To understand the magnitude of the @jackbutcher Checks run, I wanted to translate it into CREDITS terms Not by comparing floor prices directly Checks started with 16,031 pieces CREDITS has 122,154 ETH was also priced very differently in 2023 So I used the Coinbase ETH/USD close on each date, calculated the Checks USD floor market cap, then spread that same value across the full CREDITS supply Apples to apples ▷ Jan 3, 2023 Checks mint price: $8 Implied mint valuation: ~$128K CREDITS also minted at $8 via X Money payments but with 7.62x more pieces its opening capitalization was already much larger ▷ Jan 17 Checks floor: 0.38Ξ ETH: ~$1,566 Floor market cap: ~$9.54M Same market cap in CREDITS today: ~$78 per Credit ~0.029Ξ That one surprised me CREDITS currently sits around a 0.02678Ξ floor, or ~$8.79M across the full live supply In floor-cap terms, it’s already very close to the Jan 17 Checks snapshot ▷ Feb 7, five days before migration & compositing burns opened Checks floor: 2.45Ξ ETH: ~$1,671 Floor market cap: ~$65.64M Same market cap in CREDITS today: ~$537 per Credit ~0.20Ξ That is roughly 7.5x the current CREDITS floor ▷ Feb 13, immediately after migration & compositing burns opened Checks Editions: ~1Ξ Checks Originals: ~0.95Ξ ETH: ~$1,506 Normalized across CREDITS, those floor caps would equal: Editions equivalent: ~$198 / 0.0735Ξ Originals equivalent: ~$188 / 0.0699Ξ Roughly 2.6x to 2.7x the current CREDITS floor Those are separate views of the same migrating cohort, not two market caps added together This gives me a much cleaner ruler for the comparison CREDITS does not need to trade anywhere near 2.45Ξ per piece to reach the same aggregate valuation Checks carried at its peak With 7.62x more supply, the equivalent is closer to 0.20Ξ at today’s ETH price None of this means CREDITS follows the same path Floor market cap is a blunt measurement, not realizable liquidity The supply, collector base, mechanics & market regime are all different But it does put into perspective the magnitude of the Checks price movement as the start of its burn mechanics approached Current CREDITS floor cap: ~$8.79M Checks Jan 17 floor cap: ~$9.54M Checks Feb 7 floor cap: ~$65.64M No prediction, just a cleaner ruler Could CREDITS price action rhyme with Checks as Statement burns approach? Let’s see what happens There’s still so much of this story left to unfold, but I wouldn’t underestimate the potential

CREDITS DAILY #3 • Sept 26 Floor cooled, Statement capacity grew ▷ MARKET Floor: 0.0229Ξ (~$62), down 19.9% 9,430 unique CREDITS listed, down 40 That’s 7.72% of the 122,154-piece edition 2,629 unique sellers, down 143 115 listings sit within 10% of floor, 460 within 25% So price moved lower, but the floor actually got thinner ▷ OFFICIAL RATING FLOORS Top 100: 0.1799Ξ (~$483) Top 1,000: 0.058Ξ (~$156) Top 1%: 0.038Ξ (~$102) Top 5%: 0.0294Ξ (~$79) Top 10%: 0.026Ξ (~$70) ▷ OFFICIAL TRAIT FLOORS 2 Eights: 0.033119Ξ (~$89) 3 Eights: 0.195Ξ (~$524) 4 Eights: 1.789Ξ (~$4,806) Loose Print: 0.02947Ξ (~$79) ▷ CREDITSTRATEGY The third-party TokenWorks strategy now holds 4,774 CREDITS, up 1,526 That’s 3.91% of the edition under one contract address Raw owner addresses fell by 323, but that isn’t the same as 323 collectors leaving when so much inventory moved into pooled strategy custody ▷ STATEMENT WATCH Excluding CreditStrategy: 241 wallets hold 80+ CREDITS, unchanged Eight crossed above 80 while eight fell below Those wallets now hold 34,016 CREDITS, up 185 That’s 27.85% of the edition Theoretical Statement capacity: 364, up 4 That represents 29,120 CREDITS, or 23.84% of supply The floor cooled, but the same number of Statement-sized wallets ended the day holding more assembly capacity ▷ FIVE DAYS TO ASSEMBLY Statement assembly opens October 1, five days from this snapshot Five days can feel like forever in crypto, but it’s barely a runway for a mechanic that needs 80 inputs The floor may keep searching while collectors wait for more Statement details I’m less interested in guessing the exact bottom than watching who keeps building toward 80 Checks started as another $8 Jack Butcher edition & ran hard into the reveal of its burn game, then cooled off around migration The lesson isn’t that burns automatically lift floors, it’s that the full mechanic changed how collectors valued each piece as an input My bigger read is CREDITS may eventually be remembered as one of the sparks that woke NFT culture back up 122,154 pieces entered through eligible $8 X Money payments, with each transaction ID becoming the seed for its artwork That feels historic Then Punks, Art Blocks & other blue chips started showing signs of life in the days following I’m not saying CREDITS caused all of that, but collections earn another kind of provenance from what they come to represent CREDITS may represent a big piece of the moment NFTs started feeling alive again Data snapshot: Sep 26, 04:24 UTC ETH reference: $2,686.51 NFA; Have fun collecting CREDITS

