“There’s something apocalyptic about it,” someone told me this week.
We weren’t talking about the war. Or the pandemic. Rather, we were sharing an incredulous chuckle at a series of announcements by Yuga Labs, the company behind NFT sensation Bored Ape Yacht Club. Over the past month, Yuga made a barrage of eyebrow-raising power moves. In a matter of weeks, they acquired CryptoPunks, launched a currency, closed a $450 million seed round and released a feature-film quality trailer for a major metaverse launch.
The CryptoPunks acquisition wasn’t cheap. The currency launch minted dozens of new millionaires overnight. The funding round valued Yuga at $4 billion. The metaverse project, dubbed “OtherSide,” was billed as an effort to construct a “media empire,” and I’d note that if Yuga paid to license “Break On Through” for the trailer, that probably wasn’t cheap either.
10,000 jpeg images of monkeys dressed in different outfits morphed into a multi-billion dollar company in the space of 12 months. A rough measure of Yuga’s NFT market cap (using the combined floor price for Bored Apes and two spinoff projects) equates to around 1.5% of Ethereum’s entire market value.
In short: A single “base” cartoon of a disinterested ape appears to be taking over the world. This world, yes, but also a digital world still marked “under construction,” like so many single-family homes in America.
On Saturday, when “gas” (the fee you pay to transact on Ethereum) was low, I took the opportunity to exit the vast majority of my crypto positions. I kept some Bitcoin, and left a few thousand dollars scattered across a few tokens. I also kept the handful of NFTs I bought, mostly because there’s no liquidity for them. My three-month experiment in Web3 is, for all intents and purposes, over.
A few readers were surprised at my foray into crypto, which began in earnest in January. Ultimately, I no longer felt comfortable having no Bitcoin, and more importantly, I couldn’t countenance my own willful ignorance. I knew more about crypto than the next person, but considering how few people are actually invested in the space, and the extent to which those who are mostly confine their activity to centralized exchanges and thus have no experience with DeFi (decentralized finance) and NFTs, that wasn’t saying much. So, I deployed some play money on-chain and dabbled in everything I could possibly dabble in, from DEXs (decentralized exchanges) to DAO (decentralized autonomous organization) tokens to photography NFTs.
At first, I was enamored with it, especially the DeFi aspect. But my infatuation quickly gave way to skepticism and, eventually, something like disdain. I can sum up the main problem in a single sentence: It’s a hopelessly self-referential system that assumes perpetual appreciation against the dollar (or the euro, etc.). When the appreciation stops, it sows the seeds for an existential crisis.
With that in mind, I wanted to share a few things I learned since January. If nothing else, I think this can serve as a useful CliffsNotes for anyone considering a foray into something most people don’t understand. If you get bogged down, keep trudging along. I’ve endeavored to make this accessible and the NFT discussion is important. I saved it for last, prone as I am to burying the lede.
Lucrative, as long as…
Let’s start with decentralized exchanges. On DEXs, you can “stake” various tokens (including those created by the exchange itself) for “rewards” or, euphemistically and interchangeably, “interest.” The rewards are based on any number of things. You can collect a portion of trading fees on a given platform, for example. The interest rates are exorbitant, sometimes to the point of absurdity. This is a very lucrative setup as long as the underlying tokens are appreciating.
Although there are a variety of platforms on which you can collect interest on deposited USD-pegged stablecoins paid out in USD-pegged stablecoins at higher rates than you’d receive in an FDIC-insured bank account, the highest rates are generally associated with the staking of something other than stablecoins. Those rewards are typically denominated in that coin or, at best, that chain’s native token.
Of course, if the coins are depreciating rapidly against the dollar, both your principal (your staked deposit) and your interest are depreciating too. The only way you don’t lose money is if the rate of token interest (i.e., the rate at which you’re receiving depreciating coins) exceeds the scope of the selloff in the tokens relative to the dollar.
Ponzi meets hyperinflation
Getting involved in a DAO can be a recipe for losing your entire investment depending, of course, on the DAO’s structure, objectives and your own experience level.
There are dozens of social media influencers (many of whom use Bored Ape or CryptoPunk avatars as profile pictures as a way to legitimize themselves to prospective followers) who purport to analyze the “tokenomics” associated with various projects and the developers behind them. “I don’t bet on coins, I bet on teams,” is one common refrain.
In some cases, the setups are a fusion of Ponzi dynamics and hyperinflation carried out over a very short window. If you get in early, you can receive emissions at wild rates (e.g., 60,000%). The bet, in essence, is that you’ll receive enough free tokens to outrun the hyperinflation.
That may or may not work, though. In adverse market conditions (e.g., if crypto is selling off alongside stocks and other risk assets), these tokens can sell off even harder than, say, Bitcoin or Ethereum. That’s especially true of projects built on other projects, where, for example, a team issues a token and uses the proceeds to acquire other tokens in an effort to gain outsized control over some utility those tokens confer upon the holder.
Ultimately, the odds of losing everything in such structures appear disproportionately high, even relative to other high-risk corners of DeFi.
