Photoshop will get a ‘prepare as NFT’ option soon
theverge.com
theverge.com
Can you think of any other easy feature that would get Photoshop into the headlines?
Adding NFT functionality to anything is an easy way to get free press right now. It’s also why so many of the aimless influencers are rushing to NFT topics: They can use those free headlines to build followings and communities.
But despite all the hype, it doesn’t seem to be the starving artists making money on NFTs. It’s all established crypto speculators and crypto businesses selling shovels in this gold rush. The starving artists are just a clever narrative to distract from who’s actually profiting.
Starving artists are the marks for this scam. They spend $50 on Ethereum and other fees to mint some NFTs, nobody buys them, and they remain starving — but the crypto ecosystem has extracted another chunk of real money from hopefuls at the base of the pyramid.
I feel like this describes the majority of "victims" here.
The real money was made after one got in early, made some money, then began selling dropshipping courses to other hopefuls.
That's the weird thing about NFTs. I hear its supposed to help artists, but a lot of the popular NFTs have literally no names or public people associated with them. Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong ones, but for instance look at Bored Ape yacht club. You can't find the name of a single person associated with it. The art is cool sure, but you don't know what you're supporting. For all we know it could be a spin-off of a Russian bot farms with art lifted from other places.
It was all trademarked last month. It's still pending!
That's the grift. A handful of artists get paid and push the story that NFTs help artists. Throngs of starving artists throw their money onto the pile, only to never receive a cent.
Reminds me of, circa 2017-2018, when anything with blockchain or ICO or the like would make a headline. The most obvious ones that stick in my mind were the "Long Island Iced Tea" rename[0] and the KodakCoin.[1]
I mean - yes, we can see coins moved around on blockchains. But how do we know that those coins aren't just moving from one pocket to another of the same person?
Any ideas on how to look at the NFT market and estimate its size would be very appreciated.
I throw in one idea in myself: The Alexa rank of the NFT marketplaces. opensea.io is at #407 which is higher than coinbase.com which is at #798. So this might be an indication that there really is something happening here.
I get that it's an image (maybe any digital media?) and it is associated with an entry on a blockchain somewhere but then I get confused.
For example, that beautiful graphic you're going to print and hang on your wall can still be copied just as readily as any other digital file so how is all that money someone paid for it worth anything?
If you copy it and change the color of 1 pixel (indistinguishable from the original) then reissue a new NFT, does that count?
========================================= EDIT: I won't pollute the thread with individual replies but thank you everyone for the wisdom and insight. I have a much better picture of how it all works now.
The answer is you’re buying status and provenance. The original Monet holds special value because of arbitrary cultural conventions. Someone can create a perfect replica to look at, but the replica dies not confer social status.
We now have a generation of crypto-native multimillionaires. I know many on this forum are pissed off about the fact. Many think all this crypto wealth shouldn’t exist. And many think the bubble will burst any day now.
All of which could be true. But the facts in the ground today is that there’s huge amounts of crypto native wealth. Just the same as 19th century Robber Barons are going to spend money on things that confer social status among other 19th century Robber Barons, crypto native millionaires are going to buy things that confer social status among crypto native millionaires.
For crypto native people, crypto provenance is as valuable as original copies are to Robber Barons. Again this is all just arbitrary social conventions one way or another. As long as the crypto ecosystem continues to generate massive wealth, expect the highest status goods among that subculture to command lofty prices.
Not entirely correct. The NFT confers ownership of the NFT, not the asset it "represents" unless otherwise specified in a regular old contract or terms of sale. Often times the copywrite of the NFT's asset isn't even transferred correctly to the NFT owner.
Presumably this feature just exports a JPEG and uploads it to an endpoint at $NFT_SERVICE who are giving Adobe a cut.
It's pay-what-you-want and suitable for all ages.
I’ve sent a few dollars your way, get yourself a nice NFT or something with them ;)
Having said that, the original poster is an artist, and the NFT craze is driven by a scam which disproportionately affects artists. I can see why they might be upset about that.
Dollars all the way down, and before you know it, Photoshop will have as many upsells as GoDaddy. Thanks crypto!
