[HN Gopher] NFTs and a Thousand True Fans
___________________________________________________________________
NFTs and a Thousand True Fans
Author : parsecs
Score : 33 points
Date : 2021-02-27 18:37 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (a16z.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (a16z.com)
| dgellow wrote:
| It's only speculative, right? I'm happy artists get paid but I
| still don't get why you would pay to be the "owner" of a digital
| art piece. Anyone can see and download the art. Who cares who is
| registered as the owner it if it's free to have an exact copy?
| jcfrei wrote:
| Then why do people buy paintings? They could just own a
| photograph. Don't tell me it's because they appreciate the
| subtle brush strokes or the smell of the oil paint. It's
| because they want their name to be associated with a great
| artist. Because in the halls of MoMA in New York it will say
| painting by Jackson Pollock on permanent loan by <insert you
| name foundation>.
| paul_f wrote:
| Comparing an original painting to a photograph of the
| painting is the exact issue the OP is making. They are asking
| why people would pay for a photo, when anyone could have the
| same photo. There is no original, scarce painting to own.
| Just all identical copies.
| vmception wrote:
| it is the same as any collectible, there is a market of people
| that like originals, except now there is a greater assurance of
| it being the original, primarily because of the earlier
| block/timestamp compared to a duplicate NFT which would
| therefore not hold its value, and the non-NFT versions of the
| art has no transaction so they do not store value. This
| assurance is accessible to any creator or collector.
|
| a whole industry of appraisers and committees now gone. yay.
| automatic ability to pay royalties to the artist upon resale
| just built in, no contracts or enforcement of contracts
| necessary. no trust involved for lower value works where
| everyone is unfamiliar with contracts and lawyers. more
| efficient market available to all.
| redm wrote:
| "A true fan is defined as a fan that will buy anything you
| produce. These diehard fans will drive 200 miles to see you
| sing; they will buy the hardback and paperback and audible
| versions of your book; they will purchase your next figurine
| sight unseen; they will pay for the "best-of" DVD version of
| your free YouTube channel; they will come to your chef's table
| once a month."
|
| I think the point is, people are fans so they want to collect
| and have a pride of ownership.
| koonsolo wrote:
| I think baseball cards is the best comparison. People pay this
| much because it's official, it's a collectors item. You could
| make a nice color copy, but it will not be the same, even if
| the copy is hard to distinguish.
|
| The world is moving to digital. Kids play with digital things
| more than with physical. So how can you own a digital
| collectors item? Best solution seems NFT.
| jsemrau wrote:
| Nothing says decentralizing finance like artificially
| restricting the existence of digital object. Of course, this
| statement is a bit smug, but while I caved in to the FOMO and
| bought some Ada could before the Mary Hard Fork, I have yet a
| real world use case for any of the coins.
|
| If there would be a wallet filled with credits where I can gift
| / tip creators for their work independent of their bank |
| location | currency, this would be an amazing use case.
| hi5eyes wrote:
| cryptokitties 2.0 right?
| sroussey wrote:
| Same team.
| Animats wrote:
| Right. But with more mainstream PR. See "NBA Top Shot".
|
| The people selling NFTs talk a lot about buyers "owning"
| something. From the article:
|
| _The logic of blockchains is once you purchase an NFT it is
| yours to fully control, just like when you buy books or
| sneakers in the real world. There are and will continue to be
| NFT platforms and marketplaces, but they will be constrained in
| what they can charge because blockchain-based ownership shifts
| the power back to creators and users -- you can shop around and
| force the marketplace to earn its fees._
|
| Some don't mean it.
|
| From the TOS for Genies:
|
| _Digital Goods are not purchased by you, but rather are
| licensed to you on a limited, personal, nontransferable, non-
| sublicensable, revocable basis, solely for your non-commercial
| use in connection with your use of the Services. You may not
| transfer Digital Goods to any other user of the Services or any
| other third party, except where the Services expressly
| authorize you do to so. For example, you may transfer your
| Digital Goods to other users of the Services through Genies'
| Digital Goods re-sale marketplace on the Services. You
| acknowledge and agree that Genies may manage, control, change,
| or eliminate Digital Goods at any time. ... Digital Goods and
| Virtual Currency do not constitute personal property, nor do
| they have any value outside of the Services. Virtual Currency
| cannot be sold, traded, transferred, or exchanged for cash._
|
| "Revocable". Genie giveth, and Genie taketh away. Plus, you can
| only transfer ownership through them, not via some blockchain
| they don't control.
|
| Art Blocks is very funny. This is an Art Block.[1] Current
| price, US$223. It's not unique; there are 2000 copies for sale.
|
| There's a lot of sucker bait for sale in this space.
|
| [1] https://www.artblocks.io/token/16000118
| sschueller wrote:
| I think I am experiencing FOMO with this NFT thing but no matter
| how much I look at it I have no interest what so ever in any of
| these. Very odd feeling...
| user-the-name wrote:
| It's a scam. It's _always_ a scam when it comes to crypto.
| bluescrn wrote:
| And if it's not a scam, it's gambling
| ketamine__ wrote:
| And if it's not gambling, it's investing.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-27 23:01 UTC)