I remember reading a proposal how music artists could somehow use nfts as digital record keeping so when digital tickets are resold they could get a percentage of the sale each time it was resold. Making more money for artists and disinsentivising resale but you know ticket places would never let it happen. I’m sure you could do it without nfts but it seemed like a really great idea.
Every ticket scheme for NFTs fails because of a simple reason: contract law. Venues don’t stick with TicketMaster because they like it. TicketMaster’s store front doesn’t have any magic technology; a room of overcaffinated fresh CS grads could recreate it in a weekend of binge coding.
Venues stick with TicketMaster because they are contractually obliged to do so. NFTs do not and cannot change that legal reality.
I’m sure you could do it without nfts
Yup! There were no technical problems that weren’t already solved, but NFT bros made grand claims unrelated to reality.
Techbros are still doing it. In this thread even, and people are still falling for it judging by their upvotes.
When they were first blowing up, I thought sure, I’ll turn a couple old unreleased tracks of mine into NFTs. I signed up to some site I forget the name of, uploaded the tracks, and then then found out I had to pay something like $500 a track to turn them into NFTs. It was a pretty duh moment for me. Of course the content doesn’t mean shit, it’s just the money. I never paid them a dime and deleted my stuff.
When I first heard of NFTs I thought the media was encoded within the blockchain - in that case sure, I wouldn’t necessarily buy one but I understand how that’d be interesting.
Ten minutes later when I was told they are just proof of purchase that points to a URL hosting your monkey image somewhere, I knew they were a total scam
Okay but how are nft’s different from the deed to a house? Checkmate, filthy commie.
Now that i have defeated you in single combat, you must tell me the seed phrase for your largest bitcoin wallet.
hunter2
wtf why isn’t it starred out for privacy
guys help
There use to always be a crowd of TSLA stock owners (fewer now) defending Tesla in posts criticising Musk and Tesla, and similarly lots of people who are clearly cryptocurrency owners coming out of the woodworks to defend cryptocurrencies in posts critical of them.
Under this post we seem to be getting a lot of NFT owners doing the same: “selling their book” as they say in Finance.
People will say any old bollocks and dissemble like pros to keep up interest in the “investment” assets they own until they find a greater fool to dump them on.
Makes me think of the difference in the discourse around Bitcoin back in the early days vs latter stages: NFTs were created from the very go as way of separating fools from their money so the talk around them has always been swindlers’ talk - or if you want to describe it in a positive light, “the grifters grift” - but Bitcoin did not start as a vehicle for money making, and I remember back in the beginnings of Bitcoin how the talk was very different - mainly naive idealism - and how it changed over time as greedy types became a greater and greater part of those who had bought Bitcoin.
There use to always be a crowd of TSLA stock owners (fewer now) defending Tesla
Seems like a resurgence now, plus I’m seeing a lot more misleading videos.
This time it’s worse: all scam and manipulation.
Before there were a lot of true believers and the bubble went on too long to be just a scam
I quite enjoyed supporting artists like Ame72 and Sabat by purchasing their digital artwork. 🤷♀️
I don’t see how it’s much different than Patreon. You pay creators that you enjoy, you get a digital collectable, and access to discord of you care about that sort of thing. NFTs allowed many people to do art full-time.
You didnd’t purchase their artwork though. The fact that you still haven’t figured that out says a lot about what kind of customerbase was needed to get NFTs off the ground.
So if somebody buys my digital photos off Deviant art, they didn’t “purchase my photos”? Geez, I better go call that TV studio that used some of my work and let them know they got scammed.
When I hired a wedding photographer 15 years ago and got the digitals, did I get scammed?
Are you against people buying anything digital or just the underlying technological platform?
It’s having a legal contract that passes the intellectual property to your name and a Legal System backing that contract with the power and willingness to enable the use of Force to confiscate the property of contract breakers, that give you de facto ownership rights.
That’s the essential difference between your example and NFTs.
Thinking that a mere “ownership certificate” which is not legally recognized is “ownership” is just a variant of the Sovereign Citizen delusions only with “magical” bytes instead of “magical” words - techno-magical mumbu jumbo for people who can’t understand that symbols not backed by enforcement structures mean nothing in a society.
