“Social tokens” are utility tokens rooted on the blockchain, based on a personality or organization. The common theory behind these tokens is that they will support the entrepreneurs in the emerging creators economy.

Social tokens may provide utility for social media influencers, political activists, thought leaders, podcasters, and bloggers. These tokens allow consumers and creators to have a more direct relationship.

If there’s actual scarcity or tokenizing micro-consumption, there’s real “there, there.”

These “social tokens” are also being called “creator coins” by others; and sometimes I call them “access tokens.”

It’s worth assessing the birth of individual social tokens. That is to say, what is a “fair launch” when we’re talking about niche blockchains or many individualized child assets on a broader blockchain. What provides a creator with money or liquidity; the consumer with services, goods, or utility; and mitigates risks in an environment where the digital asset is inherently tradable?

Should social tokens be issued by an algorithmic automated market maker? The open sourced BitClout.com (@alialexander) creates and destroys its “creator coins” along a bonding curve, bypassing the traditional order book method.

Should a creator be the one who issues their own tokens? Should the creator work with a token issuer? Should creators embrace regulation?

Rally.io is a platform where social tokens are issued on a per creator basis and creators must go through an application process. This centralized platform seems to favor regulation.

Roll is a platform that got hacked. None of these platforms is decentralized, though BitClout aims to be (though there are technical challenges there).

Should tokens be child assets of a broader blockchain or on their own blockchain; should creators be expected to launch their own ERC-20 tokens? Nope.

Will non-fungible tokens (NFTs) allow programmable relationships between creators and consumers? The next generation of NFTs may be decentralized financial (DeFi) tools. Staking, royalties, and liquidity may play a role in social tokens and allow holders to participate in the upside of a creator in demand.

Maybe there are more creative ways to issue tokens; ones that don’t involve exchanging financial assets for tokens.

Social actions determine the genesis block; determining the allocation and total supply? Scripts could be written that determine the details of a genesis block during a predefined period of time.

Should the supply of the tokens be limited or unlimited?

All of these questions are worth reviewing and answering for anyone wanting to participate in the creators economy through social tokens.

See, the issuer may determine liability regarding securities law; how creators advertise their tokens and their use may determine additional exposure; supply will determine scarcity and any price discovery; the blockchain the asset rests on will determine gas fees, use, and API limitations.

Creators should be mindful of how they launch or endorse tokens issued in their name. I believe these are utility tokens. If secondary markets form around the discovery of real scarcity and/or access, it’s a win-win.

Chuck E. Cheese has his tokens issued and we each deserve our own.