My honest strategy this bull run: ☑️ DCA’ing BTC for retirement ☑️ Skipping alts & memecoins other than what I already hold ☑️ Going straight to NFTs Future on track, having fun collecting, avoiding my bad crypto trading instincts 😭 Just feel less stressed this way 🤷🏻‍♂️ NFA, do what ya like 🤝

I just grabbed 3 more underpriced CREDITS off the floor because I started thinking about this math… Let’s imagine 10/1 for a second- assembly of Statements begins There are 122,154 CREDITS Every Statement requires 80 CREDITS to be burned Jack confirms that a maximum of 1,526 Statements can ever be made That’s the absolute ceiling, not the expected supply My first two CREDITS DAILY reports showed something interesting After excluding CreditStrategy: ▷ 223 → 241 wallets holding 80+ ▷ 326 → 360 theoretical Statement capacity increase ▷ +34 Statements of capacity in just 24 hours Now imagine assembly opened today & every one of those wallets assembled the maximum its balance allows ▷ 360 Statements created ▷ 28,800 CREDITS burned ▷ CREDIT supply falls from 122,154 → 93,354 23.58% of the entire edition gone Now look at the other side Only 360 Statements would exist against an absolute lifetime maximum of 1,526 And there’s no chance all 360 would be for sale Once the first meaningful Statement sales start printing, whales won’t just see the price They’ll see a new Jack Butcher collection capped at 1,526, created by permanently consuming another Jack Butcher collection 80 pieces at a time Let’s be honest, whales are going to eat this game up Then two races begin: ▷ Buy one of the few Statements available ▷ Accumulate 80 CREDITS before the ingredients reprice Every Statement sale markets Statements Every Statement assembled burns CREDITS Every burned CREDIT makes the next Statement harder to assemble That’s the loop I can’t stop thinking about ARE YOU SEEING IT? 1,526 is the ceiling The actual Statement supply may be much smaller And the “race for the next 80” hasn’t even properly started yet

CREDITS DAILY #2 • SEP 25 24 hours after yesterday’s baseline, the floor softened, listing depth expanded & @jackbutcher’s official Credit Ratings gave us a much better way to map rarity sectors ▷ MARKET Floor: 0.0286Ξ (~$77), down 4.7% 9,470 unique CREDITS listed, up 437 That’s 7.75% of the 122,154-piece edition 2,772 unique sellers, up 38 274 listings now sit within 10% of floor, up from 93 My bullish read: this may be a touch of the expected “calm” before Statement assembly storm begins 10/1 With some one-CREDIT holders taking the quick $8→$80 win while 18 more wallets quietly crossed the 80-CREDIT threshold ▷ OFFICIAL RATING FLOORS I’m replacing 4 Plates & Extreme Weight as headline rarity shelves with official rank bands They can still matter aesthetically, but neither is a direct input in Jack’s rating formula Cheapest listing within each cumulative band: Top 100: 0.495Ξ (~$1,326) Top 1,000: 0.089Ξ (~$238) Top 1%: 0.074Ξ (~$198) Top 5%: 0.0444Ξ (~$119) Top 10%: 0.032Ξ (~$86) These bands combine all five official inputs: Palette Active Bits Occupied Cells Eights at 2x weight Print They’re a cleaner market lens than assuming more colors, more filled cells or heavier weight must be better The system rewards outcomes that were uncommon across the original 122,154-piece edition ▷ OFFICIAL TRAIT FLOORS 2 Eights: 0.036Ξ (~$96) -7.7% 3 Eights: 0.23Ξ (~$616) -9.1% 4 Eights: 1.96Ξ (~$5,251) +7.2% Loose Print: 0.0448Ξ (~$120) +17.9% The five-Eights 1/1, CREDIT #11469 sold for 10.88 WETH (~$28,982) ▷ CREDITSTRATEGY EFFECT The biggest structural move happened in custody The third-party TokenWorks CreditStrategy contract now holds 3,248 CREDITS, up 1,296 in 24 hours That’s 2.66% of the full edition under one contract address It autonomously buys underlying CREDITS using trading taxes, then holds and relists them This matters for interpreting holder data Raw ERC-721 owner addresses fell from 17,049 to 16,168, but much of that compression reflects NFTs moving into one strategy contract rather than a simple loss of collectors From here, I won’t treat raw holder-address count as a clean collector count without separating protocol custody ▷ STATEMENT WATCH Excluding CreditStrategy: 241 wallets hold 80+ CREDITS, up 18 Combined holdings: 33,831, up 3,000 That’s 27.70% of the edition Theoretical Statement capacity: 360, up 34 That represents 28,800 CREDITS, or 23.58% of supply As always, 80+ means an address is capable of assembling at least one Statement, not that it intends to burn ▷ TAKEAWAY The collection floor softened & thickened while officially high-ranked CREDITS maintained visible premiums 2-Eight & 3-Eight floors cooled, while 4 Eights & Loose Print strengthened But today’s biggest change wasn’t a trait floor It was 1,296 more CREDITS moving into strategy custody, forcing us to improve how holder concentration is measured Data snapshot: Sep 25, 04:35 UTC ETH reference: $2,678.98 Official ratings: jack.art/credits/rating Still refining the model daily, but already seeing the market more clearly 🤝

