Some people say that Blur is like an "enhanced version" of sudoswap, with "efficiency" written in its genes.
In OpenSea or other NFT trading markets, the homepage recommends different new gadgets every day, find the picture you like, send an offer to the other party, and wait for the transaction slowly, just like visiting a "hypermarket". In Blur, the home page only has transaction data dashboards for popular projects, and Offers do not exist. There are only fast-paced sales, just like sitting on an "exchange."
It has only been more than half a month since it was officially launched, and this unique "exchange" has achieved extremely brilliant results. It is so brilliant that the voice of "OpenSea will be replaced" appears. From October 31st to November 4th, the trading volume of ETH on Blur continued to overwhelm OpenSea, with the highest single-day proportion reaching 60.3%.
Excellent product quality, ingenious publicity and the "time" of the market environment have jointly made Blur's beautiful start, which is worth recalling. But, as the popularity of Art Gobblers fades and Blur's momentum gradually slows down, how far can Blur go? And, is Blur's success good or bad for NFT?
"Great start"
Blur's "debut posture" is the coolest of all NFT trading markets.
In the same way as "sprinkling tokens at birth", Blur used the new trick of "opening blind boxes" to achieve a very good publicity effect. Although the giant whale got a lot of "boxes", all beings are equal in front of luck, and everyone has the mood of "showing off" after the prize draw, the effect of the program is quite good. The last time the NFT circle was so busy with "Birth Token", it may have been SOS that played up the sentiment of "OpenSea everyone wants it" last Christmas.
Of course, the real stand still depends on the product. Although Blur has been in the beta test stage before the official launch, but with the rapid update of the real-time data flow of pending orders and transaction monitoring, the reputation of "fast" has spread within a certain range. Come.
Since September, Blur has had a relatively stable share in the "aggregator" track, surpassing Genie, x2y2 and Element in general. After its official launch on October 20, Blur's share in the "aggregator" track has rapidly expanded, and it has far surpassed the previous "king" Gem.
Changes in the NFT market may be an unexpected "time" for Blur. At the end of March, when Blur officially announced that it had received an $11 million seed round of financing led by Paradigm, they said they would create the best NFT market for “Pro Traders”. At that time, the price of ETH was above $3,000, the floor price of BAYC exceeded 100 ETH, and the average amount of each NFT transaction on the ETH chain was $2,274. "Sweeping the floor" is a more "Pro Traders" behavior than it is now . As can be clearly seen in the two figures below, compared with March to April, the number of NFT aggregator transactions from September to November was significantly larger, but the transaction volume was significantly reduced:
But now, "sweeping the floor" has become the habit of almost all players. Since July, most of the newly released NFT projects have been launched at "Free Mint" or extremely low Mint prices. The "opening price" in the secondary market is much lower than in March. With 5 or even more than 10 NFTs, it is difficult to obtain the desired income.
At the same time, under the double blow of insufficient market funds, "Free Mint" and "zero royalties" that have troubled the sustainable development of the project, players have become accustomed to "fast in and fast out". An excellent aggregator has almost become a "must-have" for players who are still active in the market-if you buy directly in the NFT trading market as before, the difference in reserve prices between different markets and slow operations The response will lead to the inability to quickly obtain chips at the right price, and as a result, you will either miss it or lose money.
As the best and most neat "must-have item", it is also riding the wind with the "timing". Blur didn't get off to a good start, and it's hard to forgive.
"How far can we go"
According to the data shared by @punk9059, Blur still has a 26% market share after excluding the contribution of Art Gobblers to Blur.
For the current data, @punk9059 mentioned two problems:
1. The second AirDrop is still in progress. This AirDrop is incentivizing users to list highly Liquidity NFTs on Blur at the lowest possible price.
2. A considerable part of the transactions may occur on Blur because of "low royalties" or even "zero royalties". Although Blur's second AirDrop encourages users to set royalties when listing NFTs, the data shows that this incentive is not effective.
As we mentioned earlier, the change in the NFT market may be the unexpected "time" of Blur, and the "zero-royalty" debate that continues to this day is the product of the involution of this "time"-the NFT trading market needs to use "zero-royalty" "To rob players, players must rely on "zero royalties" to maximize Flip's profits. In addition to creators, there are fewer and fewer people who position NFT as "artwork".
Let's rewind this sad chain of logic. The market funds are insufficient, and confidence is also insufficient. It is difficult for creators to get recognition for their painstaking work, and it is difficult for project parties who want to do things to raise enough funds. Looking at the roadmap of new projects today, the narrative is almost stuck at the beginning of the year. The "earth dog" market is like practicing Gu, bad money drives out good money, crudely made "earth dog" is mad, and if you get it right, you can "harvest". Players don't care what the project party wants to do, and they don't even carefully choose a picture they like as before. As long as there is popularity and the "odds" are right, rushing is like flipping a coin to guess the size. It is common practice to buy an item before going to bed and return it to zero when you wake up. Isn’t it already like FT’s “earth dog”?
The "casino-like" "earth dog" market continues to exist, and the traffic of the aggregator will not decrease. Blur is currently connected to the interfaces of OpenSea, LooksRare and x2y2. This aggregated listing function transmits the traffic of the aggregator to Blur’s market very well. It doesn't take much effort. Conversely, when the aggregator is used to "sweep the floor", there will be a steady stream of orders from Blur that can be "swept", a perfect inner loop.
It is good to use the aggregator as the traffic importer of the market, but the subsequent challenges are also severe. Gem under OpenSea will definitely try to narrow the gap in user experience and regain the top deal on the aggregator track. From OpenSea’s launch of the “Collection Offer” and the Beta version of the data dashboard, it can be seen that OpenSea has also sensed changes in player demand in the current market environment. It is possible to integrate Gem into the market more seamlessly. Blur needs to keep Maintain their core differentiation advantage - "fast".
As an NFT trading market, Blur's own profit model has not yet been clarified. Currently, Blur does not charge a fee, but there is no official promise that it will be free forever. According to Blur's official statement, subsequent holdings of $BLUR will enjoy governance rights over Blur. If the profit model can be determined through DAO governance, that would be really cool, and it might really make Blur go far—for example, Is there a way to find a new solution together so that creators, players, and the market can "win-win-win"?
"Is it good or bad"
Finally, back to the last question raised at the beginning of the article: Is Blur's success good or bad for NFT?
My answer is "yes". Although Blur has risen with the wind, its excellent products are the key to its success. The more good products there are, the better the NFT market will of course be.
You might say that "zero royalties" make it more difficult for small and medium-sized creators/project parties. Yes. After all, even the OSF lamented:
True, but that's not Blur's fault, it just went with the market. This must have obliterated the possibility that many projects are trying to explore, but if it can make everyone calmer, maybe this is just a labor pain-"art" is the best "application" and all "application expansion" pivot of possibility. But if there is only "art", are you and I willing to pay for it? If the possibility to pursue becomes impossible without royalties, shouldn't the creator/project party's pricing and commitment be more rational and planned?
Blur can't change the market, it's the market that makes Blur. When more ingenious new products and new projects appear, more funds will join, and the market will enter a benign involution. And what would Blur be like then?
I am looking forward.