You too can be Drift
NFTs are perhaps the most lamentable corner of Web3, precisely because, based on my experience, the majority of the artists and creators are honest people intent on creating real value for collectors. That includes, by the way, Yuga Labs. One think you can’t say about Bored Ape Yacht Club is that it didn’t create wealth for its investors.
To be sure, NFTs are full of inspiring stories, the most astounding of which belongs to Isaac Wright, better known as “Drift,” whose work first landed the Army veteran in a jail cell before ultimately vaulting him to semi-stardom on the way to Sotheby’s. Another, longer-running, success story is the London-based “XCOPY” who, on Thursday, sold more than $20 million of his signature, flickering Mad Max-esque NFTs in a dramatic 10-minute open edition offering. That impressive haul doesn’t count what he sold in a trio of more limited auctions carried out just an hour previous.
Success stories aside, the problems in the space are myriad and endemic. Most obviously, Wright is the exception, not the rule. In fact, he may be the sole exception. I’ve spent months researching the major artists in the space and I wasn’t able to find a single example (again, with the exception of Wright) of a previously unknown artist whose work would garner anything like the prices it garners as NFTs.
Wright’s work would’ve made him a millionaire regardless. It was just a matter of time. And there are some established artists in the NFT space who had preexisting careers. But for the most part, it all rests on a (very) shaky foundation: The mere act of tokenizing the work and denominating it in Ethereum confers a novelty premium that likely wouldn’t exist outside of blockchain.
It’s obvious why someone would pay $50,000 for one of Wright’s photos, assuming the work comes with some authenticating trait, be it the NFT provenance or, for a physical print, his signature. He embarks on death-defying climbs to capture surreal panoramas. Often, the work is compositionally flawless, although I’m not sure even he realizes it. It’s possible the work is still undervalued, even after a 12-month run more dizzying than one of the balancing acts that made him famous. On the other hand, it’s not obvious why anyone would pay $5,000 for a picture some random person took of a palm tree (and yes, I’m referring to a real collection there, but since I’m suggesting it’s overvalued, I won’t mention the artist).
Further (and this speaks to the self-referential points made above), too many NFT artists and collectors have trained their minds to think only in terms of Ethereum. That’s very dangerous. When Wright sells an NFT for 50 ETH, it’s likely that both he and the buyer think “50” first, rather than the dollar equivalent, which, as of this writing, is roughly $155,000.
That tendency could be ruinous in the longer run for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it you make a sale for $150,000 today, convert half to dollars but leave half in Ethereum, then spend the $75,000 you converted, you’re effectively betting your good standing with the IRS that the portion you kept in Ethereum doesn’t depreciate by more than, say, 50%. If it does, the dollar value of the remaining Ethereum at tax time won’t be sufficient to cover the bill on the $75,000 you removed and spent.
The risk associated with that scenario grows materially the more one sells. Although I imagine someone like Wright has incorporated himself in order to (legally) minimize the tax bill, most artists likely haven’t. That means the tax burden on proceeds moved off chain could be very onerous if the artist doesn’t understand how those proceeds will be treated and how much to put aside to cover the bill.
Let me offer another word of caution. Wright, XCOPY and other wildly successful artists are fond of delivering inspirational messages to their followers, many of whom are artists too. Those messages are genuine and well-meaning. However, everyone with a camera isn’t Wright. And everyone with Photoshop isn’t XCOPY. It’s not as simple as “Never quit.” Indeed, telling legions of artists with good-paying day jobs to “never quit” (because if only they dedicate enough time and energy, they too can sell at a prestigious auction house or make $20 million in 10 minutes), is a good way to ensure those people do, in fact, quit. Not on their dreams, but rather on their real jobs. That’s a bet. And it’s one most people will lose.
Finally, and relatedly, quitting one’s job to pursue a dream isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but anyone who’s inclined to take such a step in the context of NFTs needs to understand this: Even if you succeed beyond your expectations, the whole endeavor could still go awry in the event Ethereum depreciates substantially.
It may be wholly viable (indeed, it might be wholly advisable) for someone with a sizable following to quit a $40,000 per year day job to sell photography NFTs with Ethereum at $3,000. After all, you only have to sell 15 of them in a year at 1 ETH each (not easy, but not terribly difficult either) to be financially better off. If you incorporate yourself, you’ll get better tax treatment too, and you’ll be able to deduct your cameras, film, etc. If Ethereum goes from $3,000 to $10,000, you’re a genius. If it goes to $60,000, like Bitcoin did, you’re a visionary. If, however, it goes to $300, you’re broke. You’ll be selling your work for 10 times less and demand will crater as sentiment for crypto assets deteriorates. You’ll also owe taxes, in dollars, for any Ethereum proceeds you cashed in to pay your bills. Again: It’s all dangerously self-referential.
I put off a crash course in Web3 for as long as I could. I stuck assiduously to some version of a script that said crypto wasn’t a “real asset,” that NFTs were a fad and that the metaverse would be more “Wrath of the Gods” than Inception. By December of 2021, I was convinced those assumptions were wrong.
