Author: Dan Finlay, co-founder of MetaMask
Compiled by: angelilu, Foresight News
Related Reading:
MetaMask co-founder Dan Finlay has launched two identically named MEME coins on Base and Solana in real combat. As of the time of writing, the market capitalizations of the two tokens on Base and Solana are only $392,000 and $782,000 respectively. Although Solana is slightly ahead, the token's market value reached nearly $10 million at its peak yesterday, a decline of 90%. The developer currently has no heart to continue this game, so he wrote this report as a summary of the experiment. The following is the original text by Dan Finlay:
Out of curiosity, I conducted a "boring" experiment related to MEME coins. On November 27, I issued a token called CONSENT on Base and Solana through clanker and pump.fun respectively. This was just an experiment, and I had no further plans. This experiment made me feel very uncomfortable, at least allowing me to personally experience the current MEME coin ecosystem.
Where does the theme of the "CONSENT" token come from?
This all stems from a simple observation of social media dynamics. While browsing Twitter, Bluesky, and Farcaster, I noticed a clear difference in how (the communities I follow) these communities deal with AI and data use consent.
Twitter/X: Seems to have the least concern about AI, with the platform attracting many AI researchers, and I rarely see discussions about the economic interests of artists (perhaps because the artists have all left, or perhaps I haven't noticed them).
Farcaster: Composed of a group with Ethereum and Web3 backgrounds, they are mainly focused on how to quickly launch the next eye-catching product, and are more likely to accuse those with moral concerns as "armchair critics", including criticism of MEME coins.
Bluesky: Seems to have attracted many of the artists I used to follow, as well as many people concerned about the well-being of artists in the AI era. I fully understand this concern (I've been an artist for most of my life and have also considered it as a profession), but I find these discussions lack the pragmatism I appreciate in the Farcaster subculture.
Specifically, there was a post on Bluesky that went viral, sharing a new Huggingface repository containing one million Bluesky posts available for digital analysis and AI training. In the responses to this information, many people expressed shock that the posts were included without their consent.
One of the responses became the theme of my MEME coin: "How come you AI brothers don't understand what 'consent' is?"
As a developer of the cryptocurrency wallet MetaMask, I've been thinking about the issue of "consent" for nearly a decade. Unfortunately, some of our current digital systems completely lack clear consent mechanisms. To be honest, even taking a screenshot of that post without consent makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, but from a protocol standpoint, both Bluesky and Farcaster require all posts to be public and readable by anyone. While this is generally understood on Farcaster (due to a more technical user base), on Bluesky, the protocol-level requirement for consent is disconnected from the social-level expectation of consent.
It turns out that P2P social media platforms are not the only digital protocols with an unclear definition of consent at the social level, leading to some poor experiences. This situation also applies very well to MEME coins.
My previous views on MEME coins
My views on MEME coins may differ from the average reader's expectations.
Due to my experience with a special token system created by teachers in elementary school, where we could trade old toys, this experience has deeply influenced my views on alternative currencies, and I've always believed that alternative currencies have great potential. So I'm particularly interested in token mechanisms that allow users to clearly express their level of trust and reasons for trust.
However, the current MEME coin operating model seems to be an attempt to make some of the token mechanism ideas from the past few years more easily achievable, such as using token weights to replace Reddit's voting mechanism. But I still don't think this is a good way.
First, I believe the main value of tokens should be reflected in those that represent specific resources, rather than the "vague" MEME coins that lack a clear vision (and are even difficult to develop into larger-scale projects), where the MEME creators themselves are not even clear about what they have "consented" to.
Secondly, for projects that do need financing, the Bonding Curve may not be the best choice. When starting a new company, founders are very careful about when to issue new shares, to whom to sell, and how to manage investor expectations. But in the Bonding Curve, the positioning of a token may oscillate between "pure entertainment game" and "serious crowdfunding tool". On this platform, both parties find it difficult to judge the exact position of a token on this spectrum. And it's strange that even though the MEME I created is very simple (even explicitly promising that "holding this token can be used for AI training"), people still constantly try to imbue it with more meaning.
From what I understand, the current MEME coin issuance platforms mainly provide the two basic functions of buying and selling for token creators. Although they also have public chat rooms and some metadata functions, the platforms themselves only provide the most basic trading capabilities. If we want to build a real community, achieve long-term development, or even raise funds for actual projects, why only provide these two simple functions? Pump.fun calls the token creators "developers", and users refer to the developers' selling behavior as "rug". This seems to be because in the past, only software developers could issue tokens, and... the only reason developers would sell out is to steal investors' money.
To me, seeing a platform (which people call the main new use case of cryptocurrency) develop to this point is deeply saddening. It's like the culmination of the cynicism generated by the worst behaviors in the cryptocurrency space over the past decade. Which is worse? Is it that developers think all people need is minting and rugging, or is it that users seem to think this is a way to escape their economic situation?
The initial branding of this platform ("Fun!") made me think there might be some interesting energy in this environment, but I should have known better. Recently, some people have taken extreme measures to "pump" their MEME coins, including threatening to harm themselves and others (actually trying to use themselves or others as hostages to extort the public traders).
I had hoped to see a trading community where participants were insightful, willing to invest an appropriate amount of tokens to enhance their own capabilities, and learn how to distribute new tokens within a truly trustworthy group. I hope that when people hold tokens of creators they appreciate, it's not for the sake of quick profits or finding a bigger exit, but because they believe it will help build a long-term, stable ecosystem. This is the most ideal scenario I can imagine. I envision these participants realizing that they are actually playing a financial version of the high-five game. But the reality is quite different.