UPDATE: @jackbutcher released the official Credit Ratings methodology after I posted my decode & went offline I got the core read right, but two important details wrong Here’s the corrected TL;DR 👇 ▷ WHAT I GOT WRONG I guessed the five inputs were Eights, Weight, Print, Plates & Colors and thought Bits might be excluded The actual order is: Palette Active Bits Occupied Cells Eights Print I also treated p as the frequency of one exact trait value It actually measures the share of CREDITS with an outcome as uncommon as, or less common than, yours ▷ THE 5 INPUTS EXPLAINED // Palette The exact combination of cyan, magenta, yellow & black layers It scores the rarity of that specific CMYK combination, not simply how many colors appear // Active Bits The total number of “on” bits across the active color layers More isn’t automatically better and less isn’t automatically better Whichever bit counts occur less often score higher // Occupied Cells The unique spaces filled on the 8×8 grid after the layers overlap Again, fuller or emptier isn’t inherently better The less common cell counts receive more rarity weight // Eights The number of 8s in the original transaction ID, rendered as registration dots Eights officially receive the 2x weight // Print How the color plates align or misalign when overlaid: Registered, Slip, Nudge, Skew, Drift or Loose Each scores according to its relative frequency ▷ TL;DR This isn’t a beauty score or a “more traits = better” system Across each input, the formula asks: How many CREDITS landed on an outcome this uncommon or even less common? Eights are the exception in emphasis because Jack intentionally gives them 2x influence That makes their premium a design choice, not just collector convention And we still don’t know whether Statements will inherit anything from the ratings of their 80 CREDITS, but I’d guess they will Official methodology: jack.art/credits/rating Nice wallet checker update too 📸 These are my four rarest

