The next stop for RWA may not be more financial assets, but IP | Minicoin @ mini_cto tells you why the ultimate goal of monetizing creators may not be subsidies from their creations, but turning them into assets! I was initially interested in the concept of monetization of creative income when I saw the following tweet mentioning it! As a creator for over a decade, I naturally have a strong interest in the topic of monetizing creators. So I was curious to observe this project. I thought it was just another project with creator subsidies as a gimmick, but I found that it was quite different. I am somewhat resistant to creator subsidies because, after all, the seemingly reliable path of creator monetization has not been able to sustain projects in the long run for so many years. For example, the popular Write to earn and SocialFi projects in the previous round, but their first mistake was to interpret giving money to creators as a creator economy, that is, a subsidy model. Similar to the Kaito Yaps model, the subsidy model gradually encountered the same problem: When creation begins to become a quantifiable mining behavior, people will naturally optimize reward rules instead of optimizing content. Eventually, more and more AI content, reply farms, leaderboard farming, bad coins driving out good coins, and finally Game over will emerge. So I have reason to believe that all "Content to Earn" naturally face a paradox: the clearer the reward, the easier it is for creation to shift from expression to labor; And once everyone creates for the sake of rewards, the content itself becomes increasingly worthless, entering a vicious cycle of bad money driving out good money. So, to sustain the income of creators, it definitely does not rely on this subsidy model, but on a natural market incentive model, where the market recognizes your creation and continuously pays you: The biggest challenge here is the issue of content attribution! So when your creation truly generates value, how does that value prove to belong to you? How does the market pay you as a creator. Especially after the emergence of AI, this suddenly became more important than ever: because AI is pushing the cost of creation close to zero, what we may truly lack in the future is not content, but who created it? Who owns it? Who has the right to use it? Who should the value return to after others use it? This is where the value of future creators belongs. For example, in the article I wrote today, if someone wants to use or cite it in the future after obtaining copyright, how can they pay me. That's also why I've been rethinking IP recently. With such a long tail IP, how can traditional copyright systems register it? Relying on contracts, companies, and platforms like today to handle them one by one is actually very inefficient, And this is where I think Minicoin @ mini_cto is truly worth researching, or rather, where its value to creators lies. one ️⃣ Can RWA only be financial assets? The most successful thing RWA has done in the past two years is to bring financial assets from the real world onto the chain. That is to say, we have achieved the most commonly used cryptocurrency stock trading in CEX and DEX: turning US bonds, gold, stocks, credit, and funds into assets that can be traded in Crypto. The logic here is actually similar: there is an asset in the real world first, and then the blockchain provides it with a new infrastructure for issuance, trading, and settlement. Our impression here may solidify: can RWA always only be a 'financial asset'? Actually, it's not necessarily the case. What I see in the Minicoin white paper is another possibility: to establish a blockchain based property rights and trading network for these increasingly small, numerous, and long tail IPs.  If the past RWA was: US Treasury → Tokenized Treasury Gold → Tokenized Gold Stocks → Tokenized Equity So what Creator IP might want to try is: Creation → IP → On chain assets. The biggest difference between these two is that: The things that RWA put on the chain in the past were already very valuable. Before the $100 million US bond was put on the chain, it was already $100 million; Before tokenizing one kilogram of gold, it was one kilogram of gold. But the Creator IP is completely different. It may initially be just a picture; An expression; A character; A song; Even just an idea that just came to someone's mind. Today it may be worthless, but after continuous use, dissemination, and consumption, it may gradually accumulate into a truly valuable IP. This is also why I think Creator IP is more interesting than simply "IP on chain". two ️⃣ What exactly does Minicoin do? After reading the white paper and project materials, if I were to summarize them in the simplest sentence: Minicoin aims to gradually transform a person's creation from content into an IP that can be confirmed, used, disseminated, and commercialized. That is to solve the problem I mentioned at the beginning. The project defines itself as: IP RWA Network + Creator Platform。 