Basically agree but if I was to steel man the other side I’d say that *if* (big if) you believe that *some* content is worth more than other content, then on a relative basis there might be demand to own scarcer content, for example provably human created content vs AI slop content. If you also believe the trajectory of mankind is that the Labubu-brained broccoli heads will want to own content because it’s all they know and fiat is worthless and nothing matters, it could also kind of make sense. People collect weird shit, they’ve done it forever (stamps, beanie babies, teeth) but these are extremely fragmented markets that are obviously not fungible and not very liquid. Everyone around the world accepts that gold is ~$3300 today. Conversely, there are probably 10 people in the world that would pay $1 million for some special edition beanie baby. These things also lend themselves to fads/ speculation that is not persistent over generations or cultures. In the same way that a lot of founders don’t want to be beholden to sideline heckling shareholders and sell-side research analysts, I suspect content creators prefer to focus on creating content and monetizing their brand more indirectly (I also think this is more sustainable) than tokenizing all of their posts or whatever. Some things don’t lend themselves to “real time” markets. So I’m not sure that content is going to be *purely* commoditized but the market for non-commoditized content doesn’t have a clear long term value proposition itself, like it’s not clear why that is the winning model. Just because you can finacialize something doesn’t mean you should financialize something. Now please purchase this post on my Zora.