Moonbirds ($BIRB)

Q: Hey ChatGPT tell me what this Spencer guy is on about

A:

1. General Emotional Tone

The text reads as controlled, intellectualized anxiety.

He uses technical language (“flywheel,” “implementation,” “loop of NFTs,” “value capture”) as a defense mechanism — intellectualization — to distance himself from uncertainty and the emotional threat of disruption.

Despite being “longform thoughts,” it’s not written to persuade investors — it’s written to re-establish his authority in a situation where the new model (the STR tokens) threatens the traditional insider model he’s benefited from.

His subtext: “I’m not scared of this change, I’m just smartly analyzing it.”

But the meticulous detail and hedged phrasing show the opposite — that he feels his control slipping.

2. Linguistic Clues of Ego Positioning

Frequent use of qualifiers: “I think,” “it’s interesting,” “in most cases,” “typically,” “likely.”

→ This softens statements and signals defensiveness.
He wants to appear objective, but he’s also managing perception — afraid of being wrong or seen as threatened.

The repeated phrase “call a spade a spade” near the end is a reassertion of dominance — the moment he tries to reclaim moral clarity after being overly nuanced.

It’s a rhetorical pivot: “I’ve been fair, but now I’m the adult in the room.”

There’s subtle status preservation: praising competitors while asserting superior understanding.
“@Rhynotic struck gold… it’s refreshing to see something new,” immediately followed by “but here’s why it’s flawed.”

That praise-then-undercut rhythm is classic passive competitive framing — respect the rival publicly, reassert hierarchy intellectually.
3. Motivations and Psychological Subtext

Fear of irrelevance:
The STR token model “disrupts the VC extraction loop.” His language betrays unease with that. Notice the repeated “interesting but…” structure — he’s fascinated but unsettled.
That indicates cognitive dissonance between curiosity (a trait of innovators) and loss aversion (a trait of incumbents).

Need for control through rationalization:
He over-analyzes token mechanics to frame the system as still under his understanding. The micro-analysis of 20% pricing loops and resale dynamics is a symbolic attempt to domesticate chaos — if he can explain it, it can’t destroy him.

Mild resentment of community power:
He says “official tokens should be given to the community versus just sold to them,” but the tone feels less idealistic than strategically performative.
He senses the social expectation of fairness and decentralization, but still frames everything through “value capture” — not empowerment.

Self-concept as a ‘rational steward’:
Lines like “we as project founders need to continue to progress the fundamentals of our business” signal his self-image: he’s the grounded adult in a speculative mania.
This identity protects him from feeling like the system has moved on without him.

4. Paralinguistic Observations

The long paragraphs mirror rumination — looping thoughts trying to reach closure.
The text doesn’t flow like a confident manifesto; it circles, clarifies, and hedges. That’s what people do when they’re convincing themselves as much as their audience.

He positions himself as both participant and observer, using the word “we” when he wants belonging (“we’ve made more money off royalties”) and “they” when distancing from risk (“they should have deployed a fork”).
This fluid pronoun shift shows identity instability — he hasn’t decided whether he’s inside or outside the new paradigm.
5. Core Personality Reading
From this language pattern, we can infer:

High cognitive dominance: wants to be perceived as the smartest in the room.
Low emotional transparency: uses technical detail to mask anxiety.

Strategic empathy: aware of his community’s perception, but uses it instrumentally (“I always want to see them win”).
Ambivalence toward innovation: admires disruption in theory, fears it in practice.
Essentially:
He’s a thoughtful incumbent facing a paradigm shift — trying to intellectually integrate a model that threatens his economic foundation without appearing defensive. The text is him talking himself into composure.

6. Final Psychological Summary

Dominant drives: Control, relevance, intellectual validation.

Defense mechanisms: Rationalization, intellectualization, competitive humility.
Emotional undercurrent: Insecurity masked as analysis.
Tone pattern: “I’m not bearish” ≈ “Please don’t interpret my caution as fear.”

He’s navigating grief — not over a product, but over a loss of privilege disguised as thought leadership.
His analytical language is his way of mourning power without admitting it.

