6529

🎨 The NFT community is arguing: is 6529 really community curation, or gatekeeping with a different name?

Collector Ossen posted a stick-figure comic these past two days: an artist standing alone, facing a group of smiling faces, with the caption “let's call 6529 what it is”.

According to a roundup of X posts, his main complaints are these:
🔹 The Memes series uses TDH-weighted voting, so the more you hold, the more voting power you get
🔹 Artists must first get nomination points before they even have a chance
🔹 50% of sales revenue goes to 6529 Collections LLC
His point, summed up, is: packaging gatekeeping as curation.

The counterargument is also strong. Artist muhju replied with around 10,000 views and 124 likes, saying Ossen came in throwing money around to attract a lot of artists whose works weren’t selling, and now he’s taking a shot at a community that has been built for years: “first Apes, now this.” Others said plainly that this is just attention-grabbing, with the next stop being some other community.
There were also calmer voices: one side submits work and waits for votes, the other posts work and waits for bids; the mechanisms are different, but both give artists a chance.

My view:
Decentralization is not about whether there is voting; it’s about how votes are calculated and how money is distributed. A voting system weighted by holdings is basically “the more money you have, the more say you get.” That’s the same in DeFi governance too. It’s not inherently wrong, but it needs to be clearly explained.
For artists, instead of picking a side, it’s better to do the math first: revenue split, listing barriers, and who is buying. Those three matter more than slogans.

Do you think having more holdings and therefore more voting power is fair, or does it count as centralization? Share your thoughts in the comments 👇

#NFT #6529 #加密艺术 #Web3 community