>Never in history has anyone been able to buy shares of highly coveted art... maybe now you can
Well, firstly, let's be clear that it's highly contentious whether you meaningfully own the art if you own an NFT. But let's assume that's a solved problem. YOu can already buy shares of highly coveted art - https://www.masterworks.io . It's exactly the same model as NFTs - some individual buys the actual art, then they offering to sell "shares" of the art. The difference is that Masterworks doesn't carry all the risk of being scammed in the crypto market.
are you really engaging in good faith?
In most cases the creator of the NFT != the creator of the artwork.
You are describing counterfeit art and is easy to identify
That's like pointing out how many fake Gucci bags are out there and dismissing the real Gucci by saying "in most cases the creator of the Gucci bag is not Gucci."
I'm also talking about hiring a low salary graphic designer to create some simple cartoon avatars and then wash trade it into popularity because of metrics on the platform.
Or just copying of-chain images to create an NFT.
Or copy an NFT and put them on another NFT market.
Or change a pixel and put it on the same NFT bazaar ( by definition of law= code, it is unique by hash)
You can't get a real Gucci bag on NFT. The comparison is false, since i can right-click save a perfect original. There is no copyright on NFT's.
Edit: valid response below and couldn't respond. But it's not correlated to the NFT itself ( not saying you are intuiting that, just mentioning)
Masterworks is centralized. You rely on Masterworks for everything, whereas you can buy NFTs from a number of competing sources.
Just because there are multiple NFT companies doesn't mean they are decentralized. Can I buy an NFT on one platform, then sell it on another?
Look at OpenSea. It's the google/ebay of NFTs on Ethereum.
They are all interchangeable.
Digging a little more, it seems like the answer is sometimes yes. In this thread NBA Topshot is excluded: https://old.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/m1mb0s/can_someon...
Is that thread correct? Is the general theme that corporate NFTs don't truly decentralize, but small players and committed crypto people put their NFTs on Ethereum so they can be moved around?
Assuming you are somewhat technical, you can read about the actual smart contract standard, it's called erc721.
Though there are some projects that are working on bringing cross-chain portability to NFTs. I don't know how those work though.
In what way? A ton of artists I know on Patreon are polling their contributors to get feedback, releasing early content to them, and releasing exclusive behind-the-scenes info or life updates.
What about an NFT provides more personal connection than ongoing support and communication with the artist?
----
And if Patreon isn't enough of a connection to your favorite artists, you can always directly commission them, which will give you a genuinely unique piece of artwork instead of just a serial number, designed in direct cooperation with the artist, that no one else owns, and that is uniquely tied to you in a fundamental way that can't be faked.
What about an NFT provides more personal connection than having direct creative input and a personal hand in the creation of a piece of artwork?
Source: https://xcopy.art/ https://superrare.com/artwork-v2/dankrupt-29757
Here’s another artist, Clon, he used to barely sell physical art at festivals, now he’s a multi million dollar art studio, because of NFT royalties. https://twitter.com/cloncast/status/1457425724860633090?s=21
Most people on Hacker news aren’t doing an ounce of research into the potential of NFTs and it’s clearly recognizable when i read all these comments. Reading a few articles by Bloomberg is not sufficient. You will all be left behind.
Becuase I take a look at this and it looks to me like all of this commercial activity has basically nothing to do with the art. I would kind of get it if you pointed to me to a guy whose selling peices of art for a few bucks, maybe $50-100 and selling a decent number of them who you know... like the art. But what market is this? These aren't art collectors who are just using the new medium is it. They're not fans of the art. They don't have thousands invested in traditional collections. They're not going to buy the same art, but off-chain. So is this really anything to do with paying artists at all? Who are these people who are suddenly rushing to pay thousands of dollars to artists?
Is this "StarryNight" who paid $2000 for this NFT excited to be supporting xcopy. Or is it the account of the venture capital fund of the same name? That's not exactly the story of giving power to creators that we were being told is it?
I think the problem here on HN is actually the opposite of what you're stating- the second you do do an ounce of research these claims start looking more and more fishy.
