In this thread, I present my thought process behind $BLUR and why Blur’s Bid Point model will likely succeed and replace the pending order transaction model used by OpenSea, LooksRare, X2Y2, etc.
Blur has evidently achieved strong product-market fit, but is its success solely attributable to incentivization and wash trading? The data presented here rejects that skeptical assumption. The majority of trading occurring on Blur is organic, and the current incentives are designed to entice traders to migrate from existing marketplaces like OpenSea and encourage them to become more familiar with Blur’s trading tools.
What Is Blur’s Biggest Moat?
I believe that Blur’s exceptional product experience is what sets it apart. If Blur can maintain its superior product experience, it will be able to keep its traders engaged on the platform, without necessarily relying on $BLUR incentives. More details in the thread above.
Although I am confident in Blur’s prospects, there are some concerns I would like to address:
- What is the team’s strategy for generating revenue in the long run?
- Are they going to stick to a low take rate (0.5%) after gaining considerable market share?
- How do they plan to maintain and incentivize the bidding pool/liquidity depth?
- At what point does Blur plan to transition from product-market fit to revenue generation?
It is going to be an uphill battle for Blur as OpenSea desperately tries to defend their market share. However, one thing is certain: the NFT consumer experience is set to undergo a substantial transformation and improve dramatically going forward.