An “ownership stamp”, no matter how technically advanced, which is not recognized or backed by a Legal System gives you de facto no ownership rights because nothing will back you up when others disregard your claims of ownership asserted by that “ownership stamp” and if you yourself try to enforce it that Legal System will likely turn against you depending on how you try and enforce yourself your ownership claims (for example if you do something legally deemed Theft or Assault it’s you who ends up in facing the might of the Legal System).
That’s the essence of the complete total idiocy of thinking NFTs are ownership: ownership is not merely having a “certificate of ownership”, it’s there being societal structures that recognize your ownership and will back you up when you want to assert ownership rights. In fact, most ownership does not require any certificates, digital or otherwise, just an entry in a database of the appropriate Legal Registrar of ownership.
As I said, thinking it’s some made up certificate of ownership that gives you ownership rights is Sovereign Citizen “logic”
It’s having a legal contract that passes the intellectual property to your name and a Legal System backing that contract with the power and willingness to enable the use of Force to confiscate the property of contract breakers, that give you de facto ownership rights.
Here’s an excerpt of the “Holder Rights” explicitly outlined from a very very very large and well known music artist who released music NFTs:
“[Redacted] token holders have full commercial rights to their unique version. They can remix and release it, play it publicly, or use it in other content like videos.”
“[Redacted] includes the ability to render full quality audio files and to render individual tracks as Stems to make edits and remixes easy.”
“Holders do not have exclusive rights, meaning they cannot remove their version from [redacted] or stop it from showing up in NFT marketplaces like OpenSea.”
“If you do use a version commercially, you should not sell the token. If you do, you will transfer the rights and may need to obtain permission from the new owner to coninue your use.”
“Every buyer will be responsible for their own copyright claims.”
Do you think this would hold up in a court of law?
That’s pretty much a standard non-exclusive commercial licensing contract, same as you get from places that license musice for commercial use like Envato - it makes that token a tranferable license for that work with the licensing rights defined there and no more than that, and legally gives you no ownership (i.e. the copyright being yours) of those works.
Per those terms the copyright owner (which is not the person who has ownership of the token, as per those terms that only gives them a commercial license to use that work) can license it to other people under whatever terms they want.
Oh, and all of that is backed by Copyright laws, not by whatever technical solution was used for the NFT - they could’ve just as easilly used a seashell or a piece of paper as ownership “token”.
If you bought an NFT which is a token for this work as per these contract terms, thinking you own the music, you’ve been had and should’ve had a lawyer check it out first.
So your chief complaint is mainly a semantical one related to the terms outlined, and not the underlying platform. Got it. Thanks for the responses. ☺️
You did not make the case that NFTs add value over a standard non-exclusive commercial licensing contract with your example and instead showed us an NFTs which even when actually backed by a contract does not provide “ownership”, thus confirming my point and that of previous posters that NFTs by themselves don’t given ownership.
Beyond that, if you think legally defined intellectual contract language elements like “ownership” and “licensing” are just semantics, you’re going to be sorelly dissapointed when trying to assert your ownership of those assets.
bruh it’s really not that difficult. Fan sends money to artist. Fan receives some magical bytes in return. Could fan have right clicked and downloaded the artwork without paying? Of course. But fan wants to support artist. Because fan likes artist’s art. It’s how any digital “marketplace” works, NFT or not. All this “legal system” and “ownership” and “legal registrar” nonsense you’re pulling up is completely irrelevant. You’re reading too much into it.
“Bruh”, your problem is exactly that in your mind it’s all simple even though you live in a Society right next to millions of people and you somehow think that what you believe because you read it on a website gives you “rights” that those millions of people will respect just because you say so.
It’s like thinking that a toilet needs not be connected to a sewage line to handle your shit or the electricity for your house appears by merelly having power lines rather than coming via them from where it gets generated via a complex infrastruture to get it to you.
It’s the Soverign Citizen kind of take on the world, and the results are pretty much the same for techno-deluded kind of Soverign Citizen as for the document-deluded ones: nobody else respects your claims to having certain rights hence the only worth you can extract from such “certificates” is from finding and swindling even greater fools.
You’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say shit about “rights” and “respect”. The guy in the original comment mentioned nothing about it either. You said that. You’re bringing this idea into the conversation and then arguing against yourself. Seriously, what is your endgame here?
