In April 2025, a controversy triggered by blockchain platform Zora and Coinbase’s Base network thrust the concept of “content tokenization” into the spotlight. The incident not only exposed potential risks of emerging technologies but also sparked deep industry reflection on blockchain application ethics and market regulations.
Incident Recap: From a Tweet to a Multi-Million Dollar Market Rollercoaster
On April 16, Base’s official social media account posted a tweet saying “Base is for everyone,” which was then linked to the Zora platform, automatically generating an ERC-20 token of the same name. Zora’s “content tokenization” feature allows any social media content to be converted into a tradable digital asset, but this particular tweet unexpectedly ignited a market frenzy. Within hours, the token’s market cap skyrocketed to $17 million, plummeted 94%, and then rebounded to $23 million the next day. The extreme price fluctuations impacted over 2,500 wallet addresses, with some users accusing the project of “misleading actions” and “market manipulation.”
Data shows that 47% of the token supply was concentrated in three wallets, with one address holding 25.6%. This high concentration of holdings, combined with bot trading, amplified market instability. Although the Base team emphasized the token was merely a “cultural experiment” and promised not to sell their 10% share, the controversy was already in full swing.
Focus of the Controversy: Innovation Experiment or Speculative Trap?
Supporters argue that content tokenization is an inevitable trend in the Web3 era. Jesse Pollak, head of Base, called it “a new form of marketing,” aiming to enhance content dissemination, boost community participation, and generate income through tokenization. Zora also emphasized its mission to bring “all content on-chain” and drive innovation in the creator economy. For example, musicians, artists, and even brand advertisers could directly interact and profit from their audiences through tokens.
However, critics highlight that such experiments ignore the real risks of the current market. Blockchain developer Suhail Kakar bluntly stated that the project team was fully aware the token would be viewed as a speculative tool, yet failed to implement sufficient investor protections. Legal expert Gabriel Shapiro noted that while tokenization itself isn’t wrong, there must be a clear distinction between a “cultural experiment” and a “financial product.” In this case, users mistook “content tokens” for traditional cryptocurrencies, resulting in heavy losses.
Technical Logic and Market Challenges
Zora’s underlying mechanism is based on the ERC-20 standard, allowing creators to use smart contracts to convert content into tokens and earn a share from transaction fees. For example, Base earned $75,000 from this token. However, the openness of ERC-20 also poses risks: unregulated liquidity pools, highly centralized token distribution, and irreversible transactions—all of which can be exploited.
More concerning is the increasingly blurred line between content tokens and “memecoins.” Although the Base team insisted their token was a “content coin” rather than a memecoin, market behavior showed that speculators did not differentiate between the two. This cognitive dissonance could lead more projects to use “innovation” as a cover for exploitative schemes.
Industry Lessons: A Future Path Balancing Innovation and Responsibility
This controversy serves as a wake-up call for the blockchain industry:
-
Transparency and Education: Project teams must clearly define token attributes to avoid confusion between financial speculation and cultural participation. For instance, Zora has added a disclaimer to the token page stating “no promise of returns.”
-
Technical Compliance: The ERC-20 standard should introduce more risk control mechanisms, such as position caps or transaction cooldown periods, to reduce market manipulation risks.
-
Exploring Regulatory Frameworks: Countries need to accelerate the development of classification standards for content tokenization, distinguishing between cultural assets and financial instruments for regulatory purposes.
For regular investors, understanding the principles of tokenization technology and market risks is crucial. Using tools like the JuCoin risk assessment platform is recommended to evaluate personal risk tolerance.
The Future of Web3: From Controversy to Maturity
Despite ongoing debates, the potential of content tokenization is undeniable. From art copyright management to brand engagement, blockchain provides decentralized value distribution tools for creators. As Web3 advocates say, the future of the internet will be “readable, writable, and ownable”—but realizing this vision requires the co-evolution of technological ethics and market standards.
Neason Oliver