Unfortunately, I’m now compelled to say I was mostly correct. Blockchain isn’t the future, and there’s no such thing as “Web3.” That’s just a buzzword for any webpage with a “Connect Your Wallet” button in the upper right-hand corner. The metaverse isn’t The Matrix. It’s just Grand Theft Auto, only not as fun, and rebranded as a blockchain-based “revolution.”
Frankly, I expected more. I thought this was the beginning of the end — the early stages of a transitional phase from reality as we know it today to a dystopian world of personalized digital money. I expected a revolution. I’m not quite sure what I found, but it wasn’t that.
19 thoughts on “Three Months In Web3: What I Learned”
I am glad to hear your foray has ended, we need you too much here back in the real world.I also appreciate that you learned so much and shared it honestly with us too. I had never even considered the tax implications!
Thank you, if you couldn’t ‘make it’ I wouldn’t have a prayer.
Your graphics are brilliant but your writing is amazing. Thanks for sharing that journey. Please don’t quit your day job. Much gratitude sir
Open Gemini account. Stick in whatever you’re comfortable with. Collect the 8% interest while it lasts.
“While it lasts” is the key bet.
Whether 8% is enough depends on whether you think your principal will remain safe for 12.5 years (assuming you cash out your interest as soon as you get it).
I give this froth up to six years, so any “reputable” stablecoin offering interest rates lower than 17% is not worth it. Once a major stablecoin collapses, a big chunk of crypto collapses.
You stated you were “mostly correct” in your assumptions. Is there any value in any part of the crypto-verse?
Crypto and Nft stuff is the equivalent of dotcom stocks, or Ninja loan foreclosures, Enron excellence, various fashion trends in clothing or hair, cabbage patch dolls, pet rocks, beanie babies and a very long list of stupid crap that gets hyped to a point of oversaturated fat that bursts into flames, spreading like a forest fire in a wind storm, with lightening bolts and laser blasts, mixed with black smoke ruin and muddy ashes.
Yes as others have said, thank you!
Re: “It’s a hopelessly self-referential system”
That’s the master key to the kingdom right there Mr H!
I think it’s easy to travel backwards in time and climb in bed with a cute bed partner and discuss the merits of how much more savings to invest in tulip bulbs and be united in greedy dreaming, lusting with deep passion to get rich.
The alluring desire of easy money is a universally felt by everyone from pirates to priests, the sin of greed is based on inequalities, which incubate internalized dramas and narratives where people see themselves as oppressed. It’s an undefined illusion people chase, it’s the opposite of hope and more a desperation deeply rooted, as if it’s a core element of life itself.
Part of the internet age evolution we’re taking part of is the exponential explosion of misinformation and distorted reality. Instead of the early internet being a wild west, the more mature version is more like clockwork orange chaos. Web 3.0 instead of offering interesting rabbit holes, is essentially offering black holes.
The crypto universe caters to science fiction tulip mania dreams that exist in fantasy lands, where there are tales of success and pathways filled with modern day pied pipers who play an ancient tune that rings like a bell.
Disclaimer: the author has a very small position in doge coin that’s not doing very well…
Well said! Thank you for sharing!
Thank you for going through the time and effort to do the research so that you could educta ethe rest of us. It is acts like that that make your newsletter worth way more than what you are charging. As a cybersecurity engineer, I would never invest a penny in crypto. That said, I do see fantastic potential in the blockchain technology for companies. Being able to have authenticated, permanent records in a database is relatively “new” and can be of great value, particularly in a court room.
I enjoyed your thoughts on web3 until your conclusion. The internet itself looked like a dead end joke in 1995. Pet stores in Duluth, and scanned magazine pages, and random fools fascinated by the novel idea of anonymity all had equal standing and importance, which is to say, zero. Your mistake here is to assume that today is the end point of web3. Today is 1995 for the internet. The only difference is that the presence of the internet itself now makes it possible for “Nigerian Princes” to successfully scam millions of people at time with garbage cartoons. So it smells more fraudulent to anyone older than 30. But the real innovation hasn’t even started.
They’re all electronic gambling tokens of one sort or other. Govern yourself accordingly …
Licensing “Break On Through” is a coup. Famously, Drummer John Densmore vetoed it being used to sell SUVs. He didn’t say he’d never allow it to be used, implying if he felt the fit was right he’d approve licensing it, and to my surprise the day has come. Here’s a little backstory:
I want to believe in blockchain technology as a way to record and transfer property rights- it could be so much more efficient than our current manual, labor-intensive process.
However, there are two problems- we need a government backed crypto (which we don’t have) and we would significantly reduce the need for many of the lawyers, title officers, brokers, etc. who are currently involved in the very inefficient process of transferring and recording property rights (which would not necessarily be great for the economy).
So, we’re all friends here H and I’m curious other than BTC what tokens did you keep and why ?
I just kept a very pedestrian list: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Avalanche, Solana, Polygon, Polkadot and Fantom (the Fantom is a lost cause now, but there’s no point in selling it). I have some Curve too, and some Threshold that was part of a liquidity pair. Also, Serum and Raydium (those are two Solana ecosystem tokens that I bought near the lows).