👀 I think @jackbutcher just revealed the formula for an official CREDITS rarity score Not how Statements will behave At least not yet Here’s what I think it means 👇 Jack didn’t define the variables, so this is my decode, not confirmation ▷ RARITY The first formula calculates the rarity of an individual CREDIT, represented by c R(c) = -Σ wₜ ln pₜ(c) In normal-person language: Take a CREDIT Look at five of its traits Measure how common each trait value is Give rarer outcomes more points Combine them into one rarity score The important part is -ln p A common trait has a high probability and earns fewer points A rare trait has a low probability and earns more An extremely rare outcome receives disproportionately more So Three Eights, Loose Print or Extreme Weight should matter much more than common trait values The five categories are likely Eights, Weight, Print, Plates and Colors Bits may be excluded because Weight already categorizes the bit count, but Jack hasn’t confirmed the trait order yet ▷ WEIGHTS The next piece is: w = ⅙(1,1,1,2,1) Four traits receive normal weight One receives double Which one? Still unknown Until Jack defines the order, anyone claiming to know which trait gets the 2x weight is guessing ▷ CREDIT SCORE The second formula converts rarity rank into a simple score: S(c) = 80 + 720 × (N-r(c))/(N-1) Where N is likely the collection size and r(c) is that CREDIT’s rarity rank That creates a scale where: ▷ Rank #1 = 800 ▷ Middle rank = ~440 ▷ Final rank = 80 Very Jack Even the rarity system lives inside the project’s 8 and 80 language One interesting detail: this is a rank-based score It tells you where a CREDIT sits relative to every other CREDIT, but not how large the rarity gap is between neighboring ranks ▷ STATEMENTS? This does not appear to explain how Statements behave On October 1, collectors can burn any 80 CREDITS to create one Statement But this formula contains no group of 80, no arrangement rule and no instructions for combining 80 scores It appears to rank one CREDIT at a time That said, the score could eventually become an input to Statement assembly Maybe Statements inherit the average, total or trait composition of their 80 CREDITS Maybe score affects appearance, ranking or something nobody has guessed yet But none of that is confirmed by this formula ▷ WATCH NEXT The five things I’m waiting for: ▷ Exact trait order ▷ Which trait gets 2x weight 👀 ▷ How tied scores are ranked ▷ Whether burned CREDITS remain in the rankings ▷ Whether Statements inherit anything from their 80 CREDIT scores My read: High confidence this is the blueprint for the official CREDIT rarity system Possible but unconfirmed that it becomes part of Statement assembly No evidence yet that it determines Statement appearance, utility or behavior This is why CREDITS has me hooked The art came from acts of trust The metadata became a collector game Now even the rarity formula looks like conceptual art ☑️ The mechanism is the medium

👀 $BYTES has a utility most of NFT-land forgot I just max-staked my 4th @NeoTokyoCode S1, #3958, bringing me to 8,000 BYTES deposited across 4 Citizens, but why? I’ve been stacking BYTES while they’re cheap because the Bank of Neo Tokyo remains one of the strangest & most interesting pieces of NFT tech still running ▷ NFT x DEFI What if an NFT’s traits could change the yield earned by tokens staked with it? That’s essentially what Neo Tokyo built 5 years ago Each S1 is more than the artwork Its traits determine Credit Yield Its Vault changes the reward multiplier Its lock period adds staking points 🔥 And its BYTES deposit acts like the turbo button It feels less like staking a JPEG and more like configuring a baller character in a dystopian RPG who somehow mastered compound interest NFT character sheet meets DeFi position ▷ THE BOOSTER A Vault-equipped S1 can pair with up to 2,000 BYTES The vast majority of S1’s are Vault equipped btw: any with trait Reward Rate: 2+ In a basic 1-month lock setup, those 2,000 BYTES contribute 10 of the Citizen’s 11 staking points That means the token’s most powerful utility isn’t necessarily spending it It’s depositing it with a Citizen to make that Citizen work passively harder inside the Bank At the current $0.29 price, maxing the BYTES booster costs about $580 per S1 Using the same 0.423 BYTES/day reward rate modeled in my quoted post, that setup would accumulate about 154 BYTES over one year If those rewards were later valued at: ▷ $1 BYTES = ~$154 ▷ $2 BYTES = ~$309 ▷ $5 BYTES = ~$772 ▷ $10 BYTES = ~$1544 The same emissions become far more valuable if BYTES revisits higher prices That’s the asymmetry I’ve been stacking toward ▷ WHY NOW? NFT activity is stirring again CryptoPunks & rare ArtBlocks are moving in force Jack Butcher’s CREDITS minted 122k pieces and cleared over 1,400Ξ in secondary volume within days Collectors are paying attention again, but I don’t think the next NFT cycle will only be about pfps & art The projects that become interesting again may be the ones where the NFT actually does something AND have proven history & provenance Neo Tokyo connected NFT traits, token deposits, Vaults, lock periods and onchain rewards before “NFT x DeFi” became a category pitch The Bank wasn’t a roadmap promise It shipped And it’s still running ▷ TIGHT SUPPLY The current S1 setup makes this more interesting ▷ 2,039 assembled S1 Citizens ▷ 1,429 staked, or 70.1% ▷ 1,737 owner wallets, or 85.2% holder ratio, which is insane Very unusual broad ownership with most of the assembled supply already deposited in the Bank When NFT demand returns in force, new buyers won’t be approaching a dead holder base They’ll be competing for Citizens already held by people actively reaping from the Bank of Neo Tokyo’s best kept secret Live “Citizen Interlink” tools we’ve built from the ground up at @GridPhantoms will help you grasp the variables: gridphantoms.app/citizen/hol… ▷ THE BET Price can fall Reward rates decay Higher BYTES prices are speculative Nothing here is guaranteed And this is never financial advice But after maxing 4 S1s with 8,000 BYTES, I’m increasingly convinced the deposit multiplier is the token’s secret weapon It turns BYTES from something you simply hold into something that changes what your NFT can do That is a very dope idea And years later, it still feels ahead of its time 🗼Grand Rising

