This is a dilution of the word gas-lighting.<p>Yes, that deck has the dual purpose of "rationalizing" their investments in web3, which don't need rationalizing at all because they are insanely profitable, as they pump their prior rounds with new investor money in future rounds, as they really leverage the anti-dilution provisions of their OpenSea investment <i>hard</i>.<p>Every rebuttal written web2 in that article applies to web3 as well:<p>> YouTube gets to charge 45% because they’ve built a platform that directs billions of users to watch videos they’re likely to be interested in. If you don’t need your video-hosting platform to help you acquire viewer traffic, then you don’t need to share as much of your revenue.<p><i>OpenSea</i> gets to charge 2.5% because they've built a platform that directs hundreds of thousands of users to browse NFTs they're likely to be interested in. If you don't need your NFT marketplace platform to help you acquire viewer traffic, then you don't need to share as much of your revenue.<p>Its whatever. I'm glad they released the deck. It is worth scrutinizing simply by questioning the source, but treat it as an informative piece to dig a little deeper in. "Oh no some figures in a slide deck couldn't be compared 1:1" eh, okay. that's all that is.