nothing written is meant to be interpreted as financial, personal, or any other intimately significant aspect of the readership. these essays are for entertainment purposes.

Context

The permissionless token, $higher, was launched by martin on my birthday - three days after I created the farcaster channel. In the ~4 months of both existing, there have been both familiar & novel instances re: crypto ‘happenings’.

For those interested in a wider scope of the meta-narrative:

• Early instantiation of the projects allure

• The unofficial ‘manifesto’

Regarding ‘familiar happenings’, the prototypical token mania has retraced ~80-90% below local max. Attention, liquidity, and favor-dynamics reproducing similar patterns here, just like our crypto predecessors… for the token that is.

This differentiation is the start of our curiosity for this essay. Our channel memes are undeniably better (post token bloodbath). They are:

• funnier

• more diverse

• more insightful

• more decentralized

• more resonant to the brand ethos

Being part of many degen-abundant communities, I’ve found memes tend to rigidly correlate to token price. They stop being funny after 80% drawdowns. People stop making them as well.

Higher has experienced the opposite. Channel memes were certainly part of the initial token mania. Yet the channel remains quite indifferent to price realities.

In fact, the channel has started to self-select permless creative direction; expanding in nearly all relevant design elements.

Media is being produced by newer and newer members, fostering image assets with accompanying software for viral meme posting - in a truly cc0 fashion.

Additional bits of context (post-bloodbath) summarized:

• clfx.eth created a milady hat fork spurring a wave of meme experimentation

• btc-maxi laser eyes fork, “fuck your bad vibes bro” pasta, unicode symbol Ⓗ, & more have have been discovered and iterated on

• nishu made meme tools w sliders & image treatment so anyone can create

• higher athletics initiative was started by kugusha.eth & 100s of athletes joined

Leading To My Question

So, if we agree that:

• token & channel were formed by separate entities

• token has followed typical mania-chart pattern

• channel continues to develop & engage new members

• token is still widely accepted as part of the overall concept

What is a token’s point?

Mental Models

When modeling a thought experiment:

what would you do if you were in charge of ____?

I realized that little merger has been made between consumer thinking re: fungible and non-fungible tokens.

We generally accept that non-fungible tokens are ‘collectibles’. We simultaneously agree (unofficially) that fungible tokens are ‘coins/tokens/currency’. So what is the difference between a collectible and a coin?

In an offline capacity, currency v collectible does a great job at expressing the financial friction regarding liquid-trading capacity. Coins are much easier to trade for capital, skill, time, etc.

Collectibles however, have either served a broader economic range or exist in a non-speculative capacity. Think of Pokemon cards, Beanie Babies, Pollock paintings, travel photography, all the way down to bottle caps.

In an online context however, especially on the ownership layer, both terms seem to be blending together.

Finance Fungibility

When viewing non-fungible CryptoPunks collectibles it feels natural to expect certain, or lack thereof, utilities, programs, & outcomes. We can attest this via recent consumer instances Yuga has dealt with when trying brand experimentation.

If modeling fungible coins like $Uni or $OP, we’re likely to explore financial integrations, economic novelties, and ‘currency startup’ ideations. Yet, NFTs at certain success thresholds, have begun to provide similar mind-maps - lending/borrowing being the glaringly obvious example.

Higher’s progression (on what would be the non-fungible side) makes me wonder if that convergence I just mentioned is bubbling to the surface.

More specifically, I wonder if we are heading toward the scale of fungible tokens with the consumer thinking of non-fungibles. Generally, one is large enough to scale enterprise and the other is designed to foster ‘taste networks’.

Questions

As stated at the top, there is no advice in this essay. We are trying to make sense of current assumptions and best pathways to pursue next.

Currently, these are the questions that feel worth exploring:

1. Where does value flow best on the internet regarding fungibility?

2. How influential is a conscious repositioning of consumer thinking regarding fungible & non-fungible ‘tokens’?

3. If statistically significant, how does a project like Higher - with both fungibility aspects - best leverage this polarity?

These questions target the initial question on a token’s existential value online. They also ask us to retrace first principles when thinking about consumer behavior at the ownership layer of the internet.

Higher’s token would leave one thinking the project is bearish.

Higher’s channel would leave one thinking the project is bullish.

In the words of the honorable Six, “wat do?”