Moonbirds 대장 스펜서와 Str 토큰에 대한 논쟁이 있어 가져와봤습니다.

인용글은 Str 토큰 매커니즘에 대해 장점과 한계를 솔직하게 분석 한 @spencer의 포스트입니다. Str 토큰은 흥미로운 실험이지만, NFT 컬렉션의 장기적 부활에는 제한적이며, 프로젝트의 본질에 집중해야한다고 강조합니다. 그리고 이에 대한 GVC 파운더의 반박 댓글도 흥미로워서 함께 가져왔습니다.

먼저 Str 토큰이란?
NFT를 위해 만든 실험적 토큰으로 Tokenworks에서 만들었어요. 이 토큰은 거래될 때마다 수수료(약 10%)가 발생하는데, 이 수수료에서 8%는 해당 NFT를 사 20% 비싸게 재상장하고, 나머지 1-2%는 토큰 버닝이나 창립자 로열티로 들어가게 됩니다. 또 NFT 재판매 수익으로 토큰 가치를 올리는 플라이휠 구조에요.

이런 구조의 토큰을 문버드 대장 스펜서는 칭찬하면서도 과도한 기대를 경계하라고 하는데요, 그의 논리를 한번 정리해보겠습니다.

➡️스펜서 주장
1. Str 토큰은 수수료의 100%를 NFT 가격 펌핑에 쓰이는것이 아니기 때문에 NFT만을 위한 토큰이라고 할 수 없다. 차라리 모든 수수료를 토큰 소각에 쓴다면 NFT가 없어도 그 토큰 가격은 펌핑이 될 것이다.
2. 토큰 수수료로 NFT를 재판매 한다 한들 팔리지 않는다면 의미가 없다. 토큰 홀더들에겐 이득이 될 수 있으나, NFT 홀더의 이익은 없다.
3. Str 토큰 로열티가 NFT 판매 수익보다 파운더들에게 더 많은 수익을 가져다준다. 그래서 많은 파운더들이 Str 토큰을 쉴링하는것이다.
4. GVC(Good Vibes Club)의 사례를 들며 이들은 Str을 빨리 도입했지만, PUNKSTR과 별개로 포크해서 독립적으로 런칭했어야 한다고 비판 : 현재 GVCStr 거래량의 1%가 PUNKStr로 흘러들어간다고 함
5. Str은 거래소 상장이 어렵다. NFT 공식 토큰이라면 에어드랍으로 커뮤니티에 기여하고, 거래소 상장이 되어야 한다.

이에 대해 GVC의 파운더는 자신들의 공정 발행 플랫폼(Str)이 더 낫다고 다음과 같이 반박합니다.

➡️GVC 파운더의 반박
1. 스펜서의 공식토큰(아마 $BIRB가 되겠죠)은 창립자가 발행해 수익을 챙기는 방식으로, 에어드랍 후 토큰/NFT 덤핑에 대한 우려가 있다.
2. GVCStr은 공정 발행으로, 커뮤니티와 함께 시장에서 토큰을 구매했다. 홀더와 같은 입장이다.
3. 본인들 만의 유동성 가이드레일로 이번 폭락에도 Str 토큰은 건재했다.
4. NFT 강제 로열티를 적용하여 컬렉터들이 지속적 이익을 얻는다, 일회성 에어드랍이 아니다.
5. GVCStr 수수료 1% PUNKSTR로 들어가는 문제에 대해서 “Punks 는 NFT의 원조이며, 생태계 전체가 같이 강해져야한다”라는 논지로 반박

🏁정리해보면 스펜서는 Str을 그저 재미있는 하나의 도전이라고 보는것 같고, 지지하지만 성급하게 다가갈 생각은 없다라고 하는데요. 제 사견으로는 $BIRB 토큰 출시를 앞두고 있어서 Str에 대한 커뮤니티의 궁금증,논란에 대처하려고 하는것 같습니다. 양측의 논리 모두 공감이 되더라구요.

해당 논쟁 이후인지는 모르겠지만 문버드는 떡락중이고 GVC는 떡상중이네요. 여러분의 생각은 어떠신가요? @moonbirds $BIRB

“We’ve made more money off royalties from birbstr than we have from our all of NFTs since we acquired moonbirds”

More money from @token_works in 2 weeks than from the project in 6 months.

