The Battle of Creator Tokens: Founders of Public Chains Spark Heated Debate in the Encryption Community

The encryption community has recently been buzzing due to a heated debate surrounding "creator tokens." The founders of two major public chains have rarely taken the stage themselves to engage in a direct confrontation over a certain social networking platform and a certain token issuance platform.

The spark of this debate originated from a researcher's public questioning of a certain social network platform. This platform is dedicated to tokenizing user profiles and posts, claiming to help creators profit directly from their content. However, the researcher believes this is merely a renovation of an old trick. He bluntly stated that the vast majority of tokens issued on automated market makers, which have extremely low liquidity and exponential price curves, are essentially "garbage coins that change the soup but not the medicine."

In response to this sharp criticism, the founder of a certain public chain quickly defended himself. He stated on social media: "I think you are wrong. The content is valuable, and the creators are valuable." He further emphasized that equating assets issued on different platforms is a logical fallacy in itself, as not all Tokens are the same, and the fundamentals are very important.

This remark quickly provoked a rebuttal from another public chain founder. He sarcastically said: "Really? Do the coins on a certain social platform have any rights to the future cash flow from the creators?"

Subsequently, the two founders engaged in a heated debate. One side insisted that the content itself has intrinsic value, while the other questioned how this value can be measured and manifested. The focus of the debate centered on issues such as the definition of content value, the rights of Token holders, and the nature of creator Tokens.

Interestingly, critics have been vigorously promoting their own ecosystem's encryption assets over the past few years, but to enhance his persuasiveness in this debate, he added: "I have been saying for years that certain encryption assets are just digital garbage, with no intrinsic value at all. It's like loot boxes in mobile games, and people spend as much as $150 billion a year on mobile games."

At the same time, a certain social networking platform, which has become the focal point of controversy, has also attracted market attention. Its Token has experienced an astonishing increase of 883% over the past month. Factors driving this wave of market activity include positive news about the integration of content Tokenization features in relevant applications, as well as the launch of perpetual contracts for this Token on a major exchange.

However, on-chain data analysts provided a different interpretation. It was observed that the contract trading volume of the Token on a certain centralized exchange far exceeded that of spot trading, reaching as much as 16.4 times. Analysts pointed out that this seems to be an independent speculative market, but there have even been no single trades above $500,000 on-chain recently, suggesting that funds within the centralized exchange are manipulating the market.

The intense confrontation between the founders of public chains not only reveals the profound differences in the encryption world regarding the essence of "creator tokens," but also reflects the complex competitive relationships and ideological conflicts between different camps. There is no clear winner in this debate, much like the ongoing argument in today's world over the definition of value, which fiercely collides between ideals and reality, beliefs and skepticism.