In late July, the ZORA token shocked the market with an astonishing 931% monthly increase, with its price historically breaking the $0.1 mark. This surge coincided with the integration of content tokenization features in the Base App under Coinbase, where the number of new creators added daily skyrocketed to 12,292, and the total number of tokens issued reached 50,475, showcasing a scene of prosperity.
However, on-chain data painted a starkly different picture. Analysts found that during the price surge, there were almost no on-chain transaction records exceeding $500,000. Even more concerning was the staggering 16.4 times disparity between spot trading volume and contract trading volume on centralized exchanges.
The story of ZORA began in 2020, initially positioned as an open-source NFT protocol adhering to the core philosophy of "creation as a public good." It aimed to create a creative paradise for artists without platform fees and with permanent preservation of their works, thus accumulating a loyal following in the early crypto art scene. As congestion on the Ethereum mainnet and high gas fees became bottlenecks, ZORA took a crucial step in 2023 by launching the Layer 2 network Zora Network built on OP Stack. This technological upgrade effectively addressed the pain points of transaction costs and speed, paving the way for subsequent explosions in activity.
The real turning point came in 2024. With the backing of the Base chain ecosystem incubated by Coinbase, ZORA completed a stunning transformation from a mere NFT platform to a social finance protocol. Its deep integration with the Base App directly gave rise to the "creator token" craze sweeping the community: users could mint a tweet, an image, or any digital content into an independent ERC-20 token with a single click, instantly realizing the financialization of social influence.
The upgrade of the Base App was like throwing kindling onto a fire. Data showed that the daily token minting volume on the platform surged from 4,000 tokens to 38,000 tokens in just ten days, while creators' daily earnings skyrocketed from about $1,000 to over $30,000. Meanwhile, the number of active wallets reached 8,000, and discussions about "creator tokens" on social platforms surged by 620%. This series of impressive data collectively formed the "fundamental narrative" supporting the soaring price of the ZORA token.
On the surface, ZORA's market performance seemed driven by solid fundamentals. However, a deeper analysis of the data revealed a bizarre disconnect. On-chain analyst Ai Yi's monitoring revealed a key contradiction: during the most intense price surge, there were no on-chain transaction records exceeding $500,000 for ZORA. This severely contradicted a basic rule of the cryptocurrency market—healthy price increases are usually accompanied by significant on-chain large transfers, token staking, or active DeFi activities.
Meanwhile, the scene on centralized exchanges was bustling. ZORA's spot trading volume on Coinbase reached $82.6 million, while the derivatives trading volume on Binance soared to $1.354 billion, 16.4 times the spot trading volume. The perpetual contract open interest surged by 157% within 24 hours, reaching an astonishing $170 million. This extreme disparity brutally revealed a reality: ZORA's price discovery mechanism had severely detached from its actual application value, completely evolving into a capital game in the derivatives casino.
The market structure itself also harbored vulnerabilities. ZORA adopted a typical "low circulation, high valuation" model: of the total 10 billion tokens, only 35% were in circulation, while the remaining 65% were locked in wallets of institutions and teams. This artificially created scarcity led to a very thin depth in the spot market. A small amount of capital could easily move the price, creating a perfect "short squeeze" target for the derivatives market. Ironically, the institution responsible for ZORA's market making, GSR Markets, had previously published a report criticizing the "low circulation, high FDV" (fully diluted valuation) model for distorting the price discovery mechanism. Now, however, they were personally operating ZORA, and in the face of profit, principles seemed to quietly give way.
As ZORA's price soared, a fierce debate about the essence of its token value erupted between two major blockchain leaders. The catalyst for the argument was a sharp critique from Del Complex researcher Sterling Crispin. He pointed out that the vast majority of tokens on the ZORA platform, lacking liquidity, were merely "rebranded junk coins," and bluntly stated: "The median outcome for ERC20 tokens on pump.fun is not to underperform the market, but to go to zero directly." Base chain founder Jesse Pollak quickly countered. He emphasized on the X platform: "To equate the assets issued on pump.fun and Zora is itself a logical fallacy. Not all tokens are the same; fundamentals are crucial." He firmly argued that "the content itself has value, and creators also have value."
Solana founder Anatoly Yakovenko (nicknamed toly) soon joined the fray. He retweeted Jesse's post and mocked: "lol wut? Do the tokens on Zora give holders the right to share in the creator's future cash flows?" When Jesse attempted to respond by comparing it to the inherent value of artwork ("Just like a painting, it still has value even if no one pays for admission"), toly hit the nail on the head: "So, do token holders have the right to share in the advertising revenue generated by that painting in the future?"
