The following content is a simple excerpt from a chat with various masters in Dayou’s paid group. Please read it.
Among them @Xu is senior researcher at mint ventures Xu Xiaopeng
@jessica is Jessica, a senior researcher at mint ventures
@wdctlllltcdw is the monkey boss and NFT player Iron Man
Other unmarked content is my own speech.
Xu: What is the difference between a pending order and a bid offer? I always thought it was the same thing, so I would give a quote to the NFT I wanted to buy, similar to CEX’s pending buy order and other transactions.
Lao Xu, there is a lot of content in this. I started talking about it at about 50 minutes. This SPACE is also the pinnacle of 7UPDAO. Originally there were only about 50 people listening, but when I saw them talking about BLUR, hundreds of people rushed in in an instant. 5,000 have listened now.
In fact, the BLUR model is easier for you to understand than the average person. I will briefly explain it to you individually:
The most prominent problem in the NFT exchange track is liquidity. It is difficult to sell small pictures when you want to sell them. The industry has thought of many solutions: NFT fragmentation NFT tokenization
Transaction mining, listing rewards, etc.
However, these problems have not been solved. The minimum daily transaction of AZUKI is only 50E, which is still a leading project.
So, if you have 10 AZUKI to sell, you have to keep setting lower prices, and it may take a week to sell them. This is a painful experience that @wdctll has had.
Is there any way now that can make buying and selling NFT as easy as buying coins?
Selling in seconds with low slippage? frictionless
This method has also been introduced in the industry, such as the AMM mechanism implemented by paradigmm in UNISWAP, but the effect is also very poor.
What PARADIGM does now is:
Anyone who wants to airdrop is encouraged to bid for NFT. We have created a bidding pool. First deposit all your principal into it, such as 50E, and then you can bid repeatedly. The closer the bid is to the floor, the higher the score. The more NFTs you bid on, the higher your score.
Therefore, people who want to do airdrops provide liquidity, bear the risk that when the NFT falls, the bid is accepted, and the small picture is smashed into their hands, they will be rewarded with tokens.
@hao: Blur is positioned as an NFT market specifically for traders. In other words, it is the most liquid NFT trading market. Blur incentivizes buying and selling orders, and the closer the price of the buying and selling orders, the higher the reward.
NFT players have started a happy life since then. AZUKI has focused on more than 2,000 bids near the floor price, which is more than the sell order, and the bidders are very enthusiastic, allowing you to sell at an ETH 0.5 lower than the OS.
So in this model: The product experience is first-class and users benefit
The project party benefited, and the number of users, transaction volume and reputation increased.
I like the NFT project, and the project has gained vitality
The market maker (studio) or the buyer who provides liquidity obtains the coins at the lowest cost on the market - as I said, the cost of the first round is about 0.2, and the second round requires too many rolls, as written in the above article , may reach 1U
This is a win-win situation for all parties.
The most shocking thing is, why does PARADIGM always change the development process of the industry? ? ? ? ? ?
Why, why are you so awesome?
Why can't anyone think of a solution to the liquidity problem? He was the first to think of it - just like he was the first to think of AMM, decentralized sustainability, etc.
@Xu: So looks, x2y2 and others have always done this to encourage pending orders (if buying and selling quotes are called pending orders). How do they encourage pending orders?
@ handsome handsome: Paradigm’s slogan is the new paradigm of investment~
The gap between people is wider than that of dogs.
LOOKS, you can get rewards by trading, so everyone is staring at a junk NFT to keep trading, creating false transaction volume. If you go to buy and see real players, you can't buy it or sell it.
The key is that the KOLs of the project party held a large number of coins in the early stage, and their seemingly dividend mechanism took away more than 70% of the handling fees.
At the same time, the reward for staking tokens is also whoever has the most weight will get more coins.
So they get more coins.
So the project side has more coins. What is the result? All GG for secondary takeover.
The project side does not need to pay attention to the user experience. As long as the story is still being told and the transaction volume is still increasing, it will make a steady profit.
Just like LOOKS, it is estimated that the revenue will be over 500 million US dollars. The X2Y2 team has the same idea and has also obtained at least 100 million through transaction mining and other methods.
@Xu: Well, the logic of the transaction is easy to understand. In fact, I always thought that looks and x2y2’s incentives for pending orders were what you call blur.
So LOOKS and X2Y2 do not help the user experience at all.
I used to be a die-hard fan of X2Y2, but I and other volunteers rarely traded in X2Y2 because there was no way to trade.
Can't buy it, can't sell it.
After X2Y2 canceled the aggregator plan and launched trading and mining, I lost contact with the team and no longer cared about the project because he took the same path as LOOKS.
Behind this path, retail investors can’t see it, but people who understand economic models will understand instantly: it’s a Ponzi structure.
I still have more than 1 million coins, but I still abide by morality and only tell the truth
So what is BLUR?
It ranks first in product experience and second in economic model.
The current top-notch product with first-class user experience.
Compared with the valuation of LOOKS, I am writing this for retail investors, so I don’t dare to talk nonsense. I can't afford to pay for the loss.