I don't see how you can make money that way.
>People are publishing their own books.
Now this, on the other hand, has a clear solution. You can simply put your epub on Amazon for $10 or so. There's no equivalent that I know of for art. For whatever reason, people are more willing to buy digital text than digital images.
My mother-in-law would be as almost dismissive of NFTs as I am, except she doesn't understand technology so she won't be as articulate about it.
I think some crypto enthusiasts hang out with other crypto enthusiasts way too much and that is how they get HODler ideas and drive the price of things up like
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/24518-h.htm
People on HN are mostly normies, except technically articulate. Crypto enthusiasts think we hate crypto, but it's because we're reflective of the wider community which feels like
And got out because it's not interesting anymore.
I can say that this normie predates your crypto experience with 3 years. A lot of people here way earlier.
My currently expired crypto magazine it's most popular article was "how to recover your Bitcoin password" ~ 2017. I've seen/experienced this 'movement' before ;).
Ps. Ethereum was already popular then because of it's "potential" of programmability.
I'll consider it again after tether drops the crypto market.
I'm also not following it anymore.
My particular use is a bit ambiguous and ironic. I'd see both the crypto enthusiasts and HN users as not normal. In terms of hierarchy however, I'd say HN users are relatively more normal than crypto enthusiasts, but that's half my opinion and half being provocative. (e.g. it will cause some people to make unforced errors.)
There's now an accessible marketplace for me to sell that work, thanks to NFTs. I do it as a hobby, not relying on the income, through Hic et Nunc, which runs on the Tezos blockchain. I do it for two reasons: it feels really good to sell my work, even if it's just for a few dollars. My entire family, including kids, get really excited when I sell something for just $3 or whatever.
The second reason is that it has vastly accelerated my ability to connect with communities of similar artists. For most of them, this has been a hobby for many years. Through them, I've joined some of the most positive, fun, and creative communities I've ever found on the Internet. Most discussion is not NFT related, but just about techniques, helping each other, fun and friendly weekly coding challenges, etc.
Say what you will about NFTs. I'm not blind to the issues they bring along with them. For a lot of digital artists, however, the accessible marketplaces and creative communities are truly groundbreaking. Honestly, the past 6 months of participating in these communities have been some of the best times of my life, full of new friendships and the occasional small financial reward. I'm very thankful for NFTs providing this because I know that, even if the marketplaces go away, the new creative communities will persist.
This has been happening for 1000s of years already before NFTs.
> Never in history has anyone been able to buy shares of highly coveted art... maybe now you can?
Yes, they have: https://www.masterworks.io/
For the Ellens and Kanyes of the world, it's great, because their work is already in-demand and can fetch a huge price on the NFT market. For the 90% of artists in the "long tail" of content production it's probably a net loss over more conventional funding means like Patreon, commissions, and Bandcamp. Even if these collect a higher portion of their income as fees, there's less up-front investment (and hence risk) for the artist.
You are right that there's a barrier to entry as far as minting costs, but it's a small price to pay to find out if you have an audience.
Furthermore, there are now thriving NFT communities on chains like Tezos and Solana, where it costs pennies to mint.
My experience has been largely positive. Artists get better paid. The fans can buy something that gives them a more personal connection with the artist. Everyone else can still view the art for free.
Are they only buying it now because of FOMO that other people are making money by buying jpg's?
I work to minimize mine, my home's pretty well analyzed to reduce power and consumables usage and I'm in the process of prepping for solar. How are you atoning for your burnings?
I'm not sure what marketplace you're on, but assuming an average tech salary of $100k USD, earning $250k in 12 months would put you well within the top 100 earners on SuperRare. The majority of artists in that tier have over 50,000 followers each, so the fact you're able to compete with them as a 'nobody' means you're a special case.
We also get royalties on resales which is great, rather than when i sell vinyl and someone buys a few and then re-lists them at a higher price on discogs and i get nothing. not to mention traditional distribution networks would take 50% of sales straight away.
