It’s basketball cards, beanie babies, and POGS all over again. someone is going to be left holding the bag and it’s not me.
This, these eye catching purchases are dumb, but the underlying mechanism is potentially game changing in removing the middleman. Just another drive to wipe away old billion dollar industries with "disruptive" startups.
Oh, Kevin Rose? Haven't thought about him in a long time. I'm assuming it is the same Kevin Rose from TechTV/Digg days. Was there a specific timestamp you thought was interesting? I jumped around and mostly listened to the last 20 minutes or so. I always feel like these crypto folks come up with these so-called great ideas, but don't bother actually thinking them through the whole way. The pod mentions using NFTs as a way to release a new product (new shoes or whatever). I actually thought this might be a great idea, until I actually thought about it more. They made it sound like someone could buy a token, then resell it to someone else, then eventually someone could cash in the token to actually receive the product. Sounds cools in theory, but I'm not sure how that would realistically work when you get logistics and the real world involved (i.e., a lot of in-demand products have limited production runs...and probably shouldn't be in storage for a long time). I guess you could use it as a form of pre-ordering, but I feel like that could have issues too. I could see certain aspects of their general idea being implemented, but just not sure this is really the right solution for the problem they mention. Unless I completely missed their point, I think you can probably do a better job without the need for NFTs/blockchain IMO. Still don't really think NFTs are all that great for artists either. I would think *most* artists would be better served to put their efforts into Patreon, Bandcamp, Kickstarter, Cameo, Paypal Donations, etc. than NFTs. The guys on the pod mentioned something about buying some NFTs solely to support the artist, but I would think supporting them via one of these other platforms would be a better way of supporting the artist (though maybe they do that as well and/or that particular artist isn't on those platforms). I guess it is better to get something vs nothing, but unless you're one of these well-known artists, not sure you'll get much for your art via NFTs. NFTs IMO seem to just makes sense if you want to collect and sell stuff. Which I guess is fine, just not sure I like the idea of digital scarcity. Especially if it results in real world problems.
1) Because you want to 2) Because you hope someone out there will pay more for it later (the "Greater Fool Theory") 3) You want to be part of "change" (whatever that ends up being or not being)
I didn’t think through the sneaker example tbh as I was working at the same time, but the the more ways i see how NFTs can solve some of the smaller problems in art and collectibles the more the whole thing seems legit to me. Security, authenticity, accurate inventories and so on. I did like the example of a musician being in complete control of their release structure including pricing, licensing and royalties. I mean that’s pretty wild to me that a single artist could control exactly how their work is going to be spread and shared and who’s going to profit and at what percentage, to the point where dozens of middleman businesses become pointless (including lots of lawyers!). I just see it as a huge experiment and want to see how it evolves. Sure there will be plenty of dumb ideas and projects, but something game-changing may come out of it and it’s fun to watch (and try to profit off).
Keep in mind these insane ball prices are based on the crypto its sold through. Most of those neckbeards bought the crypto when it was 80-95% cheaper. Or a 3 years early... NFT 10.X will prob look different than the video game economy we're seeing now. Still a work in progress and the OP's podcast makes fair points that it'll be a legal hell while people, artists and companies figure it out.
The full resolution file may not be available. And it makes sense to pay more for an authentic Van Gough than a replica, even if the replica is only identifiable as such by an expert. I’m not into it personally, but that’s the case I guess. Seems to make sense for people who are truly into digital art and potentially for wealthy people as a secure store of value. Not of much use to a casual admirer.
The whole NFT craze with regard to some digital art somebody creates in 20 minutes selling for $5000 in less time is cute, but I honestly don't care about that, but it still is interesting to follow. The concept of supply chain tracking/tracing and authenticity means a lot more and companies have been using blockchain to attempt to do that on a wider scale for the past 3-4 years. NFT's is just an off-shoot of that in a sense (well, you also had the CryptoKitties lunacy a while back). This kind of "real work" is what I'm hoping comes of blockchain/crypto/NFTs. Make crypto do work and validate it, not just sit there and be some "thing" that you wait for the next person to pay more for so you can say you made a profit. A lot of good can come of it, but sometimes you travel through a forest "wth?" to get there. lol.
Yeah I'm not sure how these digital art assets work unless you have some digital Avatar to show it off. Guess I haven't done enough research on it but there's an enormously huge premium to pay for its optimistic hype. What happens when quantum computing catches up into mainstream/corporate usage? Uhh... Official hard fork off art? Surely there's more bubbly opportunity there...
Well, it's how you think about things. As long as there is one person in the world that values an item and is willing to pay a price for it, it has that price. It doesn't matter if I think you're nuts or if you think they're nuts. Two people meet, and one values that item more. That's all that matters. if he wants to sell it but no one buys it, welp... he sits on it or reduces the price. Its price goes down. This happens with everything... coins, comic books, cars, etc. It's the same with physical paintings. Let's not even think digital. I can appreciate good art. I love b&w photography from the early-to-mid 1900's. I love old stuff from the 1800's and 1900's. Other people think an oil painting that's half-red and half-blue with a black dot on it is worth millions. This painting in the spoiler by Rothko sold for $87 million -- I wouldn't pay $8 for it. Doesn't matter - that's its price because 2 people agreed at the time. : Spoiler This piece by Gerhart Richter sold for over $1 million. https://www.gerhard-richter.com/en/art/other/glass-and-mirrors-105/mirror-blood-red-15954/?p=1 Sometimes you just pay for the artist's name, and I'm starting to get that. A car is worth $X but people will pay thousands or maybe more if it's the car that "some famous celebrity drove", even though it's basically the same car : Not sure what you mean here.
