Zora Token Surges as Base and Solana Execs Lock Horns Over Speculative Creator Coins

The ZORA token, issued by the creator-focused Zora protocol on Coinbase’s Base network, has surged more than 270% over the past seven days to a $800 million market capitalization, triggering a heated debate among crypto leaders over whether creator-linked tokens hold lasting value or are purely driven by speculation.

The rally drew attention as Jesse Pollak, who leads Base at Coinbase, defended the idea that creator coins — such as those issued on Zora — represent a valid model for linking content and value.

In response to criticism from artist Sterling Crispin, who called low liquidity coins on automated market makers with exponential price curves “shitcoins” in a reply on X to a post promoting Zora, Pollak wrote that “Content is valuable. Creators are valuable,” adding that coins are “the most powerful technology we have as an industry for enabling the free flow of value.”

Crispin described these tokens as a “zero-sum PvP game of musical chairs,” saying that simply rebranding them as creator tokens doesn’t change their nature. He added that “99.99999% of tokens like this go to zero with haste” and warned that without changes to the platform’s tokenomics, the outcome was predictable.

Built on Base, Zora allows creators to issue tokens tied to individual content posts or broader online identities. As activity on the platform rose alongside the token, Pollak argued that creator coins on Zora were structurally different from tokens launched anonymously on platforms like PumpFun. “[…] $rasmr or $gainzy is different than a random coin launched on pump by an anon deployer. It’s myopic to say that all these are the same,” he wrote.

Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko challenged the idea that Zora coins hold true value, arguing that unless they gave holders claims to future cash flows or off-chain assets, they are little more than speculative bets. He emphasized that “fundamental value is external and independent of buys or sells,” adding that if the coins had any real value, “then creators dumping them would be good for retail because presumably retail would be able to buy them below the fundamental price.”

Pollak argued that “the content itself is fundamentally valuable,” comparing the content’s worth to that of a painting whose value remains intact regardless of whether admission fees are charged.

Yet, Yakovenko continued to press for clarity, asking if retail holders would benefit from a price drop if the coin’s value were truly intrinsic; Pollak responded that there were multiple Zora coin types “where the behavior of actors matters to the system,” to which Yakovenko laconically replied, “sounds like the fundamental value is zero.”