The reason nfts exist in the first place is because so many in the art/music world are annoyed with what we have and are desperate for alternatives, art world has been building on crypto for years -> https://www.daowo.org/#artists-organise-on-the-blockchain
Umm, hasn't this been a thing since art has been seen as an investment?
Royalties can be a thing provided NFTs are traded using a smart contract that pays royalties to the creator but it's not that common since artists are compensated well enough by the first approach and don't need to milk secondary market trades.
> To make it easier for buyers, please leave a trace to any social profile or website in the description of your artwork, so potential buyers can validate the authenticity. If you can link the NFTs the artist is advertising on the profile with the NFTs on Hicetnunc, you can assume it is legit.
So NFT markets are relying on third party social media sites to prove authenticity. And I suppose artists would rely on the government an actual copywright law if they wanted to enforce anything.
The case for NFTs solving artists' problems is it's a way of getting noveaux rich with a particular interest in digital collectibles to spend money on art they wouldn't otherwise give a second glance to. There's real value in matching buyers and sellers. But I guess admitting the value was all in the collectors and not in the supposed transformational properties of the token wouldn't sell tokens as effectively...
Panther protocol is the most interesting of these projects I've come across, but every utility driven blockchain is making plans to incorporate identity verification in some way.
As a buyer, as always, it's your job to verify that you're not buying a counterfeit. As a seller, as always, the value of the NFT you hold is subject to its verifiable provenance.
The problem is that just about everyone here could be a multi-millionaire if they had just taken a few minutes to set up pool mining on their gaming rig back in 2010.
I think there is a tremendous amount of latent bitterness, embarrassment, and frustration about this. I include myself in this group. Folks should pause to reflect on this and determine how much these facts are clouding their opinions.
Crypto is just a new interesting technology. Maybe it will last, maybe not. But the amount of hate and skepticism on this forum is way, way out of proportion to the reality of the thing.
What I don't understand is the vociferousness of the detraction. This community loves Capitalism; crypto is just Capitalism Capitalisming. We've had snake oil salesmen and door-to-door salesmen and contract housing and pyramid schemes and dotcom startups and on and on. People abuse the freedom of the free market; we've always had to cut the "promise" of such markets short with regulation to stop real harm from being done to consumers. That doesn't mean that every possible iteration of such products were useless, or their sale predatory.
Or maybe that's wrong. But that would tend to make most HNers hypocrites, and it's only fair to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
If you have a lot of crypto assets, you think it‘s a good thing. If you didn‘t, you would probably divest or would have done long ago. Even if you where ambivalent you may keep it to yourself or erase that doubt, because "you have to believe, wagmi“ seems to be pretty strong in the community (maybe thats too harsh, I‘m not in it).
If you don‘t think they are a good idea, why would you buy into them? Most people in tech aren‘t really strapped for cash and becoming a millionaire with something you think is bad for the world is something many people don‘t want.
But yeah, I also regret selling my 2013 era playing-around assets that would make me a millionaire today. It probably does color my opinion, and if for some reason I had kept them till now, I would have a very positive take, which is also self selecting and means nothing. If I had changed my opinion at any point in those 9 years, I would have sold at the next 10x. I still think that analysis and opinion is colored much stronger for those who hold then for those who don‘t.
You can say this about anything. Look at the stock market right now relative to 2010. If anyone had known the future, they'd be betting on sports and buying lotto tickets. Way OTM TSLA calls would've made me rich beyond my wildest dreams.
If the only response you have to the detractors is "you're jelly," then you're just falling for your own confirmation bias.
I have been using crypto since 2012.
> But the amount of hate and skepticism on this forum is way, way out of proportion to the reality of the thing.
Crypto has enabled a staggering amount of fraud and criminal activity. Not everything criminal bothers me personally...but financial crimes and exploiting gullible desperate investors really rubs me the wrong way. Oh also, its insanely inefficient to have a global network of redundant computers perform trivial work which could be done by a single web app.
Regardless of criminal activity and fraud, my main point is still that it is a new and interesting technology. No one knows what useful things it will be used for (or not) in 10 and 100 years, just like all new technologies.