I genuinely have no clue what you think I “read on a website” about NFTs. To set the record straight, my understanding of NFTs is that you have a ledger where your public key is associated with a token, and every computer participating in the ledger agrees on that. that’s it. All of these ideas of “ownership” and “rights” and societal analogies is bullshit you brought into the conversation.
As per another poster higher up this thread:
You didnd’t purchase their artwork though. The fact that you still haven’t figured that out says a lot about what kind of customerbase was needed to get NFTs off the ground.
You seem to have chosen a very specific, very “curious” cutoff point for contextual relevance of responses not alligned with your opinion in this thread in order to claim my response to you is some wild unrelated “bullshit”.
Further, you responded to my comment criticising NFTs as a means of guaranteing ownership, with an example usage that has nothing to do with ownership and were NFTs do literally nothing useful at all (you can just send the money to the artist if indeed your objective is to “contribute to the artist” no NFTs required), so per your own logic your post is bullshit you brought into the conversation.
Your example provides no support for the idea being discussed by everybody else in this thread, so either that post of yours is bullshit you brought into the conversation (since it goes out on a tangent and doesn’t support the points I was replying to or made in my comment) or you wanted to support the idea that NFTs are useful and failed miserably and now are just criticizing me for following you down your irrelevant tangent to the points being discussed in the thread.
Seriously, what is your endgame here?
Seriously, what is your endgame here?
They just really really really hate NFTs/crypto for some reason. I can’t imagine ever getting so worked up about a technology like people do today about crypto. I want to support an artist so apparently I need to have a PhD in contract and IP law in order to do so.
yeah exactly I still haven’t heard a single explanation of what makes NFTs a “scam”. People just shout that word and expect you to accept it. Seriously, which part of a consensual transaction between two well-informed parties qualifies as a “scam”?
There is undoubtedly a huge number of rugpulls, vaporware, empty promises, and outright scams with NFTs. But this is true of any nascent technology, any sort of project like this. The reason so many people know about it and are aware about it is because of the permissionless and open nature of crypto which allows people to see these projects in realtime.
IMO it’s neither good nor bad. It’s just nascent tech. For an artist like Sabet, it’s obviously good! It gets people exposed to his art, with a low entry barrier, and allows people to support him. For people like Trump, it’s pretty clearly bad, and it just allows him to scam/rugpull people easier and faster.
I had too much money once. I bought some nft Reddit avatars for like 2k and it is still there somewhere but I am too lazy to even check on that
It’s somewhere there some kind of nft safe they have or something like that. It’s all very clunky.
I think I had to note down some access code at some point or something like that, it’s all too tiring to remember and unclear if there is anything you can do with it
what the fuck
We will need an immutable signature for content at some point moving forward since AI is going to be so prevalent and it will be easy to make fraudulent clips, podcasts etc. NFTs would be perfect for this.
Not any moreso than any other signature verification method, and we already have several better than NFTs.
What would be the advantage over current digital signatures?
The idea of NFT was not as much a proof of authenticity, but more like a way to sell and but those signatures.
In the context of AI I don’t see an advantage to having a easy way to sell your private key sort of speaking.
You know, I feel bad for the people who were conned by the Super Bowl commercials. Celebs added legitimacy to the con. Everyone else who actually got into it because of whatever other reason, I don’t give a fuck about. And SBF? Fuck that guy. I’m glad he’s in prison. (I know he was selling a crypto-currency, not NFTs. Don’t correct me.)
Oh, and the late night guy and the celeb blond lady who had an awkward conversation about it (was it the hotel sex tape lady?) can also fuck right off. Someone paid them to shill and they went for it. Assholes.
But, all that being said, I’ll sell you a jpeg for $1000. Or two for $1999.
Edit: Paris Hilton, don’t @ me. Edit: missing “the”
removed by mod
I feel bad for people who are duped by the scam artists. But on the other hand, scam is such an integral part of the US life, recognising it is an essential skill by now. So if you have enough money to be scammed, but didn’t learn how not to get scammed, it’s at least a little bit on you at this point.
That being said, nobody is safe, unfortunately, you can be as smart and as informed as possible, they still can invent a scam that will work on you specifically.
