Dogecoin Co-Founder Slams Buterin's 'Creator Token' Vision as Fundamentally Flawed
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has put forward a detailed framework aimed at reforming the often-criticized "creator token" ecosystem. His model seeks to leverage decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and prediction markets to shift incentives from sheer content volume toward verifiable quality.
In a lengthy post on social media platform X, Buterin argued that the current landscape—dominated by platforms like BitClout and Zora—often benefits celebrities and high-status individuals over creators whose work merits recognition. "The mechanism tends to reward popularity and existing clout, not necessarily the creation of value," he noted, adding that the rise of AI-generated content further exacerbates the challenge of identifying genuine quality.
Buterin's proposal suggests creators issue tokens and apply to curated, topic-specific DAOs. Members would then vote on which content or creators to endorse. Parallel prediction markets would allow speculators to bet on approval outcomes, theoretically aligning financial speculation with community curation. Accepted creators could see token value appreciation, while the DAOs would burn a portion of tokens to create scarcity.
This is not Buterin's first attempt to steer web3 toward more nuanced governance. Earlier this year, he emphasized the need for "better DAOs, not just bigger ones," and hinted at a renewed push for decentralized social networking protocols in 2026.
Sharp Rebuttal from a Crypto Veteran
The proposal was swiftly criticized by Dogecoin co-founder Billy Markus, known by his online handle "Shibetoshi Nakamoto." In a characteristically blunt response, Markus dismissed creator tokens as "dead tokens walking."
"It's a fundamentally broken model," Markus stated. "We see millions of tokens launched every year; most become irrelevant within months. Dressing this up with DAOs and prediction markets doesn't change the core trajectory—it just adds complexity to the same ghost-town outcome."
His skepticism points to a broader divide within the crypto community between those advocating for complex, mechanism-driven ecosystems and those who view such constructs as over-engineered solutions to problems of speculative hype.
Community Reaction
Alex Chen, a DeFi researcher at Blockchain Insights LLC, commented: "Buterin is trying to solve a real curation problem. Prediction markets could, in theory, surface quality through collective intelligence. But the governance overhead is substantial, and getting critical mass of thoughtful voters is the real hurdle."
Maya Rodriguez, a digital artist and early creator token user, said: "As a creator, the idea of a DAO judging my work is nerve-wracking but also intriguing. The current system feels like a popularity contest. If this could somehow reward genuine artistry, I'm cautiously optimistic."
Jordan Peck, a crypto trader and outspoken podcast host, reacted sharply: "This is pure fantasy. Vitalik is living in an academic bubble. Billy is 100% right—these are just more elaborate pump-and-dump schemes waiting to happen. The entire 'creator economy' on-chain is flooded with abandoned tokens. Adding prediction markets just lets degens gamble on the outcome. It solves nothing."
Professor Elena Vance, a fintech economist at King's College, offered analysis: "Buterin's model attempts to introduce a layer of meritocracy into a highly speculative space. The burning mechanism and curated DAOs aim for long-term sustainability. However, Markus's critique highlights the persistent failure rate of tokenized projects. The success of this proposal hinges entirely on the integrity and expertise of the DAO members, which is a significant assumption."
The debate underscores the ongoing struggle to build sustainable, value-driven models within the crypto creator economy, balancing innovative mechanism design with the pragmatic lessons of countless failed token launches.