But is LOOKS qualified to compete with industry-level innovation like BLUR? The current market value of LOOKS is the same as that of BLUR.
Xu: So why don’t Looks and X2Y2 use this kind of incentive method? Namely: Encourage pending order quotations (including buying and selling) Encourage pending orders close to the floor price (similar to guiding centralized liquidity and reducing NFT transaction slippage) (I feel that this logic is very obvious. In fact, market making on CEX, The guiding principles for market makers are also similar.
So what does their team earn? The BLUR team hasn’t made any money yet, but LOOKS took away more than 7,000 ETH through a tornado in just one week after it went online.
In addition, innovation is really not easy. Now let’s look at BLUR and think, hey, it’s pretty good. But here comes the question, why haven’t several exchanges, including me, who plan to start an exchange myself (and have long-term plans to connect with investors), not thought of it?
What you mean is that it may not look like they can’t understand this truth, it’s just that people prefer quick money and bad money.
This is not necessarily true. It doesn’t seem difficult to think of this method that seems “mundane” now, but Satoshi Nakamoto’s white paper asked today’s people to write it. Many people can write it, but the first one is difficult.
When we think about providing liquidity, we still focus on being a GEM and optimizing the product experience.
No one thought of PARADIGM! !
Today, everyone knows this method, but can LOOKS and X2Y2 learn it?
As good as Binance is, why don’t other small exchanges learn from it?
This is the field of research for you, Lao Xu: What is the goal of the team? determine their behavior.
BLUR's goal is obvious, they just want to be the boss.
And it will be done.
At the same time, I don’t think anyone has come up with the solution behind BLUR that has changed the entire NFT industry.
@jessica I think from this point of view, other teams do not understand the NFT market as well as Blur.
I personally think that I know the NFT exchange track best, but now I say, fortunately, I am not doing NFT exchange. If I had done it, I wouldn’t have to do this innovation like BLUR now.
@Xu: @深兴阳Jessica I always thought that projects with pending order incentive models like looks and x2y2 adopted this subsidy criterion.
@深雪阳Jessica: Whether it’s about stimulating liquidity or stimulating trading volume, only Blur can figure this out.
The reason I want to understand is that in paradise’s products, product experience is always the first priority and would rather sacrifice everything.
Blur is a listing bidding that matches buy-one-sell-one mining.
But I have a question. If there is no reward incentive from this token in the future, how can we ensure liquidity? @BTCdayu
@深雪阳Jessica: Their founder has mentioned this in many interviews, growth is priority
@Xu: nft is also a two-sided market. After the volume of bilateral user behavior and user behavior habits, subsidies will be reduced, as long as other experiences remain leading. Users will also stay. It's like opensea doesn't have any token incentives, but there are still many people using it.
Did they have no incentive to place orders before? I seem to have the impression that when looks first came out, I had a discussion with @飞的LittleToe before and said that placing orders is a better incentive. He said that they later went on
@包子 His reward for placing orders is really just a reward for placing orders. It's not the same thing as what Brother Yu said. And blur can aggregate a pool. And 1e can bid on multiple nfts. The innovation point should be explained clearly to Brother Yu. This method of airdrop is indeed not for nothing, and the risk ratio and cost are still not low.
@Xu It is very important to understand this, so that it is not only the order book, but also the TVL.
@ Take it lightly, put it lightly nft real player transactions, the first is depth, the second is handling fees, and the third is interactive experience
Xu: A few days ago, I discussed with Jessica, the investment manager who is watching the nft track. She said that the feasibility of the blur ve model is not high because the liquidity guidance of the pure order book and the AMM mechanism of curve have TVL. The principles are different, so it feels more difficult.
After learning about the new information today, I feel that the feasibility is much higher. Of course, the liquidity procurement, retention, and redistribution of the NFT market should still be quite different from those of DEFI. Let’s observe and learn.
Indeed, I have hardly bought them. My observation of NFTs has always been cloud research. I really don’t know how to value NFTs from the main investment perspective, and I don’t really appreciate the content of most NFTs from the consumption perspective.
@包子 looks on Binance, I’ve heard it at least three times, and it’s all fake. Now that blur is so popular, Binance is not on it. Don't know why.
Binance will definitely be there. No need to doubt, no need to think about this. If you see that BLUR has and will continue to beat OS, it’s a piece of cake to be on Binance.
@Wdctl
blur is so cool, I just realized it today
I have only used it in the past few days, and it can be said that I will never use Opensea again: 1. Blur has officially entered the era of 0.5% commission for nft transactions. In the past, a transaction on OS was almost 10% attrition. Today the OS has also followed suit. It’s almost the same as buying and selling coins. 2. The most critical thing is this BID mining model, which is very similar to the amazing uniswap that just appeared. It actually provides the liquidity pool of NFT. OS is equivalent to pending order trading, and Blur is liquidity pool trading.
blur is uniswap, opensea is the old pending order mode
blur is uniswap, opensea is the old pending order mode (previously the gashapon on eos)
blur and opensea are not products of the same era at all
@ handsome handsome Blur is great, but its token may not rise immediately. Everyone needs to DYOR