Usually people on HN are positive and constructive about new techs. I observe that in the realm of crypto, people are incredibly negative, dwelling on things, like fraud and criminal activity in the present, that don't seem very important to me on a long timeline with unlimited possibilities. I am confident in the market's ability to correct those kinds of things, where there is real value.
My suspicion is those same folks wouldn't hold those opinions if they were super-lucky crypto millionaires. I think the money is causing a general lack of self-reflection in this realm: like I said, bitterness, embarrassment, and frustration. I spot those emotions in myself if I am honest.
The thing is, I saw a lot of this stuff happening back in the $400-$500 price range for bitcoin. A colleague ran an arbitrage bot and somehow managed to lose money. The value proposition has always been "you can sell this to others for more" and "you can evade all the existing financial rules", both of which are uncomfortable.
Where has all this crypto money come from?
I mean, no? Ownership is always based on societal constructs; in the useful sense it means that the state is enforcing it. If someone takes it you can use violence or the threat of violence (legitimately, by proxy) to retrieve it. If someone else claims that it is theirs they can attempt to retrieve it through courts (with the the backing of legitimate violence or threat of violence by proxy again). You may exclude people from the use of the thing you own (with violence or threat of violence by proxy, or sometimes, by direct violence for which the state will excuse you).
It devolves always to the state having an effective monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. This is a social construct in a sense, but NFTs are a poor substitute.
Notably, most NFTs can be replicated bit-for-bit, and anyone else can emit a new NFT with the same exact payload, only lacking the traceability, but otherwise indistinguishable from the original. The only way to prevent that would be legal action, in which case you might as well dispense with the notion of the NFT itself.
In fact, a great business if you want to get in on this scam is to just sell counterfeit NFTs; even openly counterfeit! Call yourself "The Copy-Cat" and just resell Copy-Cat original copies of existing high-value NFTs. Even in the real life art world it has transpired that well-done forgeries have acquired a value of their own.
Even if a perfect decentralized database will be invented, the violence, that enforces the rules under which the real world operates, can't be decentralized.
maybe thats the problem.
(3,3)
People don't steal, not because they worry about being arrested or imprisoned, but because stealing isn't right. Policing and Law Enforcement scales sublinearly with population size only if the population is by and large compliant, or rather, that the laws are compatible with the behavior and motivations of the majority of people.
So we keep that foundation far away -- instead of violence, it's the thought of the social opprobrium of the prospect of the threat of violence. But it has to be there, otherwise people who were willing to resort to violence would take everything.
I'm not convinced that such a thing is possible.
Fundamentally, for such a society there has to be some kind of rule that "threats of violence" and "violence itself" are not allowed. How is such a rule enforced? If your society is unwilling to be violent in any way, under any circumstances, but someone else is willing to be violent you're going to have a bad time.
I think the real reason my post got downvoted is that someone really wants to do my CopyCat idea and now they're worried that I'll sue them for stealing my idea. Should have made an NFT out of the business proposal.
What? Anyone can buy a part-share of any work of art. Want to own a 5% share of the Mona Lisa, just ask. If the owner want they can sell you a percentage of that object. Or you can buy a percentage without ownership rights. Or do anything else you want. Property law and the concept of partial ownerships has been around for thousands of years. Most every possible permutation is available should two parties agree.
Getting paid for my work is a solved problem, I can draw a thing for a client and get money via PayPal or any of the other payment processors competing with it. I have a Patreon campaign to let my fans toss money in my tipjar for me to go draw whatever the heck I want to draw. So do people who make videos and 3d work. I see them doing it all the damn time.
Neither of these methods involve a system where huge numbers of people are converting energy into waste heat as they compete to be the one who gets the token reward for recording a pathetically small number of transactions.
"Proof of ownership"? How about "I have the source file and you don't"? How about "I have an email chain with the artist that goes from asking if they're open for work, through agreeing to a contract, and multiple WIP files, to a final rendering, source file, and settling up of the finances"? Why does converting energy into waste heat in competition to be the one rewarded for recording a tiny number of transactions need to be involved at all?
Right-Click - Save image. Create an NFT, done. Work from an artist digitally is not unique and can be easily copied ( and even become more popular).
