Blur Update Sparks Both Controversy and Exhaustion Among Traders

blur

The latest update from blur.io, the controversial NFT marketplace, has once again ignited lively conversations among traders, collectors, and Blur point farmers on Twitter. The debate has been primarily over whether the platform brings more harm than good to the overall health of the NFT space.

The platform’s latest version, Blur v2, introduces gas optimizations that result in a 50% reduction in trading costs. Blur says this means that users can now save approximately $16 on each NFT purchase, taking into account current gas prices.

That was not the update that has got people talking, however. Blur’s showcase new feature is the introduction of trait bidding. Previously limited to collection bids, Blur v2 now enables users to bid on specific traits such as mids, rares, or any desired trait within a collection. While trait bidding is available for all collections, only select collections, such as Punks, Degods and Milady’s, will accrue trait bidding points. 

All of this, and yet no sign of when Season 2 will end.

Reactions were mixed to the news, with one of the major Blur farmers speaking with their wallet in response.

Top Farmer packs his bags

Arguably, the most well known Blur farmers are Franklin and Machi; two traders who have had their activity reported on and scrutinized for months.

One account which is less well known, but had actually accrued more points than the pair, is “CBB0FE.” Upon reading the Blur announcement, CBB0FE promptly emptied their funds from the Blur pool, a massive $15,217,000 approximately, in what can only be described in the game as a “rage quit.” Clearly, this update, which included no news on when Blur farmers were going to be receiving the fruit of their labors, did not go down well.

On the other side of the matter, holders and non-farming traders were equally exhausted by the news. Dingaling, the well-known NFT collector, echoed the feelings of many with the following:

PacMan Responds

It’s par for the course now that when Blur releases an update/announcement, it’s met with negative sentiment. A very stark contrast to earlier this year where they were being hailed as the chosen one who would dethrone Opensea’s monopoly on NFT marketplaces.

While they have certainly eaten away at it considerably, it has come at a cost to their reputation. Blur.io founder, Pacman, broke cover to address the latest criticisms aimed at his platform.

In response to the accusations that Blur have essentially killed collection floor prices via their gamified features, Pacman highlighted the fluctuating nature of floor prices since their launch in October 22:

“One of the few times floor prices went up in concert was when we injected liquidity into nfts via our airdrop. One of the few times floor prices went down in concert was when $40m of liquidity was removed via the Azuki mint (not throwing stones, the market just moves based on liquidity more than anything else).”

Final Thoughts

Many, not excluding Blur’s biggest fans, appear to be tiring of the effect the platform is having on the wider market.

Pacman is correct in his statement that they did inject a lot of liquidity into the market. Likewise, that disastrous events such as the Otherside mint in 2022 caused immense damage.

However, Pacman failed to mention the consequences of them removing creator royalties. If creators no longer receive royalties from secondary sales, what incentive do they have to continue supporting and developing their existing collections for holders? In this scenario, creators may opt to flood the market with additional supply or launch new collections since they have already been compensated upfront. And so the process repeats, extracting capital endlessly from market participants.

The world of NFTs has evolved far beyond pretty pictures that people buy and sell. The intricacies of NFT mechanics have grown increasingly complex, potentially deterring those outside the bubble from participating due to the confusing nature of it all. Blur is a fine example of taking something simple and convoluting it to the point of insanity.

Opinions expressed here are opinions of the Author. Influencive does not endorse or review brands mentioned; does not and cannot investigate relationships with brands, products, and people mentioned and is up to the Author to disclose. Accounts and articles may be professional fee-based.

Tagged with: