asked him if he’s bought any NFTs. The answer was, surprisingly, yes! He was, however, quick to point out that many of the NFTs featured drugs such as cannabis, and that he wasn’t exactly down with that. The NFTs that he had chosen did not feature any drugs of course.

I was in full agreement with him.

I do not like recreational drugs at all, and so it reasonably follows that I don’t like them in NFTs either — and by drugs, I’m including even legal drugs such as cigarettes, cigars and alcohol. Thankfully, the drug meta in the Solana space has now shifted away a little bit since then thanks to the success of clean projects like Claynosaurz. There is, unfortunately, still a lingering underlying culture of drug use in Solana. Many projects that have nothing to do with drugs, for instance, include PFPs that are smoking joints or cigarettes.

Why? How is it relevant? How is the picture of a monkey or a wolf smoking relevant to anything?

So I get that there’s an underlying rebellious culture that the Solana ecosystem as a whole possesses; a sense that we are different from the rest of the world because they generally see cryptocurrencies and NFTs as a joke and only we really understand what we’re about. The flaunting of recreational drug culture may simply be an extension of that — and a way that we can showcase our wild sense of identity.

However, let’s step back for a moment and really consider the situation that we are in. There is no doubt at all that the world, in general, still broadly considers recreational drug use as something undesirable. Cigarettes and alcohol, for example, are legal in a vast majority countries. Yet, there is not a single country in the world that considers them good and wholesome things. They are, at best, guilty pleasures. I know that increasingly, many people feel that cannabis is entirely safe (it isn’t, but that’s a discussion for another day), but when Elon Musk smoked a joint on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Tesla stocks immediately tumbled. Even Elon is not immune to the judgement of the rest of the world.

So why should we care? Why do we need to pander to what the rest of the world thinks?

Because, quite simply, they have the money; and if we want our little NFT ecosystem to be adopted by people, we need to get them on our side. I know it may seem like the NFT ecosystem is already very big — but in the grand scheme of things, we are nothing more than a dot in the global economy. If disrupting the Web2 world is our ultimate goal, then we need to make ourselves more appealing to the world in general.

This is precisely why I am a big supporter of clean projects like Claynosaurz, Okay Bears, and Famous Foxes. Being acceptable to a wide audience is one of the key ways that Web3 adoption can grow. Not all projects necessarily need to be Disney and appeal to every single person on the planet, but as it stands now, the genre of a vast majority of NFT projects are simply far too controversial and fringe in the grand scheme of things. It is my hope that that percentage can swing greatly in favour of clean projects in the future. Perhaps a few fringe projects can still exist, just for overall balance — but it simply cannot be the majority if we want ourselves to gain widespread adoption.

As thought leaders in the NFT space, let’s do our best to guide the ecosystem towards a cleaner image in our quest to gain widespread adoption.

Written by: Jpegtologist

Image Cleansing To Increase Adoption was originally published in 021pulse on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Web3 project leaders often create applications for their NFT collections or tokens. This is important for the growth of a project as it forms the very basis of giving a project value.

If, however, a Web3 application does not have hardware wallet compatibility yet, then it simply should not exist for public usage at all until it does have hardware wallet compatibility — unless that application does not require an on-chain connection of a wallet for the verification or use of assets.

Releasing an application whereby community members are forced to transfer their valuable assets to a hot wallet in order to fully utilise is highly irresponsible and borderline immoral on the part of project leaders.

Indeed, if those assets are subsequently drained because they were in the hot wallet precisely because a project needed them to be in a hot wallet, the fault lies squarely with the project’s developers or leaders — even if the drain was from somewhere else entirely unrelated to the project.

You’ve heard me right. If a project “forces” the transfer of assets from a hardware wallet to a hot wallet, then even if the user of that wallet accidentally connected this hot wallet to another unrelated malicious application somewhere else in Web3 and had their wallet drained, the fault would lie squarely on the project that had encouraged them to hold their precious asset in a hot wallet in the first place. If the application was compatible with a hardware wallet, then that now-stolen NFT would still be in its original owner’s possession.

Of course, a project can rarely force an asset holder to actually do anything — but more often than not, if an asset holder can’t use an application, they would be disadvantaged in some way.

And disadvantaging the most careful and responsible members of a community is not the cleverest thing to do.

There might be some rebuttal to this along the lines of “Everyone should be responsible and safe while using Web3, only linking their wallets to trusted sites.”

This is true. People should be careful when it comes to the custody of their Web3 assets. Unfortunately, there is no way to guarantee that a hot wallet will truly be safe unless no transactions happen at all. Even if a hot wallet only ever connects to and transacts on bookmarked and trusted sites, who is to say that those sites will never be hijacked — with their original links linking to drainers instead?

Hot wallets are effectively a ticking time bomb, and there is always a lingering chance that they’ll be drained at some point. This is why for many, being responsible on Web3 means having all their assets on hardware wallets.

Moreover, legit projects on Web3 should set a good example and proclaim the right message about how digital assets should be kept safe. Creating applications without hardware wallet support is doing precisely the opposite.

Most projects already understand and agree with this article — that’s why most applications already have hardware wallet support. If, however, you’re one of those projects that are releasing applications that are incompatible with hardware wallets, think hard about what you’re doing.

Yes, you may be behind schedule. Yes, there may be a lot of FUD from the community because you’re behind schedule. Yes, hardware wallet support is a much more difficult and longwinded process to achieve than you might have originally thought.

Yes, it’s all a big effort. But that effort is worth it. The delays are worth it. If you truly believe in making a Web3 a better place, then you need to do the right thing — especially for the community that has invested in you and has put their trust in you.

Written by: Jpegtologist

Hardware Wallet Compatibility For Web3 Applications was originally published in 021pulse on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.