It was only a matter of time until someone came around and starting minting tokens representing celebrities. I guess it does seem a little bit shady to be minting tokens representing someone without their permission, but it seems to me like all thats doing is creating a synthetic representation of how people in general value a particular persons work. It’s actually an interesting gauge (accurate or not) of how the public perceives celebs actual influence (assuming price correlates accordingly.)
In my opinion theres a chicken and egg problem with social tokens in that for these things to get past the extremely early adopters and into the general public, you need exposure to high profile celebs. So projects like Bitclout seem to bring that sort of exposure to the public by introducing the ability to “invest” in an A list celeb.
Obviously tokens on Bitclout are 1000% fueled by speculation, but to me that is the point. If a real celeb who is listed on Bitclout is upset, the best course of action in my mind is for them to release their own social token that is actually backed by themselves, which would give it so much more authority and legitimacy and over time would knock Bitclout out. I don’t see Bitclout having lasting appeal but I do think it wakes up the general public to social tokens and is just enough controversy to get the pot stirring
17 Mar 2021