So, I was willing to give Sahil the benefit of the doubt; I thought he might have simply been NFT-curious or keeping his options open. But that’s just because I wasn’t looking.
Bitcoin is digital gold. NFTs are digital diamonds.— Sahil Lavingia (@shl) September 4, 2021
ETH: Decentralized Silicon Valley— Sahil Lavingia (@shl) September 2, 2021
DeFi: Decentralized Wall Street
NFTs: Decentralized Hollywood
Building in Web3 this month. Join me in Discord: https://t.co/9mxtqvjx68— Sahil Lavingia (@shl) February 1, 2022
The War on Crypto is the next war the US will lose.— Sahil Lavingia (@shl) September 8, 2021
I own plenty of crypto, have since 2013. Not a fit for this fundraise.— Sahil Lavingia (@shl) March 15, 2021
NFT ownership is much more accessible than equity ownership.— Sahil Lavingia (@shl) September 1, 2021
And this especially eyerolling/nauseating one:
NFTs turn artists into capitalists.— Sahil Lavingia (@shl) September 2, 2021
When Gumroad raised its first round of post-VC funding, it did so by seeking out the creators who used the platform. This means that a sizable chunk of Gumroad is likely owned by folks who, like me, believed in Gumroad’s mission, and thus many of them are likely anti-NFT.
So this raises an interesting possibility: Could there be enough anti-NFT investors to maintain a voting block that ousts Sahil or at least restructures/recharters the company such that control is in the hands of the creators that want Gumroad to be, you know, good?
I assume Sahil is still a majority shareholder, and also given that the crowdfunding platform itself is extremely pro-NFT/crypto this will probably be a losing battle, but it’s one worth fighting.
(Many thanks to those who brought this to my attention.)