Experimental Process
Earlier that day, someone suggested that I use the clanker bot on Farcaster (an AI bot that mints tokens on demand) to turn a random MEME into a token.
I chose the Bluesky post about data consent and access rights as the token name and created a token for it.
Launching a Meme coin has never been so easy. You @the bot and describe the Meme, and then you see the token and a ticker, and now people can buy and sell that token. It immediately created a token, but I have no tokens, and I see people rushing to buy them. I immediately feel anxious. Will people massively dump the tokens with my name, and will I just focus on the price fluctuations? So I quickly invested ETH into this token, so at least I will be close to the bottom of the token price to get in.
With my disappointing experience on clanker, I can't help but wonder if it's the same as the pattern on Solana's pump.fun. To conduct product experiments, I have to try both.
So I start launching a token with the same name on Pump.fun.
The ETH I put into clanker quickly halved in value, possibly due to early buyers' dumping. Although it looks terrible, Clanker does allocate me transaction fees on each trade, while continuously diluting the market value. This mechanism, while "protecting" me from the early buyers' front-running, is actually an invisible, ongoing Rug for the buyers. If your goal is to truly build a trustworthy treasury, you wouldn't want this feature (I'm not sure if that's the goal).
In the communication with the clanker team, they shared some interesting project descriptions, development plans, and product ideas. They maintain an open attitude towards project iteration, striving to create value in exploration. This attitude is commendable, although I still have reservations about the long-term value of such tokens.
The experience on Solana, however, was completely different. Although I only posted information about these two tokens on Farcaster, the response in the Solana ecosystem far exceeded my expectations. I initially only invested about 2 SOL (around $500) to kick-start the market, but in just one hour, the value of my holdings skyrocketed to over $100,000. When I tried to sell about 25% of my holdings (around $16,000), surprisingly, the price not only did not drop, but actually rose further in 5 minutes, so I bought them back at a higher price.
But what really worries me is that I found many retail investors pouring in alarmingly large amounts of money. More buyers flooded in, and the price started to rise. I started receiving a lot of private messages asking questions about the token. Some people called me the "developer" and asked about the "roadmap".
The biggest issue is the inability to know the true identity of the buyers. In traditional financing, you wouldn't accept an investment from a gambling-addicted friend. But in bonding curve transactions on the public chain, the funds are just cold entry and exit numbers, with no visibility on the counterparty's situation. Interestingly, this ambiguity may actually make Meme coins more "compliant" legally, but the actual risk could be greater. While ambiguity can sometimes be beneficial, especially when you trust the counterparty, in this open, first-come-first-served market, buyers have no way to know who bought in at lower prices, so even if you trust the project team, you can't guarantee safety.
In the Meme coin environment, the only seemingly clear consent behavior is that the buyer explicitly agrees to put money into something. But if there is no clear definition, what kind of consent is it?
As I write this article, I am still troubled by these tokens. I have no idea who now owns these tokens. Let me be clear, I have no plans to further develop these tokens. The purpose of issuing these tokens was as an educational experiment, and I hope that by sharing this information, I can spare others from having to do another "experiment".
The Paradox of CONSENT
This experience has led me to an interesting paradox: if I want to create a token about informed consent (CONSENT), I need to carefully consider who can hold it. But in the current system, I have no control over who can purchase these tokens.
Worse, the token holders may not even know what they are holding. They may not have read the token's instructions or promises at all. In such a case, how do we ensure true informed consent?
This has led me to think of some potential improvements:
Creators should be able to restrict who can purchase their tokens. This may require some form of permissioning system.
There needs to be a better way to ensure buyers truly understand what they are purchasing. Perhaps requiring them to read and confirm certain information before buying.
Token creators should have more tools to manage their tokens, not just simple buy and sell functions.
Platforms should provide more options to set the purpose and restrictions of tokens.
There should be better ways to build and maintain communities, rather than just focusing on price speculation. These are not perfect solutions, but they may be steps in the right direction.
Thoughts for the Future
If we want Meme coins to become a meaningful tool, rather than just a speculative game, I think we need to seriously consider the following:
We need better tools to manage participants. Not everyone should be able to participate in every token project.
We need clearer ways to express the purpose and promises of tokens. This is not just to protect buyers, but also to protect creators.
We need to rethink terms like "developer" and "Rug". These words reflect an unhealthy mindset, implying that token creators are either building something or engaging in fraud.
We need to consider how to ensure responsible participation while maintaining the fun.
Conclusion
From this experiment, I've drawn the following conclusions:
The current Meme coin ecosystem is too chaotic for serious fundraising, yet too serious for casual entertainment. It's in an awkward middle ground.
The lack of proper control and consent mechanisms leaves this space rife with potential issues.
Even the simplest, most straightforward tokens can be misunderstood and over-interpreted.
We need to develop better tools and mechanisms to manage these interactions.
Perhaps most importantly, we need to seriously consider what we want this space to become. Pure entertainment? Serious financing tool? Something in between?
Regardless, the current state is not ideal. I hope that by sharing these experiences and reflections, I can help facilitate some meaningful dialogue about how to make this space better, more responsible, and more meaningful.
To any holders of the CONSENT tokens: Thank you for participating in this social experiment, and I will leave my funds in these two places to address accusations of "rug pulling". If I could fully refund, I would, but I believe those who put tokens into this system did indeed "consent".
