The Crumpled-$5-Bill-Problem for Artists
MAY 15TH, 2026
Editor’s Note: This discussion (published 17 Nov 2025) was ported over into DFOS via the Studio Slowcore Substack, which was itself an extension of our former Farcaster group chat, so it will already be familiar to some folks here.
It's from the Return On Attention Roundtable (ROAR) conversation series, which "...aims to preserve some of the gift value that’s generated only in the context of relationships built over time on reciprocity and trust, and to highlight some of that value for our readers." It includes contributions from Mike Natanzon, Trigs, Lenara, Chris CoCreated, Arjan, and Danica Swanson.
We refer to the "crumpled-$5-bill-problem" often enough in our discussions of slowcore value flow that we decided the whole convo should be kept in our Dark Forest for future reference, right alongside the convo on "Give Increase" or Earn Profit?
(Once we're able to back-date posts in the DFOS editor, we'll correct the date).
Subtitle: Artists are tired of passing the same "crumpled $5 bill" back and forth amongst ourselves while the value we create gets captured elsewhere. How should we think about this in relation to gift culture?
“Gift-giving is the necessary precursor to market activity when it comes to creative content.” ~ Trigs
That being the case is it then about developing social norms* along the lines of:
-
support creators that resonate deeply
-
gifts to that creator reach critical mass, and they are then ‘free spirits’ (they are free to create to pursue their spirit, not the finances).
-
‘free spirits’ who “succeed” financially then pay it forward (and perhaps back in some way) to enable more free spirits.
*as well as social norms, possibly onchain contracts - probably antithetical to the gift, but I’m thinking along the lines of the Founders Pledge
Paying forward is enough I think, this already transcended the paying back model. What can happen is that someone that was there in the “back” can also sometimes be in your “forward” flow at some other point in time, as we weave this web of gifts.
And about contracts being antithetical, for me blockchain’s best use in this case is not to enforce rules and behaviours, but to anchor acknowledgements in a shared ritual of consensus. Acknowledgement is essential to Gift.
Chris: “we weave this web of gifts” love that.
and agree
To add to what Lenara wrote above...
Gift culture definitely relies on social norms (I also like the framing of “weaving a web of gifts”), but it gets complicated quickly since social norms are influenced by structural factors. Without sufficient systemic support, social norms can only go so far.
My reading of what Trigs wrote (”gift-giving is the necessary precursor to market activity when it comes to creative content”) is that if we begin with investment or speculative dynamics when funding creative work, this decision then closes off the paths for a potential increase in gift value...
...and that increase in gift value is the big unlock we need if we really want to sustainably support creative work over time.
If we don’t begin with direct gift-giving to the artists, we’ll always end up with business as usual: markets will continue on with extracting most of the value generated by their gifts and turning it into private profit. Just as they do right now.
When trying to develop social norms of gifting amongst artists, for example, we quickly run into the structural problem Mike Natanzon recently mentioned: “creators benefit the community (or network) but are expected to be rewarded by members of the community.”
I call this the “artists passing a crumpled $5 bill back and forth amongst ourselves” problem.
If we want that increase in gift value to do its thing, then most of the early gifts to fund creative work will probably need to come from entities outside artist circles (e.g., philanthropy).
In this context I think it’s a good idea to consider the many layers of challenges (social, psychological, economic, cultural) involved in getting creative work funded. These are thorny and deeply rooted problems. Gift-giving is an oft-overlooked key, but there’s more to the story.
Tom Beck’s piece Why Artists Can’t Get Paid is my go-to for thinking through the true depth of this problem space.
For reference, here’s David Bollier quoting Lewis Hyde’s explanation of how the value increase works in gift economics:
“Lewis Hyde explains how the circulation of gifts generates increases of value: “Capital earns profit and the sale of a commodity turns a profit, but gifts that remain gifts do not earn profit, they give increase. The distinction lies in what we might call the vector of the increase: in gift exchange, the increase stays in motion and follows the object, while in commodity exchange it stays behind as profit.”
And here’s what Mike wrote (this thread was the first mention of the crumpled $5 bill problem on Farcaster):
Mike:
one basic problem with the Creator Economy?
Creators benefit the community (or network) but are expected to be rewarded by members of the community
That’s like a worker that benefits a company and expects to be compensated… by other workers
Yes, those other workers do get some benefit from the worker’s contribution (more revenue for the business, some of which ends up in their paychecks)
But if they (instead of the company) had to compensate that worker, you’re just not gonna see a very successful company
you’d see a lot of freeloading instead
and you’d see a massive coordination failure with many frustrated people
..much like what we see in the so-called “Creator Economy” today
coincidence?