Creativity? Dogs, lost cowboy, punks, pigs, hungry aliens are the typical NFT's. That's not art, they mostly sell avatars.
ML models creating art => Not art and again the most technical knowledge person is getting paid.
Wash-trading has become the new normal. The people who pump and dump their own "art" see attraction and as usual, the average people are getting left behind with no piece of the pie. The most popular people ( not even artists) with the biggest following online win.
Nothing is legally backed. NTF's don't have copyright and you don't have a legal standing. BUT... You can cry on Twitter - https://twitter.com/RookieXBT/status/1421548360868286464?ref...
Mostly it's a technical person that steals artwork or just hires a digital designer for a couple of hours and then creates the NFT: https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/20/22334527/nft-scams-artist...
That's realism.
The right click save argument is boring. It's not the image that's the NFT, it's the entry on the blockchain.
I agree about the "typical" NFTs you're talking about, they are referred to as digital collectibles, and yeah they don't do it for me either, but within NFT land there are multiple eco-systems, including those that are centered around what you would traditionally perceive as art.
You are right that nothing is legally backed... but why does it need to be? The blockchain is immutable, so anyone who participates in it has no choice but to honor who the chain designates as an owner.
Also not entirely true, at least some of the platforms use licenses for the art that grant the token holders rights.
It did not. There are already plenty of ways artists can get paid for their work. If you had said "this creates another way for artists to get paid," sure (ignoring all the NFTs that are blatantly stolen), but asserting that this is the only way is false.
> The promise of NFTs is that they offer a different way for people to interact. Ownership is always based on social constructs, so folks that are involved in this space need to have some consensus of what it means to "own" an NFT on whatever chain.
I see "ownership" tossed around so often. But I just pulled up two recently sold listings on OpenSea (one from Bored Apes, the other from Cryptopunks), and unless OpenSea hides information if you're not logged in, there were no rights transferred for the original works themselves - you just own the NFT listing. What's the point of shelling out six figures for mass-generated artwork when you don't even have any IP rights?
Sure, there's the "exclusive community" of Bored Apes (though you can apparently have your NFT stolen but still be in the community, so...not sure how exclusive it really is), but other than that, it just seems like a way to flex on everyone.
I have more legally enforceable rights to a $20 drawing I commissioned (paid for on ko-fi) than many NFTs going for $100k+.
It's either a speculative bubble which will burst eventually, or the community is worth the price (plus the flexing privileges).
No, I don't buy this. Patreon already exists. And when you factor in gas fees, people who use NFTs to support artists are picking one of the least efficient ways to do so. Etherium in its current form is not a scalable model for how to pay for content, the fees make micropayments unnecessarily cumbersome and inefficient.
The fact that none of these people who are using NFTs "to support artists" were interested in supporting digital artists through any of the multitude of existing ways that existed before NFTs leads me to cast serious doubt on their claims that they actually care about the art ecosystem.
So, let's say you actually want to support artists:
----
If you want to buy the digital equivalent of "shares" of an artist's work, use Patreon/Liberapay/etc and join the community of people who are regularly investing into their output. This is the preferable method for many indie artists, because many indie digital artists want predictable income, and Patreon allows you to commit to regular donations instead of one-off payments. Many artists will use Patreon as a way of soliciting early feedback and providing early access to their projects.
If you want to buy specific pieces, donate directly or just buy those pieces on any of the many art-selling sites that exist online (Gumroad, Itch, etc). This is the really straightforward way of saying "this thing that exists is worth money."
If you want to own something more tangible for supporting your artists, look into printing sites and physical products (Etsy, Topatoco, etc). This requires a little bit of setup from the artist, but not any more than NFTs would, and it allows you to somewhat "advertise" your support with physical objects in a more tangible/public way than NFTs would ever allow.
If you want to get something unique and personal out of supporting an artist, commission them. Commissions are often going to be more affordable than buying NFTs, they provide you with an actually unique product instead of just a unique ID number, they allow you to directly interact with the artist you're supporting, and commissions usually come with better IP assignments.