I don't know where this was discussed in the podcast (assuming it was), but how does NFT itself actually do this? Your description actually sounds a lot like Bandcamp rather than NFT. And unless I'm mistaken, we'll still need lawyers, especially as I don't think NFTs would change anything about copyrights and whatnot. AFAIK, we have digital platforms that allow individuals to own their own creative works and sell (secure) access to it. NFTs just introduces the concept of scarcity to these digital items, which could be good for collectors I guess (more so than the artists IMO), but that isn't something I think is overall a good thing (especially given the costs involved). Just because we can make something scarce doesn't mean we should IMO. We're forced to do it in the real world (for now ), but it isn't something that is necessary for the digital world...unless we just want to create new ways to make money (likely mostly for the wealthy). I wouldn't mind a bit of experimentation, but maybe contain it a bit so we're not pumping billions of dollars (and tons of electricity) into these dumb ideas. Especially if bad actors can take advantage of these tools to screw over others without really facing any consequences. There are a lot of awesome new technologies and processes that come on-board that don't really unfold the way that so much crypto/NFT stuff unfolds. I think there's a good reason for that.
They didn't spend a whole llot of time on it, but the example was something to the effect of a percentage of money going back to the artist every time a NFT is sold/transferred and how any royalties would be split amongst parties. This structure would be baked into the smart contract. I don't know how bandcamp operates, but I suppose if artists rely on a centralized platform like that and it shuts down, they would take a hit, whereas the NFT + smart contract eliminates reliance on any central organization. It's not hard to imagine a mature crypto based ecosystem for the music business where artists can deploy their own business strategies through dapps with far less reliance on record companies and all the legal/financial/distribution services they are currently needed for.
OK, I probably misunderstood what you meant by royalties in your original post. As I mentioned before, NFTs introduce scarcity, so there's no need for existing NFT-less platforms to build systems that handle such things. The platform itself offers unlimited supply of the item, so anyone wanting it would just get a new copy of it. The artist could change the pricing, revoke access, provide exclusive content, etc., but there isn't a way to handle royalties as you describe. I'm not an expert on Bandcamp either (I just Wiki'd it before and noticed its description sounded similar to what you posted), so no clue how it handles this exactly, but I'm assuming it somewhat follows other digital content platforms (including those focused on supporting content creators). I'm guessing most artists wouldn't be too concerned about whether a platform is centralized or decentralized (most users wouldn't either IMO). Depending on exactly how the decentralized platform works, they might even prefer a single centralized platform/entity that handles everything. I see this distinction mentioned repeatedly when it comes to crypto stuff, as if it is a huge advantage, but I really don't think it makes a huge difference in most applications for most people. Thought maybe if I was a technolibertarian that sold electric cars and spaceships, I'd feel differently.
Dorsey selling his first tweet. ...or 500k for Nyan Cat. A digital thing that many have access to. Including right now on this CF page. But 500k says the original 1's and 0's is that buyer's. https://blockonomi.com/nyan-cat-nft/ Artificial scarcity; even when that thing is really not that scarce.
It's all about Peruvian Fighting Chickens these days, real talk. I'm all-in on Pollo Fatale, these other chicken don't know what's coming for them.
The video game publisher that created FF7, which involved a corporation sucking up the planet's energy, is getting in on NFT: https://kotaku.com/even-square-enix-is-getting-into-nfts-1846492704 FWIW, I'd say most of the gaming communities I check out seem to be pretty anti-NFT (and even anti-crypto). Sample of popular gaming Youtuber tackling NFTs (and other "scams"): I skimmed over some articles about what other communities think, and I'm not even sure most artists even like the idea of NFTs. Techbros are pushing NFTs as a way of allowing artists to control the distribution of their art, but ironically, the opposite is happening thanks to NFTs. Lots of artists are getting their stuff stolen and turned into NFTs without their permission. Some have resorted to locking down their social media, which probably doesn't help with visibility. Maybe one day, we'll have that magical system that creates a utopia for content creators with the power of NFTs/Crypto, but for now, it seems to be doing the opposite IMO.
In the 90's there wasn't much practical use in the internet itself. Email became a hot thing as did news sources. It pretty much killed communication costs. It took a decade, but long distance calls became a thing of the past. View NTF's in the same manner. Its a tool kit. It many not take off or it may become a foundation for many platforms. I dont see a value in digital visual art such as Beeples 69 million dollar haul. I can see a case for audio. I haven't paid for a song or album in well over a decade. When buying a CD, its considered fungible and treated like a commodity. You were buying rights for personal unlimited use. A CD store might buy it for a fraction of a price if you were lucky. Now that most music is digital and can be purchased with a subscription, it has removed the need to own copies. NTF's can now be treated as a security w/out being a security. An artist can proposition to create 1000 unique NFT's that the purchaser can customize in exchange of releasing the music to public domain. The artist can hold back 10% for their own holding to trade at later dates. Imagine having a hit that immediately goes into public domain and anyone can use it but only a scarce amount of collectibles exist for it. Or perhaps it isn't public domain but the holders of the 1000 NFT's use consensus method to give licenses in exchange for royalties. If a studio wants to use the song in a movie, they can pay $1,000,000 that gets evenly distributed to the NFT holders. The possibility with tokenomics is astronomical.