Good analogy, Mike. You’re really knocking it out of the park with these critical-thinking casts interrogating the creator economy norms.
I’ve heard artists say things like: “we’re really tired of just passing the same crumpled $5 bill back and forth amongst ourselves.”
Interesting topic, and there is much to say about this. Much to discuss. But I will focus on your “the “artists passing a crumpled $5 bill back and forth amongst ourselves” problem.”
This has been a thorn in my side for a while. It is what I saw on every platform I have published my poetry on that also promised ‘earnings’. From Medium, to Substack and also on Twitter shilling links.
But it was always artists passing that same $5 bill around. Everywhere. And a small group of people taking the large part of the pot, because they were very focused and intent on creating for the sake of getting the biggest share of the pot.
It is why I created the @trpplffct poetry fund. A private initiative, collecting tips and gifts from supporters and distributing them to onchain poets via micro grants, collecting work, creating a zine, creative challenges and now tipping-through-liking as well. It’s a small drop and it certainly is not enough for my poet friends to earn a living wage, but it helps a tiny bit and at least gives the feeling of things being possible. The basic idea is to get money from the outside into the system.
My biggest challenge: I still find it hard to ask for funding. Both in terms of finding where to ask as in terms of being too shy to ask. Too modest to speak about it. Too demure to shout it from every single rooftop.
And that is the second big challenge we have as artists/creators: we look down on the marketing part. We believe our creations deserve to be as handsomely rewarded and appreciated as Monet’s work. But we don’t want to do the work. I like @bertwurst.eth as a great example to study. A lot of people think that account is popular just because it’s a cute dog. But if you follow it and read between the lines, you see how amazingly professional the team behind is is working to make it so successful. Just sharing dog pics, or just creating art is not enough.
Really appreciate this thoughtful take, @arjantupan! Thanks for taking time to contribute something like this… we often discuss interactions among multiple complex systems at multiple levels, so you’re right: there’s a lot to think through and discuss.
As is our norm… I’ll ponder this for awhile before responding.
Thank you Danica. Here to contribute and learn. No rush. These topics are very systemic and change takes care and time.
Loving the place for conversation.
“Passing the same $5 bill around” is a widespread problem in creative circles. As you mentioned, it’s a thorn in our side, and it’s been that way for a long time.
I applaud your efforts to get money into artist circles from the “outside.” I also think there are many underlying structural and cultural challenges involved that hamper such efforts before they even begin. So while I wouldn’t deny that many artists are reluctant to do marketing, I think the problem has much deeper roots.
For example: the excellent essay Why Artists Can’t Get Paid by Tom Beck presents a long list of the challenges faced by artists trying to earn money. In point #18 he writes:
Much of the value created by art is positive externalities (cultural enrichment, inspiration, etc.) that artists can’t monetize. Art is important, but it is not valuable. Platforms are much better at capturing the value of the network than any individual nodes on that network (the artists).
I agree with the first assertion he made there, but the second is only applicable when viewed through a market-exchange lens. Art is valuable, but its greatest value exists only in contexts where gifts can remain gifts. Gift value can’t be fully translated into market terms without some kind of value leak or loss.
Brings to mind a quote from The Gift by Lewis Hyde:
...in gift exchange, the increase stays in motion and follows the object, while in commodity exchange it stays behind as profit.
So how might we address the passing-the-same-$5-bill-around problem? Well, I’ve been thinking about it for years, and the best idea I’ve come up with so far is to begin with financial gifts to the artists. So in that sense, your small-scale philanthropic efforts are directionally correct.
At the same time, I think it’s also a problem when artists are publicly perceived as charity cases who have to compete with each other for tiny pools of scraps, and there’s no realistic path to a sustainable livelihood (in market terms) for anyone who doesn’t take the nose-to-grindstone route: doing not only their art, but all their own marketing, accounting, and everything else required of solo business owners. Especially when they have to do it on top of their day jobs.
Gift economies rely on real reciprocity (not charity), and for those patterns to take root we’ll need infrastructure that returns more value to artists. Much more of the value that’s currently captured by platforms needs to be re-routed to the individual nodes (artists) in the network. The Artist Corporations initiative driven by Yancey Strickler, for example, could be a step in the right direction.
In any event, I agree about @bertwurst.eth. For awhile I “only” saw dog photos/videos from that account too. I wasn’t following him until I saw a thoughtful, well-worded, and outstanding contribution to the recent discussions about women in top positions on the leaderboard.
Now I see what I was missing. I’ve also seen Bert distribute his rewards to others, so that’s another reason to appreciate his efforts.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion!
Graphics by @bias