Is it over? I stopped watching.
Fifa is selling world cup nfts right now…
Fifa is pretty fucked up and behind the times. I am not surprised.
The amount of ignorance regarding crypto is too damn high. I agree that NFT’s are stupid, always felt that way, but when people just say a “all crypto is a scam” really don’t understand what they are saying. There’s a plenty of legit crypto products out there, but yes, the vast majority are just garbage. Invest in the blue chips, the REAL industry of crypto, not memes or things no ones ever heard of before. (Bitcoin, Solana, Ethereum, etc…)
It’s a solution in search of a problem. Currencies are government backed because the vast majority of people have faith in their governments’ enforcement of legislation regarding use of that currency. It’s good to be able to make class action lawsuits against scammers and most in the population will choose anything government backed if they have the option.
So if the goal is to get away from government backing, who do you give control to? In the case of a blockchain, it’s the parties with the majority of the “proof of XYZ” creation hardware. Which are not normal people. Then there’s the possibility of developers of a blockchain choosing to rewrite the ledger, causing splits. So you didn’t invent some unmodifiable currency either, the control lies with people who you probably should trust even less than the parties managing EUR/USD.
Then, it’s incredibly energy inefficient. Especially proof of work is a ridiculous waste of computational resources, at least tie the problem to something NP-hard with actual value instead of whatever reverse hashing search is usually done. But wasting resources is the design of the system anyways.
Sounds to me like you never read the Bitcoin whitepaper.
People don’t care because crypto is literally a made up thing.
Sure, people make money off of it. But people make money off loads of things. That doesn’t change that it’s literally a made up currency that has tons of people scamming the shit out of people for a quick buck.
everything that we interact with in our lives for the most part is a made-up thing
🙄
Sure bud. Act like your digital picture is the same as a painting someone made.
it’s the parties with the majority of the “proof of XYZ” creation hardware. Which are not normal people.
Originally the idea was that it WOULD be normal people using their own CPU cycle time to secure the chain and mint new blocks. Even then, as long as no one party holds the majority of hash power, the incentive is to support the security of the coin rather than subvert it. The moment that changes is the moment that Bitcoin dies, because no one will be able to trust it any more - which also means there is an incentive to make sure there are enough competing BTC farms.
there’s the possibility of developers of a blockchain choosing to rewrite the ledger, causing splits.
The blockchain is upheld by the combination of the developers and the miners. If the developers aren’t acting in good faith and the miners don’t like it, they don’t move to the new chain. Sure, you get a split, but odds are one of them is going to die.
Solana and Ethereum are both centralized scams that have been going down vs Bitcoin for the last year, despite the bull market.
Scams with ETFs regulated by the government, audited by the government through MANY lawsuits, multiple bills being proposed to regulate the indusy… so scammy right? Legit products. Both of them. Centralization isn’t a make or break for any crypto really, they don’t have to be decentralized to be a valid product.
And price doesn’t matter at all, not sure why you even mention it. It bears nothing on the conversation at all.
lol yes absolutely they are. Yes the government is allowing legal scams. Yes scammers win lawsuits. Yes congress supports scams. A government stamp doesn’t make trusting some corporate CEO a good idea; it just means they paid the bribes.
“Blue chips” typically perform well, especially relative to their risk. You’ve got all the risks of Bitcoin, plus trust in a central party that needs government permission.
NFTs are just beanie babies for millenials and gen z
I could buy a beanie baby at an auction and then drive across town and sell the beanie baby at a different auction. I’d get around the same estimated price on the toy buying and selling, unless I found a particularly friendly/disappointing market.
By contrast, the NFT auction houses are all owned and operated by the same assholes trying to sell the digital merch. The prices are set arbitrarily, many of the sales are wash sales or straw purchases, with the same individual/cartel running multiple accounts to create the illusion of a market. Once you’ve bought your NFT, there’s no real way to off-load it onto anyone else. It’s purely a scam.
Tack on to the tail end, at the absolute worst you get a cute little stuffed animal out of Beanie Babies. With NFTs, you’re not even buying the artwork itself. You’re buying a link to artwork with no guarantee of continued costing. Quite a few NFTs are the victims of Link Rot, leading to the owner having gone out of pocket for some absurd fee in exchange for what amounts to a stall bit.ly URL.