I actually think the most important thing here is not the three words RWA, But rather: Creator owned IP. Because Minini is not the end of the entire story. Minicoin has obtained the official authorization of Minini under IPX/LINE FRIENDS, but the project does not involve cutting Minini into 10000 pieces and allowing everyone to buy MINI to obtain ownership or dividends. This point must be distinguished clearly. Minini is more like a demo+traffic entrance, which first showcases a mature IP that has been verified by the market and recognized by many people: But ultimately, what Minicoin really wants users to do is not buy Minini, but create the next Minini of their own. The difference between these two logics is actually very significant. The former is still a traditional IP business: a few people own the IP, while the majority consume it; The latter bet is that in the era of AI, anyone has the potential to become a creator and owner of a micro IP. So the current design path for Minicoin is roughly: Create content - form your own IP - bring the IP to the chain - gain more usage and dissemination - access the market - generate commercial opportunities. It doesn't want to be a platform that pays creators. It's more like building a Creator with a property layer, market layer, and settlement layer. For example, if I create an IP and someone really likes it; Someone is really willing to use it, and even willing to develop new products around this character. So the reason for generating revenue is no longer: the platform wants me to continue creating, or subsidizes me to continue creating, But rather: the market really needs my work, which is the underlying logic that a long-term Creator Economy must establish. This is what I think is the most fundamental difference between this model and the subsidy model I mentioned earlier. One smart aspect of Minicoin that I think is that it starts with "stickers" and reduces the originally very professional task of "creating an IP" to a level that ordinary people can understand and participate in, in order to open up the market. three ️⃣ One IP = One NFT There is another design that I didn't notice at first: Minicoin is not planning to cut an IP into 10000 pieces and then everyone will speculate together. They instead emphasize that One IP=One NFT. One IP corresponds to one complete ERC-721. According to the current design of the white paper, if the IP is originally owned by the creator, then the IP NFT hopes to bind the actual IP rights with the on chain NFT through off chain legal agreements. NFT transfer means the transfer of corresponding rights. If the holder does not want to continue staying in the system, they can also burn the NFT, release the corresponding IP Redeem, and regain full off chain ownership. It's more like: Dollar → Stablecoin Change to: IP → IP NFT. One is to package US dollars into on chain assets; One is to try to package IP rights into on chain assets.  This is actually much more interesting than simply 'IP sending NFTs'. One of the biggest issues with NFTs in the previous round was that people traded images, but often had no idea what rights they were buying. What Minicoin's design really wants to solve is to put IP → rights → ownership → usage → payment into a clearer chain as much as possible. MINI is playing a different role here. It is not a stock of Minini IP, nor is it a dividend certificate of a certain IP, but a Utility/Payment/Settlement Token within the entire IP RWA Network. User creation Tokenize IP， And in the future, MINI can be used as the settlement unit when trading around these IPs in the market. The specific IP itself is carried by the IP NFT. That is to say, it intentionally separated Money and Asset. MINI is money; IP NFT is an asset, which I think is actually cleaner in design. four ️⃣ Areas that need to be observed: According to the path of the white paper, I think whether the Creator IP Network can be established in the future depends on several very practical data: 1) How many real creators are there? 2) Is there a real usage? 3) Is there a real market activity? Finally, there is one more crucial question that I think: after leaving Minini, can Minicoin grow a new IP on its own? If one day there really is an ordinary person, starting from a few unfamiliar stickers, gradually one hundred people will use them; Ten thousand people use it; One million people use it; Then authorization, goods, music, games, or other derivative commercial values are generated, and in this process, property rights, usage, transactions, and payments can be completed within the Minicoin network, That's when this story truly came to fruition. five ️⃣ Conclusion: Minicoin also has an interesting history. It was originally a Community Meme with MINI as its image, and later Mini Labs began upgrading MINI to a true IP Economy Utility Token and Settlement Layer. So in a sense, it is doing something that is not common in Crypto: a Meme attempting to grow products and economic networks in reverse, which is something relatively rare in the Crypto world. As for whether it can be achieved, we can continue to observe: Especially how to truly bind the on chain ownership of IP with real-world legal rights, how to recognize it in different countries, how to enforce it outside the platform, including whether users are willing to actually create here instead of leaving after receiving incentives, these are all very practical issues in the future. In the past round of RWA, already valuable things have been put on the chain, and Creator IP wants to verify whether small, inconspicuous, or even worthless creations can gradually form property rights, dissemination, and market on the chain. If this matter ultimately holds true, the boundaries of RWA may go beyond trillions of dollars in US bonds, stocks, and credit. It will also begin to enter the content that each of us creates every day: emojis, music, characters, images, short videos, and even a large amount of AI agents will create their own content in the future. From this perspective, what Minicoin @ mini_cto is truly worth observing may never be those cute minini, but rather its bet on a bigger change: After AI solves content production, the next bigger infrastructure opportunity may be to re solve who the content belongs to and how the value returns to this person.