“Rick & Morty” Creator’s Art Gobblers Renew Debate About NFT Influencer Ethics

The NFT the world today abounds over Monday’s launch of Art Gobblersone Ethereum-based project from “Rick & Morty” co-creator Justin Roiland and crypto investment company Paradigm. After a free NFT as of last night, Art Gobblers has already generated over $26 million in secondary sales (per CryptoSlam), which suggests a huge hype around the project.

But the chatter around Crypto Twitter isn’t solely focused on the level of trading demand, today’s art reveal, or even the project’s new approach – which allows users to create their own artwork as Page NFTs and trade “Goo” tokens to provide even more NFTs.

Instead, much of the discourse surrounding Art Gobblers over the past 24 hours has surrounded their role as notable NFT influencers on social media – including whether they were compensated with free and ultimately valuable NFTs, and whether they operate a system where powerful voices are dragged benefit from their platform without proper disclosures.

Art Gobblers released 1,700 Gobbler artwork NFTs yesterday that could be minted for free by anyone added to an approved approval list. Another 300 NFTs were reserved for project creators and contributors, with another 8,000 Gobbler NFTs to be released gradually over the next 10 years.

Soon after, the NFTs began selling for significant sums via secondary markets, with the cheapest available NFT currently listed for 14.5 ETH—about $22,850. One NFT sold for nearly $138,000 in ETH on Monday evening.

Amid the surge of secondary sales, Crypto Twitter lit up with viral tweets parts lists of prominent NFT influencers, content creators and personalities who had successfully marked one of the NFTs. By and large, the initial reaction was negative, with some users claiming that it reflected the great benefits achieved by influencers with large audiences.

This list included widely followed Twitter personalities such as Rug Radio co-founder Farokh Sarmadpseudonym collects and creates Fxnctionfrequent Twitter Spaces host and Devotion co-founder Andrew Wangand pseudonymous influencer and content creator Zeneca.

“This is why NFTs will never be taken seriously,” tweeted one notable pseudonymous influencer ShiLLin_ViLLian. Complaints from other Twitter users were sometimes less kind, as some alleged pay-to-play deals for popular NFT collectors to hype the project in return for an endorsement list, without clear disclosures being shared.

WAGMI?

It is not the first time that outspoken collectors and creators have been accused of trading hype and promotion for potentially valuable NFTs. Often, when an NFT project launches and prices rise, Twitter users will point out influencers who came from the approval list, especially if they then sell right away – in other words, a pump-and-dump.

Such claims are not always supported by evidence. However, the perception that NFT collectors with social capital use their influence to personally benefit from projects speaks against the so-called WAGMI (“we’re all gonna make it”) ethos on an equal footing for all in Web3. The level of vitriol surrounding Art Gobblers suggests that perception persists.

If such influencers and collectors do engage in such exchanges—whether around Art Gobblers or other projects—they usually do not make such deals public. It is further complicated by the fact that many notable collectors in the space are pseudonymous, and followers may not know their real names or backgrounds.

Social media influencers are required to clearly disclose paid endorsements in the US, as dictated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Meanwhile, celebrities and influencers promoting cryptocurrencies and related products are increasingly facing scrutiny and penalties from the SEC—as Kim Kardashian recently discovered.

According to a September tweet thread from Art Gobblers, the creators chose to “handpick” artists and Web3 builders to stamp the NFTs, who in turn nominated others to join the list as well. Some miners tweeted that they had gained access just by participating on the project’s Discord server. Decrypt reached out to Art Gobblers for comment on any potential influencer deals, but we did not hear back by the time of publication.

Wang previously hosted a Twitter Space interview with Roiland, and has tweeted a lot the last day about his involvement surrounding the Art Gobblers and the backlash. He revealed that he had been operating an “official Art Gobblers account” on Twitter based on a fictional character, which had not been revealed until today.

Still, Wang said Decrypt today that “there was no agreement to promote in return for an endorsement list.” Sarmad and Zeneca did not respond Decryptits request for comment by press time.

‘Flip’ flap

Fxnction is the only one of those influencers who immediately turned around and sold their Art Gobblers NFT; the others still have NFT in their respective wallets. He tweeted on the move last night: “I got that shit and dumped it fast. Free $18K. Do you expect any different?”

He told Decrypt today that he didn’t promote or tweet about Art Gobblers ahead of launch, claiming he got on the approval list by joining the Discord server early. He also commented on the backlash, drawing a distinction between those who use the public to boost a project they believe in, and those who cash out after hyping a brisk NFT drop.

“I think [people] can do [whatever] they want their possessions with them, even if they got them by having followers, Fxnction said. “Having said that, it becomes a fine line if someone actively cuts and pushes it, then just walks out. That’s where the community controversy starts (understandably).”

If Fxnction and other coiners got access to Art Gobbler’s approval list by participating before the hype, then it could happen to anyone – right? It’s the Web3 ideal, which early supporters of a project benefit from over time, although there is still a lot of suspicion that influencers are given preferential treatment in the hope of generating more interest around a drop.

Since yesterday’s trading frenzy, some of the hostility has subsided, and other collectors and creators have defended those targeted for minting an NFT. Pseudonymous Web3 creator Loopify, for example, called out believed to be “misinformation” and shared anonymous messages from coiners who said selling NFTs gave them life-changing money.

Fxnction proposed to Decrypt that there is room for creators to better regulate approval lists and avoid such backlash in the future…but also that anyone upset about it should have noticed sooner.

“[You] can really set rules for this [type of] thing, as I see one [lot of people] pressure all the time, he said. “It’s Web3. If you paid attention early enough, anyone could have made the move [allowlist].”