MetaMask Co-founder’s 48-Hour Meme Experiment

Author: Dan Finlay, Co-founder of MetaMask

Compiled by: angelilu, Foresight News

Dan Finlay, co-founder of MetaMask, has launched two meme coins named CONSENT on Base and Solana. As of the time of writing, the market caps of the two tokens on Base and Solana are only $392,000 and $782,000, respectively. Although Solana has a slight lead, the market cap of the token was nearly $10 million yesterday and has since dropped by 90%. However, the developer has lost interest in continuing this game and wrote this report as a summary of the experiment. Below is the original text by Dan Finlay:

Out of curiosity, I conducted a "boring" experiment related to meme coins. On November 27, I created tokens named CONSENT on Base and Solana through clanker and pump.fun, respectively. This was merely an experiment, and I had no further plans. This experiment left me feeling quite unpleasant, at least allowing me to experience the current meme coin ecosystem firsthand.

Where Does the Theme of the "CONSENT" Token Come From?

It all stems from a simple observation of social media dynamics. While browsing Twitter, Bluesky, and Farcaster, I noticed a significant difference in how these communities (that I follow) approach informed consent regarding AI and data usage.

• Twitter / X: There seems to be the least concern about AI, with many AI researchers congregating on the platform. I have rarely seen discussions about artists' economic interests (perhaps the artists have left, or maybe I just haven't noticed them).
• Farcaster: Composed of a group with Ethereum and Web3 backgrounds, they primarily focus on how to launch the next compelling product as quickly as possible, and it's easier to accuse those with ethical concerns of being "armchair critics," including criticism of meme coins.
• Bluesky: It seems to attract many artists I once followed, as well as many who care about the welfare of artists in the AI era. I completely understand this concern (I have been an artist for most of my life and once considered it a career), but I find that these discussions lack the pragmatism I appreciate in the Farcaster subculture.

In particular, there was a post that went viral on Bluesky, sharing a new Huggingface repository containing a million Bluesky posts for digital analysis and AI training. In response to this information, quite a few people expressed shock that the posts in the repository were shared without their consent.

One reply became the theme of my meme coin: Why don't you AI brothers understand what "consent" is?

As a developer of the crypto wallet MetaMask, I have been contemplating the issue of informed consent for nearly a decade. Unfortunately, some of our current digital systems completely lack clear informed consent mechanisms. To be honest, even capturing a screenshot of this post without consent makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. However, from a protocol perspective, both Bluesky and Farcaster require all posts to be public and readable by anyone. While this is generally understood on Farcaster (due to its more technical user base), there is a disconnect on Bluesky between the protocol's requirement for informed consent and the social expectation of informed consent.

It turns out that P2P social media platforms are not the only digital protocols that have unclear definitions of informed consent at the societal 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 what the average reader expects.

Having experienced a unique token system in elementary school where teachers created tradable old toys, this experience profoundly influenced my view of alternative currencies. I have always believed that alternative currencies have enormous potential. Therefore, I pay special attention to token mechanisms that allow users to clearly express their levels of trust and reasons for trust.

The current operation model of meme coins seems to be an attempt to make some token mechanism concepts from the past few years easier to implement, such as replacing Reddit's voting mechanism with token weight, etc. However, I still do not believe this is a good approach.

First, I believe the primary value of tokens should be reflected in those that represent specific resources, rather than in "vague" meme coins that lack a clear vision (and are even difficult to develop into larger projects), where even the meme creators themselves are unclear about what they consented to.

Second, for projects that genuinely need funding, bonding curves may not be the best choice. When founding a new company, founders carefully consider when to issue new shares, to whom to sell them, and how to manage investor expectations. However, in a bonding curve, a token's positioning may fluctuate between "pure entertainment game" and "serious crowdfunding tool." On this platform, both parties in the transaction find it difficult to determine a specific position of a token on this spectrum. Moreover, it is strange that even when I create a meme that is very simple (even explicitly promising: "Holding this token allows you to use this text for AI training"), people still try to ascribe more meaning to it.

To my knowledge, the current meme coin issuance platforms mainly provide token creators with the basic functions of buying and selling. Although they are equipped with public chat rooms and some metadata features, the platforms themselves only offer the most basic trading capabilities. If we want to build a real community, achieve long-term development, and even raise funds for actual projects, why only provide these two simple functions? Pump.fun refers to token creators as "developers," while users refer to the developers' selling behavior as "rug behavior." This seems to stem from the fact that only software developers could issue tokens in the past, and… the only reason developers sell is to run away with investors' money.

For me, it is deeply saddening to see a platform (which people call the main new use case for cryptocurrency) develop to this extent. It feels like the cynical sublimation of the worst behaviors in cryptocurrency over the past decade. Which is worse? Is it that developers think people only need minting and rug pulls, or that users seem to believe this is a way to escape their economic situation?

Initially, the branding of this platform ("Fun!") led me to believe there might be some interesting energy in this environment, but I should have known better. Recently, some individuals have taken extreme actions to "pump" their meme coins, including threatening to harm themselves and others (actually attempting to use themselves or others as hostages to coerce public traders).