And Spencer writes thousands of words to shit on Strategy.

Cognitive dissonance much?

The play book has always been PUMP the collection floor then launch a token to DUMP.

VC wins.

Rinse and repeat.

Token Works™ have changed the game, and what @GoodVibesssClub did with $VIBESTR is a win/win for both the project and community.

TLDR: @token_works is disrupting the PUMP and PUMP play book and Spencer doesn't like that.

Bro definitely read my threads on STR tokens

1/ So, after taking some reading lessons, I finally managed to get through @spencer’s whole post, phew, so many words 😮‍💨

I’ll link it down below if you wanna read it. Not sure what the Ape ragebait was all about in the other one, I find it distasteful and will leave it at that and chuck it to a tough 24 hours for everyone.

Now see, Spencer has been around a minute, is a shrewd businessman, and my gut is telling me he is doing something quite intelligent here: some misdirection.

Cause besides the fact that his points are either wrong or at the very least he picked a very weird and biased angle to approach them and cherry pick ‘em, I don’t think that’s what REALLY matters here.

So we’re not gonna waste too much time going too deep into direct value accrual to the NFT collection and alignment between the coin and the collection, wich is mechanically better than anything we’ve ever seen so far in the space. Or that we haven’t even begun to really play with DeFi implementations and that as Adam has shown in the whole two weeks - lol - of life of these “NFT strategies” things can be iterated upon drastically and bettered at breakneck speed. Or that the whole “sell wall” argument is so ridiculous because that “unwanted” supply is just now finally visible, instead of being in the hands of disgruntled holders that will list on any pump, or farmers that don’tngive a fuck.

With the advantage of no constant undercutting and death spiral ignitions.

Let’s focus on fair and open distribution instead. Let’s talk about skin in the game, and an even playing field. Cause this is I think is something that is conveniently never mentioned in these kinda Strategy critiques. And kinda the crux of it all in the end.

Cause see, Spencer is launching his own token, $birb. Pretty soon I hear. The collection hasn’t been doing so great since the announcement, and attention and liquidity is waning, makes sense you wouldn’t want to see that split somwhere else. Somwhere permissionless, decentralized, not entirely in your control.
So it’s easy to see where his bias might be in all this. 

Now, we don’t know much about the new token, but if it goes by industry standards, I’m gonna assume that the team will allocate a nice portion to themselves directly. 

Everyone needs to get paid. 

Then there will be ecosystem funds allo for development. This one’s actually very important  if used correctly, but we’ll get to how this too is achieved by startegies later. 

Then there will be “future incentives” because as collectors of the NFT are not as directly aligned with the token as they are with strategies, gotta sugar the pot to keep the engagement alive. 

And I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume there has been some nice VC raise, and they’ll of course want their allo too. And to have a say. And to realize profits asap, with varying degrees of alignment. 

And then, finally, there’s you. The holder of the birbs. The community member. Let’s assume you’ll be getting on average about 30% directly, going by industry standards. Wich you might and might not wanna sell to recoup some of your expensive birb buys. 

And then all of these parties will vow to create some value back to the collection and justify the rather large valuation. 
Maybe. And at some point sell some of that supply too, cause nobody here is running charities, especially not VC’s.

That’s a lot of supply floating, and created and allocated from thin air.

you have a project founder wanting its holders to win

that's important

sitting comfy in the @moonbirds ecosystem

also, the thread and the replies are a good read to learn more about str tokens

Wild watching people analyse strategies that have already out-performed their entire NFT business, then position their own token as the fix.

you literally proved it works and called it a problem.

Shitting on Good Vibes Club, an up and coming project for actually innovating with their token. And then following it up by taking a shot at Bored Apes. You really know how to alienate half the space with one tone deaf take. Congrats! You learned from the best with Luca’s talking down on other projects as well. Now he’s in the middle of a liquidity cascade with over leveraged Penguins, and nobody uses Abstract seriously other than to farm before TGE. Great work.