CREDITS where credit’s due Minted 10 Collected 10 Balance achieved Hard call but CMY’s with funky print settings might be my favs

CREDITS DAILY Now that one full day of holder, listing & trait-floor data is in the books, I’m kicking off daily tracking of CREDITS by @jackbutcher MARKET ▷ Floor: 0.03Ξ (~$80) ▷ 9,033 unique CREDITS listed, 7.39% of supply ▷ 2,734 unique sellers ▷ 93 listings within 10% of floor ▷ 849 listings within 25% COLLECTOR FLOORS ▷ 2 Eights: 0.039Ξ (~$104) ▷ 3 Eights: 0.253Ξ (~$677) ▷ 4 Eights: 1.828Ξ (~$4,892) ▷ Extreme Weight: 0.045Ξ (~$119) ▷ Loose Print: 0.038Ξ (~$102) ▷ 4 Plates: 0.0348Ξ (~$93) I’ll be developing more floor watch sectors for the next report Five Eights Watch: the 1/1 CREDIT #11469 is listed at 28.88888Ξ (~$77,317) HOLDER SHAPE ▷ 17,049 holder wallets ▷ Average: 7.16 / Median: 1 ▷ 10,222 (60%) hold exactly 1 ▷ 4,294 hold 2–9 ▷ 1,696 hold 10–39 ▷ 613 hold 40–79 STATEMENT WATCH ▷ 224 wallets hold 80+ ▷ At the 80-CREDIT threshold, that represents at least 17,920 CREDITS ▷ Actual combined holdings: 32,783 CREDITS, 26.84% of supply ▷ Theoretical Statement capacity: 350 (28,000 CREDITS, 22.92% of supply) The 80+ count shows wallets capable of assembling at least one Statement, not total Statement capability or intent to burn From here we can track what actually changes across floors, listings, holder distribution & Statement-capable wallets Hope you appreciate the data, I’ll be refining along the way Let me know what you’d like to see added Thanks for following

Decided to pick up the baton on this @Sheipiter project Sent me down a severe rabbit hole and couldn’t turn back 😂😮‍💨 I had my Hermes agent decode & scan all 122,154 @jackbutcher CREDITS, looking for shapes that could fill the gaps It ranked candidates, rendered them into review sheets & sent them to me for a human plausibility test That last part mattered The machine was good at surfacing possibilities, but also good at seeing letters no human eye would accept I kept only the ones that read without too much explanation I added 7 to get us to 21/26 My additions are outlined I also found two token ID typos in the original chart Matching the artwork back against every onchain color layer resolved Q as #48788 & Y as #69223 Some use the whole silhouette, others an outline, negative space or a mix It’s not a perfect alphabet, but letterforms don’t have to be conventional H, I, N, O & Z are still open I’m sure some human eyes could find what my machine missed Who else wants to jump in from here?

🔥 SOLD @NeoTokyoCode S1 Elite Citizen #946 for 2.3Ξ (~$6,334) 🔑 Citizen #946 Key Traits: 🔹Extra Item: Cyber Penguin (1/16) 🔹Helm: Ice Helm (1/18) 🔹Class: Punk (1/72) 🔹Apparel: Grunt 1 (1/73) 📍Location: Highland Core 🔹Reward Rate: 2 🔸Rarity Rank: 353 Current S1 Elite Floor: 2.4Ξ (~$6,428) 🗼Grand Rising

Did I find the raised fist ✊ CREDIT? Two Eights, a Nudge print & 34 Bits in one color Paid 0.1Ξ, above the Two-Eights floor, to bring it home to the Vault @jackbutcher CREDITS are addictive I bet we’re going much higher Show me your favs

