An immediate addendum
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
So, yeah.
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.)
Comments
To see the comments on this entry, please log in. Alternately, send me an email, or join me on Discord!