I had hoped to see a community of traders: participants who are insightful and willing to invest a reasonable amount of tokens to enhance their capabilities, learning how to allocate new tokens within genuinely trustworthy groups. I hoped that when people held tokens from creators they appreciated, it would not be for the sake of quick profits or seeking larger exit opportunities, but because they believed that doing so could help build a long-term stable ecosystem. This is the ideal scenario I can imagine. I envisioned these participants realizing that they were actually playing a financial version of a high-five game. But the reality is quite different.

Experiment Process

Earlier that day, someone suggested I use the clanker bot on Farcaster (an AI bot that mints tokens for you on request) to convert a random meme into a token.

I chose that 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 had no tokens, and I saw people rushing to buy them. I immediately felt a wave of anxiety. Would people sell off the tokens with my name on them in droves while I only focused on price fluctuations? So I hurriedly invested ETH into this token, so at least I would be close to the bottom price of the token.

With my frustrating experience on Clanker, I couldn't help but wonder if the model on pump.fun on Solana was the same. To conduct a product experiment, I had to try both.

So I started launching a token with the same name on Pump.fun.

The ETH I invested in Clanker quickly shrank by half, possibly due to early buyers selling off. While it looked bad, Clanker did allocate fees to me with each transaction while continuously diluting market value. Although this mechanism "protected" me from early buyers running away, it actually imposed an invisible, ongoing siphoning on buyers. If your goal is to genuinely build a trustworthy treasury, you wouldn't want this feature (I'm not sure that's the goal).

In discussions with the Clanker team, they shared some interesting project descriptions, development plans, and product ideas. They maintain an open attitude towards project iteration and strive to create value through exploration. This attitude is commendable, although I remain cautious about the long-term value of such tokens.

My experience on Solana was completely different. Although I only posted information about these two tokens on Farcaster, the response within the Solana ecosystem exceeded expectations. I initially invested about 2 SOL (around $500) to start the market, but within just an hour, the value of my holdings skyrocketed to over $100,000. When I tried to sell about 25% of my holdings (around $16,000), unexpectedly, the price rose instead of falling five minutes later, so I bought back at a higher price.

But what truly worried me was that I found many retail investors pouring in unsettling amounts of money. More buyers flooded in. Prices began to rise. I started receiving numerous private messages asking about the token. Some referred to me as "the developer" and inquired about the "roadmap."

The biggest problem is the inability to know the true identities of the buyers. In traditional financing, you wouldn't accept an investment from a friend who is addicted to gambling. But in bonding curve trading on public chains, the funds are just cold numbers entering and exiting, with no visibility into the counterparties. Interestingly, this ambiguity might make meme coins more "compliant" from a legal perspective, but the actual risks could be greater. While sometimes ambiguity can be beneficial, especially when you trust the counterparty, in this open, first-come-first-served market, buyers cannot determine who bought in at lower prices, so even trusting the project party does not guarantee safety.

In the meme coin environment, the only seemingly clear act of consent is that buyers explicitly agree to put money into something. But if there is no clear definition, what kind of consent is that?

As I write this article, I am still troubled by these tokens. I have no idea who currently holds these tokens. Let me be clear: I have no plans to further develop these tokens. The purpose of issuing the tokens was as an educational experiment, and I hope that sharing this information can spare others from conducting another "experiment."

The Paradox of CONSENT

This experience 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 cannot control who can purchase these tokens.

Worse still, token holders may have no idea what they hold. They may not have read the token's description or promises at all. In such a case, how can we ensure true informed consent?

This leads me to some possible improvements:

1. Creators should be able to restrict who can purchase their tokens. This may require some form of permission system.
2. There needs to be a better way to ensure that buyers truly understand what they are purchasing. Perhaps they could be required to read and confirm certain information before buying.
3. Token creators should have more tools to manage their tokens, rather than just simple buy and sell functions.
4. 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. None of these are perfect solutions, but they may be steps in the right direction.

Future Thoughts

If we want meme coins to become meaningful tools rather than just speculative games, I believe we need to seriously consider the following points:

1. We need better tools to manage participants. Not everyone should be able to participate in every token project.
2. We need clearer ways to express the purpose and promises of tokens. This is not only to protect buyers but also to protect creators.
3. We need to rethink terms like "developer" and "rug." These terms reflect an unhealthy mindset, suggesting that token creators are either building something or scamming.
4. We need to consider how to ensure responsible participation while maintaining fun.

Conclusion

After this experiment, I have drawn the following conclusions:

1. The current meme coin ecosystem is too chaotic for serious fundraising and too serious for light entertainment. It is in an awkward middle ground.
2. The lack of proper control and consent mechanisms makes this space rife with potential problems.
3. Even the simplest, most straightforward tokens can be misunderstood and overinterpreted.
4. We need to develop better tools and mechanisms to manage these interactions.

Perhaps most importantly, we need to seriously think about what we want this space to become. Is it purely entertainment? A serious fundraising tool? Or something in between?

Regardless, the current state is far from ideal. I hope that by sharing these experiences and thoughts, I can foster some meaningful dialogue about how to make this space better, more responsible, and more meaningful.

To anyone holding any CONSENT tokens: Thank you for participating in this social experiment. I will leave my funds in these two places to address the accusations of my "deceptive behavior." If I could refund everything, I would, but I think those who put tokens into this system did indeed consent.