HOW TO GRADE JACK BUTCHER’S CREDITS What ~13K sales tell us + some admittedly dubious price guesses If you’re just tuning in... Jack launched an open edition through X Money You sent $8, include an ETH address & the transaction ID became the seed for one Credit The ID becomes four 8×8 CMYK grids, payment time selects the layers & literal 8s register visually Final supply: 122,154 Credits Each Credit is a complete artwork, but collectors can also burn 80 to assemble one Statement Statement assembly opens eight days after launch with a maximum possible supply of 1,526 ━━ WHERE THINGS STAND ━━ When I last checked, OpenSea had indexed: ▷ 60,865 of 122,154 Credits ▷ 12,621 sales ▷ 507Ξ volume ▷ 0.0318Ξ floor Less than half has arrived, so this is very early price discovery OpenSea ranks are basically useless while indexing continues Grade the traits, not the current rank ━━ MARKET SIGNALS ━━ EIGHTS are the clearest rarity signal ▷ Five Eights: 1 ▷ Four: 26 ▷ Three: 398 ▷ Two: 4,238 ▷ One: 27,996 ▷ None: 89,495 The first ~13K sales show a clean price ladder: ▷ Four Eights: 1.50Ξ median ▷ Three: 0.28Ξ ▷ Two: 0.062Ξ ▷ One: 0.0353Ξ ▷ None: 0.035Ξ The Five-Eights one-of-one is unlisted with a 4.5 WETH offer Three Four-Eights sales have cleared at 1Ξ, 1.5Ξ & 1.81Ξ One means little financially so far Two gets attention Three gets serious Four or Five is trophy territory Outside EIGHTS, two traits show a repeatable premium: ▷ Extreme Weight: 0.068Ξ median, 1.02% supply ▷ Loose Print: 0.058Ξ median, 0.80% supply Four Plates / full CMYK looks great, but its 0.037Ξ median is barely above the broad 0.0353Ξ market ━━ MY GRADING SCALE ━━ S+ | Five Eights The one-of-one S | Four Eights Only 26 exist A | Three Eights 398 exist with early sales reaching 0.8Ξ B | Two Eights, Extreme or Loose Stack two and I’d consider moving it up a grade C | Drift, CMYK or a genuinely great composition COMMON | Zero or One Eight with common Print and Weight traits Still complete artworks & still raw material for Statements Visual quality matters inside every tier ━━ SPECULATION ━━ This is unreliable, probably wrong & obviously the fun part My short-term guess is the common floor gets messier before it gets cleaner Another ~61,300 Credits must arrive, so commons could hit 0.02Ξ–0.03Ξ as large allocations land Then Statement assembly becomes the counterforce At a 0.0318Ξ floor, acquiring 80 Credits costs roughly 2.54Ξ (~$7,000) before gas If collectors want Statements, cheap Credits become raw material My admittedly optimistic ranges once distribution settles, assembly opens, and the quest to collect 80 grows: ▷ Commons: 0.05Ξ–0.10Ξ ▷ Two Eights: 0.10Ξ–0.20Ξ ▷ Extreme or Loose: 0.15Ξ–0.25Ξ ▷ Three Eights: 0.50Ξ–1Ξ+ ▷ Four Eights: 2Ξ–5Ξ+ ▷ Five Eights: wherever one determined collector decides it belongs The Five already has a 4.5 WETH offer Since everything revolves around 8, someone will surely try to manufacture an 8Ξ or 8.88Ξ headline Statements are harder to guess With an 80-Credit replacement cost near 2.54Ξ, a 3Ξ–5Ξ opening conversation feels obvious But original participants could have acquired 80 Credits for only $640 Some will think in replacement cost, others in cost basis That gap should create absolute chaos when assembly opens So it honestly could be that I’m being way too conservative on such an iconic and historic collection My bull case is the market splits into three lanes: ▷ Commons priced around Statement demand ▷ Rare Credits priced as standalone art ▷ Statements priced as the scarce assembled layer The bear case is simple Supply overwhelms buyers, too few burn 80 & prices drift toward the original $8 entry, but I doubt that happens Way too early to know where it settles But the first receipts are already telling us where collectors are looking Good luck everyone, and have fun collecting these beauties

My thesis: Pre-AI Model algorithmic art on @artblocks_io is going to age like fine wine because the skill was verifiably harder and it's timestamped.

Last @jackbutcher NFT sales on Chinese OTC 21 × $100 = $2,100 4 × $100 = $400 20 × $120 = $2,400 1 × $100 = $100 5 × $120 = $600 6 × $100 = $600 1 × $120 = $120 1 × $120 = $120 docs.google.com/spreadsheets… Total volume 59 bought for $6,440 Average buy price ≈ $109.15 each. Pending buy orders 10 at $90 and 20 at $80. Seems they're trading on wechat or something like this.

I was wrong Not going to make excuses I deserve to be dunked on

🎲 Grid Phantoms current raffle just got more interesting - 5 Jack Butcher “8” mints added to the prizes