Yes, using crypto and blockchain you can prove that this was the first NFT print of the artwork, but that's it. It's an expensive way to proclaim that you have the keys controlling the NFT that links to the print of the artwork, and that it was associated with a crypto-denominated transaction of a certain value, but that's it.
These NFTs are also a goldmine for wash trading scams. NFT holders can "sell" the NFT to themselves over and over again at increasingly higher prices, creating an illusion of a very valuable and high-demand NFT.
Want to own an expensive NFT? Buy a cheap NFT, then use a second wallet to "buy" it from yourself. The last trade price gets recorded in the blockchain and you can now brag about having an NFT worth as much money as you were willing to scrounge up for the transaction.
Folks aren't buying a verified unique token for obscene amounts just to brag about it. They might brag, but many have other reasons to hold an object of such "value" .
Anyone thinking that NFT is anything other than a vanity token for the wealthy and a money laundering mechanism for the same is fooling themselves.
Re: wash trading, that also happens in the art world with shell companies.
* Tokens can become tickets to events
* Tokens can become options on commissioned work
* Tokens can become signs of membership
Because the token is guaranteed to be unique, and you can track ownership, there's a fluidity to this that lets you do away with contractual mechanisms. You can reuse the same tokens many times or announce that it will expire(for your use case).
Edit: And platforms can't really own it if it's on a public chain, too. You just copy the chain(see: BinancePunks copying CryptoPunks). So there's that.
All these articles gloss over the technical side (which is really not complicated, because there's very little THERE). And gloss over the demand side (sure, people want to "own" the art even when "own" means absoluely nothing in that context). I can only assume that on the demand side there's a mixture of stupid money ("I don't know what this is but it seems like it might be the next big thing so I'm buying") and people working one of various angles.
At least some artists are getting paid stupid amounts of money, if someone's got to get a windfall it might as well be them. But let's not pretend thing actually makes sense as an overall thing.
1) the culture of the general people around you support it, or
2) there is an entity with political power (such as the state) that forcefully protects that authenticity through law/police/the military/etc (for example, intellectual property supported by law enforcement).
But firstly I think NFTs are totally antitheical to the current culture of the Internet era, where it is given without question that data can be freely copied and shared (regardless of the countless efforts by DRM technologies), and virality and mass transmission is regarded as an important communal cultural value. Who cares if someone "owns" the Nyan Cat meme, when you can freely Google it and view it on your smartphone, and can also save it to your hard drive if you want to preserve it? And I really don't think state power is really supportive of general crypto right now, so number two is off from the start. The problem I have with NFTs (and cryptocurrenties in general) isn't about the technology, it's more about the culture surrounding it.
(Also, think the blockchain is permanent, because it's supported by "math"? If the infrastructure surrounding Ethereum vanishes, your piece of NFT is essentially gone. And Ethereum's consuming a hell of a lot of energy and infrastructure to maintain, and you might start to think backing it up in a few hard drives is the easier and saner option...)
As soon as "real" art collectors start buying them (already hapenening) then they will mutually invest in protecting their investment, no need for government when civil courts can preside.
And also, when actual powerful entities (whether that be governments/corporations/etc) start to involve in protecting NFT investments using the law, is there any benefit of "crypto" being used to protect the value of the asset anymore? Isn't it just private property with extra steps?
I really don't think the Mona Lisa comparison doesn't fit with the current conversation with NFTs, since NFTs deal with digital assets, and trying to convert an analog artwork like Mona Lisa to fit into NFTs would already demolish its authentic value as an amalgamation of detailed, non-reproducible paint strokes (which I think is the authentic value you're emphasizing about).
Exactly. The only things canonical-physical artworks are good for are conspicuous consumption/bragging rights and money laundering(/other money-laundering-adjactent activities).
You can't restrict ownership of digital goods. Decades of DRM have shown us that.
More about the history of authenticity: Religion supplied this culture of "authenticity" for some time, but after the Industrial revolution the widespread duplicate production of commodities, along with the invention of photos and videos, has been eroding away the value of the authentic "the one and only" irrelevant for some time. Walter Benjamin has a nice essay about this change of culture in his famous essay - "
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction". And the Internet seems to further accelerate the notion of communal art, where memes only have value if they are shared freely and not when someone hangs it in a museum. My gripe with NFTs has nothing to do with the technicalities of crypto and everything to do with everything else (primarily, politics and culture in relation to technology).
Like this? https://lunarland.com/
So you're right you can't restrict possession of digital goods but you can restrict the right to sell a digital good because any potential buyers will want to know what they're buying is "authentic".
CSGO skins go for thousands with the rarest going for tens of thousands, you can download them and possess them right now but valve says you don't "own" them and can't sell them.
Yes, there are servers that will let you try out custom skins and knives but you can't play an official game with them. The knives also offer different animations which look cooler than the default one. It's slightly different to me in that there's no inherent usefulness of the NFT's (at least currently - maybe in some metaverse future they have a use).
