Except twitter profile pictures now right? Verified NFTs are in the pipeline. https://twitter.com/af_mada/status/1443243702156206089?s=20
How? Your Twitter profile picture is an image. What stops me from saving your profile and setting mine to the same thing? Are you suggesting Twitter validates that a Twitter account owns an NFT and shows a check/badge/whatever? I also don't think that works. Whatever rare NFT you have I can go make a visually identical NFT for and confirm that I own that NFT. I often think that I must be missing something about NFTs…
They could easily show provenance info (author or collection name) in addition to the badge. Your fake image will be spot quickly.
All of this gushing hype for the future of artistry is transparently performative. Nobody in this tech cares about art or artists, any of the useful functions of NFTs have long been possible and many orders of magnitude less expensive using public key cryptography or digital signatures.
Hasn’t Banksy setup a whole pipeline to do just that?
> You could argue that one particular NFT is the official Picasso NFT because it was sold by the owners of the Picasso painting I’m pretty sure the analogy would be that Picasso himself actually issued the NFT. Anyone can “argue” that Picasso issued an NFT, but that’s just like arguing that your extremely skillful forgery is a Picasso original. What’s important is if it actually is an original.
With an NFT everyone has access to the exact same byte-for-byte copy of the art work, but one person gets to hold a special token saying that they have some special pseudo-ownership relation to it. So, a more apt analogy would be Picasso donating a painting to a museum, but trying to sell you a certificate saying that you own the artwork, but you're unable to move it to your private collection or gain any additional…
A signed print of a picasso painting would quite likely go for quite a bit, even if you could get the same print sans signature for $20 in the gift shop. Even one created post-death by family foundation etc as a limited edition probably would. Some people do value the scarcity and it being tied to the creator more, think an NFT represents that and thus pay more money. (I personally am not interested in owning NFTs, but "people spend money on scarce things I wouldn't spend money on" isn't exactly a new phenomenon)
The hate is because the realized instantiation of the supposed value creates a bunch of collections of four thousand images of a rabbit or something stupid. The NFT community is largely a bunch of people hyping up crappy animal picture collections on twitter as the next big thing. The attraction to the medium is not through aesthetics or craft, but through FOMO.
I agree there are issues, but the same was (and still is) true in crypto - shitcoins and shitNFTs. That doesn't mean there aren't valuable use cases, or real artistic value and utility in some NFTs, and it doesn't mean there aren't real visionaries building things with authenticity and heart behind them.
Yes it’s very like cryptocurrencies, full of grifters, gamblers, fraud and snake oil salesmen and of course marks who think this ‘revolutionary’ technology is going to change the world and believe the made up prices and wash trades are real.
Most of the visionaries have left cryptocurrencies because they realised just how riddled with fraud and grift the ecosystem is so what’s left is people attracted by the money. I expect NFTs will have the same trajectory.
sorry to be pedantic, but it's literally not multi-level-marketing? Specifically, it's missing the multi-level part. Your upline isn't getting $$$ when you sell a NFT. I suppose you can make the argument that if you then take the money and buy more stuff, then your upline gets paid, but that describes most distributor arrangements. Come to think of it, there isn't really even an upline. It's just a network of artists…
Who convinces people to buy Herbalife? People who have spent a bunch of money on Herbalife. Who convinces people that NFTs aren't just a fad, they're really innovative and you should consider adding them to your portfolio? Not people who don't own any.
That still doesn't make an MLM, MLM's have a specific meaning.
I wouldn't say NFTs are money laundering - there are some interesting use cases. But the setup of NFT makes it easy for say a drug dealer to conduct business on the blockchain and launder earnings by selling "digital art" to his customers.
sorry to be pedantic, but it's literally not multi-level-marketing? Specifically, it's missing the multi-level part. Your upline isn't getting $$$ when you sell a NFT. I suppose you can make the argument that if you then take the money and buy more stuff, then your upline gets paid, but that describes most distributor arrangements. Come to think of it, there isn't really even an upline. It's just a network of artists…
It's a pump and dump.
Which is different than an MLM.
Honest question though: how long does it have to go on until it stops being a pump and dump in your mind?
This isn't true - sure there are projects that use IPFS to host token assets too big to store on-chain (3d assets, photos, etc.), but those assets can be assured to be perfectly correlated with their hashes. Not to mention many projects are fully on-chain, like CryptoPunks and AutoGlyphs.
Ah, so in some cases you’re able to stuff an entire JPEG into the blockchain itself, I’ll grant that. In which case we move on to all the other problems. But For NFTs that are meant to be used in applications, I think my argument still holds. For fully disembodied NFTs where you just stuff a jpeg or it’s hash into a blockchain, my other complaint is that you’re just creating a speculative instrument that doesn’t real…
You might enjoy this project that got a lot of excitement behind it.
As someone who was early in both crypto and NFTs, I really don't get the hate from the crypto community especially. They are a powerful tool for artists and creators to manage their works, especially digital artists who could never control their art before. They can and do manage commercial and IP rights, artist royalties, help self-organize DAOs and other efforts, and assure the authenticity and provenance with a ca…
> They can and do manage commercial and IP rights, artist royalties [...] and assure the authenticity and provenance They literally do nothing of the sort. An NFT has no capability to restrict or monetize the usage of the work it is linked to, nor does its existence prove anything about the origin or authenticity of the work it is attached to. These are myths with no basis in fact. By way of example -- I could, if I…
Perhaps you can email Universal Talent Agency and tell them they are wrong. Trademarks and copyright infringement exists in the NFT world, just because you can mint an NFT doesn't mean you own the art associated, particularly if you didn't create it.
All of this gushing hype for the future of artistry is transparently performative. Nobody in this tech cares about art or artists, any of the useful functions of NFTs have long been possible and many orders of magnitude less expensive using public key cryptography or digital signatures.
> any of the useful functions of NFTs have long been possible and many orders of magnitude less expensive using public key cryptography or digital signatures.
A major useful function being the ability to buy and sell with purely digital money, was that possible before?