191–200 of 200 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arbitrary crap like property? I'm down for some anarchy in the traditional sense.
Which nfts give you property rights to the underlying asset?
I was really hoping they were going to dunk on the technology itself, like how the media of the NFT is lost if the platform hosting it is ever compromised - only the meta data is stored on the blockchain. Instead, they just attacked the contents of the NFTs, akin to my mom telling me my pokemon cards are a waste of money all those years ago. Value is only whatever someone is willing to pay.
The metadata is an IPFS hash in most cases that you can use to validate against the file regardless of where the file is stored. At any rate NFT market places are working on surfacing quality data to users to show them this information. Some NFTs are small enough to be embedded on-chain. Some use IPFS + Filecoin or other decentralized archive service like Arweave. Some don't. Surfacing that to users will become more…
I was really hoping they were going to dunk on the technology itself, like how the media of the NFT is lost if the platform hosting it is ever compromised - only the meta data is stored on the blockchain. Instead, they just attacked the contents of the NFTs, akin to my mom telling me my pokemon cards are a waste of money all those years ago. Value is only whatever someone is willing to pay.
Art Blocks has everything on chain. A few other projects do as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not talking about literal royalties. If I have an item that I buy new (or used) and it's not a depreciating asset, and I sell it, then I owe income tax or capital gains, don't I? And then when the new owner sells it a few months or years later as is common in the case of collectibles, they have to pay income tax or gains on their sale as well, and this continues for the entire life span of the object.
Oh, I assumed you were talking about sales taxes, which is the most obvious case of a DAO-like organization taking money on every sale, as a percentage of the selling price. Income taxes and capital gains taxes are on your profit , not on the sale itself, so they're less analogous. If you as a taxable entity don't net make any money, you don't owe any income taxes (more or less); if you as a taxable entity don't make…
Yes that's correct. That makes it very appealing for creators like artists. I can see how that might be off putting for you though, but I think over time this will become "priced in". Also, only ver few creators will have an active aftermarket for their work. Most will not have a single aftermarket sale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the NFT is supporting them directly, if they minted it. I personally think NFT's are silly, but there's zero argument to be made that they aren't supporting the artist. The artist minted them in the first place.
> The artist minted them in the first place. That's completely false. Anyone can mint an NFT. Artists have minted some of them, and other NFTs are created without the artists' permission. I don't get why people are saying this when it's so obviously false, like, it does not pass the smell test for basic credibility.
Counterfeits isn't relevant to the discussion here. It's like complaining that tipping a server doesn't work because the cash might be counterfeit. It has nothing to do with the main point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing. Just like nothing stopped Taylor Swift from rerecording her entire library to license her music herself. If artists sign their NFT rights away, that's on them.
What Taylor Swift did is an imitation of what Prince did long before her. See https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/cover-story/7348551/... for more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the other is a weird misleading way to rent to people. There's nothing weird or misleading about it, and it's got zero to do with renting. It's simply like a real estate broker commission, gallery commission, or whatever. The concept of a commission has existed for a long, long, long time.
> It's simply like a real estate broker commission, gallery commission, or whatever. Except that its not at all like that. You pay a commission to someone who helped you sell something - they did work to help you sell it and you compensate them. Paying an automatic comission fee to the artist upon sale makes no sense. What are they doing to earn that commission? You already paid for their art. It makes no sense to pa…
That still doesn't make it weird or misleading or "renting". It's straightforward and clear and ownership.
You're correct in that it's not exactly the same as previous models. It's a somewhat new innovation. And isn't it great to try new things?
Perhaps you'd prefer to think of it as more like a transaction tax, which exists in many localities when you sell real estate. E.g. NYC has a 1% transaction tax on sales over $1MM. But here the tax goes to the creator rather than the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's simply like a real estate broker commission, gallery commission, or whatever. Except that its not at all like that. You pay a commission to someone who helped you sell something - they did work to help you sell it and you compensate them. Paying an automatic comission fee to the artist upon sale makes no sense. What are they doing to earn that commission? You already paid for their art. It makes no sense to pa…
I get that you don't like it. That still doesn't make it weird or misleading or "renting". It's straightforward and clear and ownership. You're correct in that it's not exactly the same as previous models. It's a somewhat new innovation. And isn't it great to try new things? Perhaps you'd prefer to think of it as more like a transaction tax, which exists in many localities when you sell real estate. E.g. NYC has a 1%…
I don't mean to distract from the main conversation, but I want to talk about how insidiously evil it is that NFTs can be coded to send the original creator a percentage $ cut off of every subsequent transaction for all time. If that's not hard coding wealth inequality and a new class of asset owners, I don't know what is. This is disturbing, along with the whole thing itself anyway. Imagine if cryptocurrency started…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Royalties apply on re-sale, not every transfer. Royalties on sales going back to the original creator is pretty normal practice in the arts and creative industries (music, writing, art, photography). The good thing, compared to traditional markets, is that this is something that can be (loosely) enforced with smart contracts, the % rate is flexible, and the current NFT royalties are typically far better for the artis…
What on earth are you talking about? If I buy a copyrighted work in the second-hand market I don't have to pay any royalties to the original creator. That would be extortion.
But with galleries in the real world (where artists are “represented” - and the model that NFT marketplaces are emulating), the artist will receive royalties on sales.[1]
[1] - https://www.dacs.org.uk/for-artists/artists-resale-right/in-...