Millenials had beanie babied wut
Uh oh, you’ve offended the people who are prone to falling for scams and grifts. Across multiple generations.
I think it’s also the younger users here don’t know/remember the time when all Boomers flipped their shit and thought Beanie Babies were THE ONE TRUE investment strategy. They didn’t watch their parents blow their entire retirement fund on a scam. Instead they were the ones that actually got to play with them, so naturally they look back on them fondly.
Don’t forget Funko pops
A plague upon humanity.
I really hate these things and can’t believe I wasted money on some my kids wanted.
But you do buy something. It’s not imaginary
Beanie babies were beanie babies for millennials. I still have some.
Sure, but millennials weren’t the generation that brought us things like this. They thought they could horde them to fund their kids college. I know firsthand, my mom spent hundreds of thousands on them claiming they would only go up. Now she’s got nothing. God forbid she buy a fucking savings bond.
At least beanie babies were a toy a child could play with.
Noooo! They’d lose value! (they’d go from 2 to 1.5 dollars)
Well, that’s why you get the tag protectors!
It’s remains sad that the name NFT is tainted by scams. In business, we start using NFTs more in various other contexts than “art”. NFT technology, without the scam marketplace, has many use cases that we only now start to see benefits from. It’s a very good way to digitize assets and use them in business processes.
Explain to me one such benefit please
For you as a user, this example can be interesting: event tickets.
Today, the market is dominated by companies like Ticketmasters and scalpers. Artists have very little control over their ticket price. Here in The Netherlands, some prominent artists started using GET to issue their event tickets on (these are technically NFTs). This gives them the assurance that the audience pays a fair price for the tickets and that scalpers cannot trade it for a higher price. Both the audience and the artist are better of using this technology, than issuing their tickets via Ticketmasters.
https://guts.tickets/ E.g. Dutch article with prominent artists starting sales via GUTS in 2018, and they still use that platform today: https://www.parool.nl/kunst-media/jochem-myjer-en-youp-van-t-hek-pakken-ticketfraude-aan~bc419f5c/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
And why do I need a Blockchain for that?
I could host my own ticket shop where tickets are only possible to check in if you have a passport and trading is impossible since it is bound to the person who bought it.
And trading can be made possible with the same platform that sells the tickets
Sure you can, but then we basically create the same situation as with Ticketmasters, all tickets will then eventually flow through your company and you can change policies again and we will end up with the same problems. With a blockchain solution (doesn’t have to be blockchain for NFT’s though) this platform can be decentralized and self managed, the rules are baked into the protocol, it can only be changed with the majority of voting rights. It basically enables the infrastructure for artists to control ticket sales (and reading at the gate) themselves, without having to use an agency. In your scenario, they would still need an agency.
It sounds nice in theory with the decentralization but in this case a governmental website selling tickets would be better
Also since when do NFTs without Blockchain exist?
Why do I think it won’t work:
Voting by hardware = voting by the rich/ criminals
If there is money at play someone will buy the majority of the Blockchain by owning more than 50% of the hardware and making it a useless endeavour for everyone else.
Software licenses
Why would a vendor prefer that over centralized DRM that customers tolerate anyways?
For me it’s usually the Bitcoin guy from the “If Google was a guy” sketches
Amazing.
Hahaha
i smoked a joint with an one of those ape drawings on the jar last night, that was a Nice Fuckin Toke
made money and got out so cant rlly complain tbh
damn those 17 downvotes are so salty it’s making my monitor bezels corrode
Well its fine, I understand where it comes from. But like NFTs were obviously gambling and for anyone making money someone had to lose it. Since the whole concept was and is pretty degenerate tho pretty much everyone knew what they signed up for so its not like I made anyone grandmas lifesavings. U can call me an idiot for having done that but at most I took some bigger idiots money so the ur part of the problem talk is a stretch imo. I wasnt doing it on eth either which at the time was the most inefficient chain when it comes to using energy to run. Tbf tho. I wasnt part of any solution to any problem either, that much is clear. (obviously Im just talking about having bought and sold NFTs btw, never made one never sold one to a first buyer I was just trading them for a time)