Is there a million dollar NFT homepage yet?
Edit: There is. https://themilliondollarnft.net/
Instead they are paying immense gas fees to cover the cost of every. single. transaction.
Discuss.
For once, photographers, artists, musicians, countless others can be in control of their own distribution and the terms of it.
Yes, you can right-click and save jpegs but that is sort of the point! Similar to having a print in your living room, copies of the original serve as marketing for it. People who own or sell NFTs aren't doing it just to "own" a jpeg, it's a digital representation of something purchased, or proof of attendance.
Except for, ya know, Bandcamp, Patreon, PayPal, so on and so forth...
>For once... musicians... can be in control of their own distribution and the terms of it.
Bandcamp has always offered this for musicians? Artists in all mediums could always host their own website and take whatever payment/amount they want through PayPal or other processors? Am I crazy?
Edit:
>People who own or sell NFTs aren't doing it just to "own" a jpeg, it's a digital representation of something purchased, or proof of attendance.
Not to keep focusing on Bandcamp specifically, but again - Bandcamp. If I buy music there, my user thumbnail is listed under "supported by" on that track/album's page, and it's added to my public-facing-by-default collection list. Got a piece of music in physical form that you bought elsewhere? Cool, add it to your Discogs collection and keep your profile public.
NFT solves none of the actual challenges: the payment processing, the community building, the comms channel.
If the goal is to fund starving artists, NFT doesn’t actually solve any problems.
- payment processing is handled by your fiat gateway like Coinbase. bonus- no chargebacks to worry about
- community building and comms are handled on Discord
It's not like artists are lacking ways to monetize apart from NFTs. If a popular artist can extract value from their art through it, more power to them, but the median artist is losing money from the enterprise.
Adobe knows it is a scam. That's why they are merely selling shovels to fuel the hype and they win regardless if the would NFT market crashes.
There’s no value to any of them. It’s literally just an attempt to sell bits that aren’t unique or are easily reproduced.
Imagine if Taylor Swift sold a limited number of mp3 NFTs of a new song of hers. The song would immediately be copied leaving the purchased NFT’s as completely useless.
There’s no legal binding with them for any physical assets, so the entire thing is essentially a Ponzi scheme.
Several artists have created "limited" or 1/1 NFTs, with full knowledge that whatever media contained therein could be easily digitally replicated. It's not about legality or tangible qualities, it's a pure digital ownership model.
The most recent example is David Lynch and Interpol: https://twitter.com/DAVID_LYNCH/status/1453013551241744394
Whoever wins this auction isn't paying money for an actual object (the film), it's buying the digitally-provable representation of the film that exists in their wallet, that they got (almost) directly from David Lynch.
That would be a digitally-provable representation of the music in their Bandcamp profile, and they would get it almost directly from the artist.
Edit: Hell, just for fun, how's that different from EBay?
if you mint an nft, so long as there is some business querying the ethereum blockchain, you can prove your purchase
Caveat emptor
What was the actual problem in the first place? Influencers that want to earn more?
Green washing is also a big problem in the NFT market.
This is definitive proof that NFTs are still worth less than the physical version: [0]
It's really a certificate of you bragging about being a bag-holder of a photocopiable image.
That's strange, I have been purchasing digital comics, books and art online for years. Some use WooCommerce, some use Shopify or BigCartel. But they all work, and they get the artist paid.
How do artists have more control if they have to give a cut to a marketplace like OpenSea, and then have to use an exchange to convert useless ETH into food and rent payments?
I know I don't
nope, not April yet.
And also the drivers of your videocard will prevent outputting such data via uncertified cables.
There will also be a hidden watermark in case you want to take a picture of it with your camera, which ofcourse is not allowed.
/s
Seriously, this is a service whose Android app always appears as "unavailable in your region" (I'm in Canada), yet it allows mobile browsers to play the content just fine, except for the screenshot blocking.
Buyers are aware that it doesn't grant them any actual rights beyond "I can transfer this NFT".
I'm against NFTs for their environmental impact, I'm fine with their vanity.
That way, the NFT owner can truly enjoy a piece of art in full knowledge that no one else can have it.