(Header: Petra Voice, Rosa, 2024. Collected by Vienna on Rodeo.)
Text: Vienna Kim & Benoit Palop ~ LAN Party
People are never really happy when there’s a major change to their favorite online platform. Anyone here remember when Instagram replaced their old school polaroid camera logo for the flat gradient graphic in 2016? Or when Tumblr was bought by Yahoo, then-CEO of Yahoo, Marissa Mayer, promised ‘not to screw it up’, and effectively did just that? Or more recently, when Elon Musk took over the helm of Twitter (now X, of course, though we refuse to yield to this new identity) and introduced payment in exchange for the official blue check? In each case, the internet was not happy.
The same is true for many Web3 platforms and applications. In recent months, artists have expressed disappointment with the direction many Web3-native art platforms are taking. This is in response to two new applications in particular: Zora's dedicated mobile application and Foundation’s Rodeo, both of which have changed the ‘meta’ of how we view and collect art onchain. Though neither application claims to be a new form of digital art marketplace under their new direction, rather rebranding themselves as social media applications, some artists have experienced that the new models for distributing and remunerating artworks through the changes in these platforms have been severely diluted. The income streams they once relied on have been slashed, with only the most influential or most-followed artists able to profit from these new systems and contracts. This shift has effectively widened the economic divide and limited opportunities between well-known and emerging artists. Essentially - virality has become king.
And so we ask: Is the rise of onchain virality a blessing or a curse for artists?
Platform Switches and Their Impact
Unlike traditional digital art platforms, the developments at both Zora and Rodeo are not designed to be art galleries or marketplaces. Instead, they function as social networks where users can mint or collect posts, similar to ‘liking’ a post on Instagram but with a financial reward attached. These changes were made possible by advancements in the affordability of costs and minting, due to migrations to L2s (Zora L2 and Base, respectively) which have driven platform fees to around 30 cents per mint, and gas fees as low as 1 cent. This has enabled viral content, like memes, to flourish, moving the emphasis from curated, developed artworks to more spontaneous creations—such as pictures you mint right after snapping them with your phone, WIPs, or daily creations you can craft in just a few minutes. Indeed, one of the slogans Rodeo promotes to encourage people to mint freely under these more affordable conditions is: ‘Don’t overthink it.’
The concern is that both Zora and Foundation’s founding teams have been pivotal to the growth of onchain art since the NFT boom of 2021. For Zora, artists previously relied on the platform’s low-cost open edition model–where each mint cost around $2-3, rather than today’s significantly lower 30 cents–to reach a broad audience while still earning a reasonable income through the volume of editions collected. However, under the new approach that favors virality, remuneration has seen diminishing returns for those who can’t seem to crack the new meta. Now, only those who can achieve widespread popularity are likely to succeed, leaving many emerging or lesser-known artists struggling to make a bit of cash.
In Foundation’s case, while the platform was originally designed for curated, high-quality 1/1 or limited edition artworks, its shift towards Rodeo has made it more challenging for artists to gain traction, again, unless their content goes viral. This move has further widened the gap between established artists with large followings and those trying to break into the scene.
Curation vs. Distribution
Usually, platforms that focus on curation prioritize quality, context, and the historical significance of artworks. In the digital art space, curation has been essential in helping collectors discover and appreciate creators that may be the next break-through artist. Beyond simply showcasing art, curation generates narratives that resonate with the audience, encouraging critical thinking and a deeper engagement with the works. This process is especially significant in the internet era, where the sheer volume of content can be overwhelming. Curated platforms help filter through the noise, allowing for a more profound understanding of the world and society we live in, and highlighting the cultural and societal relevance of digital art.
The strategy of platforms like Zora and Rodeo has redirected the focus to wider distribution. Virality now dominates, where the most popular content—not necessarily the most artistically valuable—receives the most attention and financial rewards. On the one hand, prioritizing wide distribution over careful curation leads to a system where artists must chase trends and viral success to make a living. Additionally, the social graph plays a significant role; if someone influential with a large following mints a piece, it’s likely to sell more due to their established influence. This repositioning has left many feeling snubbed and concerned about the sustainability of their careers in this new environment. On the other hand, the argument for greater distribution is that affordability, combined with the sheer fun and pleasure of being able to mint freely (‘Don’t overthink it’), will attract a new audience of web-savvy users to Web3, with the added bonus of these new entrants being able to earn from what they publish online for the first time, even if they aren’t necessarily a trained artist. Whilst many feel like their earnings have been diluted due to the move towards even cheaper mints, and that the gap between emerging and popular artists is widening, the ironic potential upside is that there is a democratizing effect. Now anyone can earn onchain, even if you’re not an artist, a dev, or a founder.
The Emerging Void
As Zora and Foundation pivot away from being art marketplaces, a void has been left for artists who want to sell 1/1 or limited edition artworks. Major platforms like SuperRare and Foundation’s initial marketplace still exist, but it’s no secret that acquisitions of 1/1 or exclusive limited edition artworks have plummeted in recent years, with a 51% drop in sales volume from 2022 to 2023.
The current sentiment suggests that we may see multiple players emerge to fill this gap, perhaps with digital art galleries like EXPANDED.ART and Verse becoming the go-to places for fine digital art acquisitions. If this is the case, we might see the Web3 art world begin to replicate a curation and distribution model similar to the traditional art world, where multiple galleries of varying sizes and capacities, rather than a few dominant marketplaces, facilitate art transactions. …Though there will always be the Gagosians of the world.
Of course, the problem is this: simply replicating the traditional art establishment defeats the purpose that led many artists to migrate to Web3 in the first place. A significant appeal of Web3 was the removal of gatekeepers and middlemen, offering artists more direct control over their sales and creative autonomy. Now, with this recent change in priorities of two of Web3’s major art platforms, it feels as though focus on this possibility is slipping, raising concerns about where artists can independently sell, curate and distribute their work within a decentralized ethos that many seek in Web3.
Pushing for True Decentralization
The transition to virality in the onchain space carries profound implications for the distribution, curation, and monetization of art. As this trend evolves, it’s crucial to assess whether it will ultimately benefit or harm artists, particularly those just starting out. Despite Web3’s promise of increased agency for artists through decentralization, recent developments with platforms like Zora and Foundation reveal that many artists remain heavily reliant on these platforms for visibility and distribution. When algorithms or platform priorities shift, artists are directly impacted, raising critical questions: Has the Web3 art world ever been truly decentralized? If not, is a genuinely decentralized art market achievable in the future? Might artists eventually become entirely independent, diminishing their reliance on these platforms?
Reflecting on these questions, it’s worth noting that, even with the overarching malaise society feels about the dominance of Web2 social media platforms, Instagram, Twitter/X, and Tumblr have persisted and maintained user bases, even as usage has waned in some cases. Similarly, within the Web3 space, the concerns artists are expressing today may soon be yesterday’s news, as they eventually submit and adapt to changing metas whether through ambivalence or need. This complacency to accept disruptive changes signals a potentially larger problem, one that exists largely in Web2 but also is the exact problem that Web3 ideally should solve: we live in a platform economy, and we rely far too much on a handful of powerful platforms for our online interactions and living. If artists are willing to accept shifting metas in Web3 instead of seeking viable alternatives, it indicates that these platforms still hold significant power, and that the Web3 art space may not be as decentralized as we would like to believe.
v&b