If you want to encourage investment into a piece of artwork, encourage the artist to set up a Kickstarter/IndieGoGo campaign. Kickstarter isn't just usable for funding theoretical products, artists can use Kickstarter to fund predictable work and specific releases. Krita for example used Kickstarter to fund development on specific features, even allowing contributors to "vote" on what features should be prioritized.
If you want status/clout for donating, and you want to be publicly recognized, sponsor artists. Many artists have systems where they'll give you public credit for sponsoring a piece of work. This is also a far better system than NFTs because that clout can't be re-sold or faked, and because the artist directly promotes you to everyone who sees their work; other people don't need to go find your digital wallet and validate it on the blockchain in order to recognize what you've done.
----
So what do NFTs provide that the above solutions don't? A tiny bit of standardization (although it's questionable how standardized they really are), and other than that, pretty much just speculation. NFTs are kind of awful at a lot of this stuff, they're expensive to create and trade, they're complicated to work with, validating copyright/legitimacy is annoying, they're more subject to regulation, they're less private, they can be traded around which devalues the original statement of buying them, a large percentage of them are subject to link rot, the "gamification" of them is laughably bad because gas fees make it impossible to do most interesting mechanics, and even their display/status value is underdeveloped and still in its infancy. But they allow you to gamble that the token you're holding will go up in value and that you can sell it later for a profit.
And that's why people buy them. Not to support artists, all of these people could have been supporting artists ages ago, and they didn't. They buy NTFs because they're a speculative asset. They talk about supporting artists because it makes them feel better and because that conversation feeds into the hype, and that helps their speculative assets grow in value. That's all that's happening here.
Might be worth looking into as a Patreon feature — or a competitor.
But agreed that having more Patreon integrations (in the same vein as how Discord roles already work) would make that kind of thing even easier.
Which to me is very sad and uncreative. The entire point just flew straight over-head at ten thousand miles per hour. Yeah, centralized systems already do this; what is necessary to create a world where they don't? Where people can transfer value without the help of a centralized authority.
Ok so: "How do you verify authenticity". Two responses:
1) What if you don't? What if the NFT itself is the value? We already see this with, for example, the Bored Ape Yacht Club; people can create duplicates, but the originals are cryptographically verified. They created value out of thin air, which is where all value comes from at the end of the day.
2) And in other situations, where the value comes from something real outside the blockchain like the original artist; use centralized systems! It's not all or nothing! Centralized systems are great at verifying providence. Use 'em! "This NFT was the one the artist tweeted about".
Then they follow up with: "Lol I can just copy-paste".
Yeah! Isn't that fantastic? NFTs create value for the people who want that value, by having a concept of "ownership of the original". But nothing is stopping all of us from also enjoying it.
Finally, the end-stage of any debate always arrives at "its destroying the planet".
This is, of course, typed as a comment into a website via a computer burning dirty coal power, through 3,000 miles of underground plastic fiber and fifty network appliances, to a beefy server running in a data center. Afterward, Captain Planet will hop in their gas-burning car to drive to work, drink a grande Starbucks coffee from a disposable cup, flush the toilet ten times throughout the day, pick up the newest iPhone from the Apple Store on the drive home, then watch an hour of Foundation on their 65" TV with 5.1 surround sound.
I'm obviously being a dramatic. More generally and accurately; humanity is destroying the planet. We're really good at it. People act like NFTs are destroying the planet, while every day doing far more to destroy the planet than NFTs ever will. It's a bad argument, especially when NFTs (and ETH in general) present a fantastically optimizable solution to the problem of value ownership; they'll get more efficient over time. Data centers can easily be powered by clean energy.
Here's the axiom I've noticed: the pro-NFT crowd has seen every single argument against them. I don't know if the people who post articles & comments like these think they're being original, like they're the first one to notice that verifiable providence is a difficult problem, but trust me; many people in this community have been thinking about this long before you first heard the word "cryptocurrency". Your inability to exhibit creativity in reasoning about a solution to the problems you present does not mean there is no solution, or that the technology won't continue to flourish.