The debate deepened: Jesse argued that value exists in the "infinite game" constituted by participant behavior, emphasizing the value of participation and creation itself. Toly insisted on a clear, quantifiable value capture mechanism, questioning the economic rights of the tokens. Ultimately, toly delivered a stark conclusion: "It sounds like their 'fundamental value' is zero." Opinions in the crypto community were similarly divided. Critics like @boldleonidas pointed out that Zora creator tokens were essentially no different from meme coins, yet their transaction fees were as high as 10-15%, far exceeding the typical 1-5% seen on ordinary meme coin platforms, increasing the burden on users. Supporters, however, cited data in rebuttal: after the integration of the Base App, the daily trading volume of content tokens on the ZORA protocol reached $6 million, proving the existence of real demand.
Beneath the festive surface, a decisive crisis moment was looming—October 23, 2025. According to the token economic model, on this day, ZORA would face its first large-scale unlock. A total of 4.5 billion ZORA tokens held by early investors (26.1% of the total) and the project team (18.9%) would end their six-month lock-up period and begin linear release into the market. This means that approximately 125 million ZORA tokens would be newly supplied to the market each month thereafter. The selling pressure behind these numbers should not be underestimated: the monthly new supply would be equivalent to 3.57% of the current circulating supply. If there is not enough strong and sustained buying pressure to absorb this, the continuous and predictable selling pressure could become a heavy burden on the price.
The historical alarm has already sounded. Projects with similar token economic models, such as Aptos (APT) and dYdX (DYDX), have all inevitably fallen into prolonged downtrends after experiencing large-scale unlocks. dYdX even failed to reverse its decline after the unlock in December 2023, despite the significant positive news of its mainnet launch. These cautionary tales reveal a cruel rule: when artificially created scarcity disappears, token prices often face sustained and heavy downward pressure.
Current technical indicators have also turned red. ZORA's relative strength index (RSI) once reached as high as 90.58, indicating a severely overbought area. Analysts warned that prices could see a deep correction of up to 52%, with target prices looking down to $0.025. The project team has only three months to prove that their value is strong enough to offset the impending massive unlock pressure with irrefutable data on real ecological growth. Otherwise, ZORA's fate may very well devolve into a clear two-act play: the first act is a capital-driven frenzy before the unlock; the second act is a long and painful journey of value return after the unlock.
The predicament currently faced by ZORA profoundly reflects the systemic contradictions prevalent in the crypto market. It ambitiously attempts to liberate creators from the high fees of traditional platforms through tokenization. However, the degree of financialization in its realization path far exceeds that of traditional social platforms. On platforms like YouTube and TikTok, creators primarily rely on post-revenue sources such as ad revenue, fan tips, and subscription fees. In ZORA's model, creators' income is highly front-loaded—by directly issuing tokens, they can instantly monetize the value they may create in the future. This model raises two key issues: first, the dilemma of value distribution—should users who purchase and hold creator tokens share in the creator's future earnings (such as ads, subscriptions, royalties)? Currently, the ZORA protocol has not established any clear mechanism to address this issue. Second, there is the risk of misaligned incentives: creators' main motivation may shift from continuously producing high-quality content to better marketing and selling their tokens, undermining the foundation of the content ecosystem.
High transaction fees further complicate the ecosystem. The Zora platform charges users transaction fees as high as 10-15%, far exceeding similar platforms (such as pump.fun, which typically charges 1-5%). This not only significantly weakens users' trading enthusiasm but may also lead to rapid liquidity depletion—especially when the price of a content token plummets, high fees can accelerate its journey to zero, creating a vicious cycle.
An even more severe challenge lies in the serious imbalance between real creative activity and financial speculation. Although thousands of new creators flood in daily, the stark contrast between the lack of actual on-chain transactions and the heated trading in the derivatives market strongly suggests that the current support for ZORA token prices is driven more by speculative demand fueled by leveraged trading rather than by consumption demand for the content itself. The initial success of the Base App largely relied on retail investors' FOMO (fear of missing out) regarding the novel concept of "social tokenization." When this wave of enthusiasm inevitably recedes, if there is a lack of continuous content innovation, excellent user experience, and real value accumulation, the entire ecosystem faces the risk of rapid shrinkage.
On October 23, 2025, the lock-up period for the 4.5 billion ZORA tokens held by early investors and the team will end, and the monthly supply of 125 million tokens will become the norm in the market. When the illusion of artificially created scarcity shatters and the noise of the derivatives market quiets, ZORA's ultimate success or failure will return to the most fundamental measurement: the number of real, active creators on-chain who continuously create value, and whether the ecosystem they build has lasting vitality.
Ultimately, the key to whether ZORA can traverse cycles and avoid becoming a fleeting phenomenon lies in its ability to uphold its original vision amid the clamor of capital frenzy—not to build a speculative target distorted by financial engineering, but to create a healthy and sustainable ecosystem that truly benefits creators and allows all participants to share in the value.
Related: ARK Invest increases its stake in BitMine by $20 million, reduces holdings in Coinbase, Block, and Robinhood stocks.
Original article: “The Ghost of 16.4x Leverage Haunts ZORA: Behind the 931% Surge Lies a 'Paper Prosperity' with Zero Transactions Over $500,000?”
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