It doesn't seem like people really want to "own" the NFTs, they are viewing them only as investments which means eventually someone will be left holding the bag. In contrast, people DO want to own the CSGO skins and knives.
Either way I don’t think there is value in ‘DRM but on a blockchain’.
It deals with art - something that’s value is inherently subjective. Plus it gives makers of digital art a better/additional way to fund themselves. Further, transactions would likely be limited reducing environmental impact. Finally, it could provide some competition to company’s like Sotheby’s.
Obviously there a lot of open questions (couldn’t someone else just duplicate a work and make their own coin, why not just pay an artist directly, money laundering, etc). But I think this at least warrants further discussion. It’s an interesting way to make digital art collectible/tradable
> So, if you were to buy an NFT from me, in a sense, you are buying STOCK in me because you believe that I (or my art piece) will continue to create more work and add more “value” to that stock over time.
So essentially, this has nothing to do with art, it's a way for artists to get in on the stupid money speculation train everyone else seems to be addicted to. You "own" the token in order to buy low and sell high, rather than it really mattering in itself.
We really are doomed, aren't we?
I don't even know what this is. The most prominent NFT seems to be NBA Top Shots, and even then it seems like the speculation is on something like... an ownership claim on a limited number of pointers to play-specific metadata referring to content licensed to Dapper from the NBA, that lets decide how you want to showcase them on the platform.
No one is even promising you a goddamn tulip bulb.
A: Absolutely nothing ... I think?
I'm willing to grant that it's slightly slightly interesting to consider what some works would look like if they were chopped to pieces and reconstituted from only the pieces people would individually bid on. There's an artistic statement in there somewhere.
But the pomp and slime that this is presented with completely obscure that.
But - his court victories depended on the argument that he actually transformed the works he copied. If someone just claims ownership of a art work on a blockchain, I'm not sure that's the same thing.
And half the NFT art markets require you to not post stuff you've tokenized elsewhere, so much for hacking up a multi-tokenizer that claims my work on every market as a way to avoid thievery. Unless there is a cross-market standard for claiming An Art.
This is not true of a JPEG. I can perfectly duplicate it.
Now where it might make sense is if everyone views the asset through an authoritative “viewer”.
For example cryptokitties website.
In that case it somewhat makes sense.
As an analogy if I create a private World of Warcraft server and give my character a billion gold, no one cares.
But if they see my character on the official server (the official “viewer”) has a billion gold then its impressive.
That defies all logic unless the print isn't just a print -- e.g. it's in a million dollar gold frame or was previously owned by the Pope or something.
However if a DRM ecosystem pops up supporting this which adds enough friction to showing digital assets without tokens (ex a high end DRM only digital photo frame, DRM only music and video players, DRM enforced public hosting services, ...) then I could start to see how this might gain some traction. Legal enforcement would help as well.
As other comments have stated this does seem pretty antithetical to the culture of the original internet. Though that seems to be less relevant as the years march on.
Reading https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canad... it says "trade or exchange cryptocurrency, including disposing of one cryptocurrency to get another cryptocurrency" but are NFTs considered an asset rather than a security? (cryptocurrency isn't considered currency)
Not sure how taxes work out fair market value of art
In textbooks I've seen that stock is a "share of a company's future profits" but seeing as many don't pay dividends it really is more like "share of a company's future perception."
This makes sense. However, it's not "perfect".
If I believe in KAWS and Jeff Koons and I'd like to buy some of their "stock" to resell when I retire, what jpg my shares are linked to are irrelevant. So it's a bit of an inconvenience that I need to invest in stock of an artwork rather than stock of an artist. It's like that in real life sure, but artists should just be doing their own ICOs no?
This explanation of "the" blockchain almost made me throw up. It's absolutely fine if you are too lazy to understand certain things, just don't assume everyone is and please do not try to explain things you do not understand, unless you're honest about it or it is simply exercise.
I'll throw you guys a little bone. Imagine sports card collecting, in the real world the hassle of keeping it in good condition, sending it to get it graded, then finding a buyer online, sending it again, and then hoping to get paid...all of that is full of friction and generally a terrible experience. NFTs like NBA Top Shot allow you to bypass all of that and the process of opening a pack, finding the price of it, and selling it can be done all in seconds. It is legitimately a 10x improvement from a logistical standpoint. And that's just scratching the surface, it's not only 10x more convenient and easier to find liquidity but it's actually programmable so there's pretty much infinite stuff that can be built on top of it like analytical tools, games that it integrates with and tracking ownership and getting athletes involved and displaying in virtual spaces and attaching digital custom signatures etc etc.
Even if you personally don't like it or think "its stupid", the popularity of some of these products is undeniable. It is legit blowing up and has disrupted previous industries that people who get it refuse to go back to old ways. Sorry the market has spoken and your take is wrong.
> I'll throw you guys a little bone.
Just leave this out. You're part of the the community you're lumping here.
If I own a Moment, how do I download the associated video, archive it, and view it offline? Do I get the rights to do that, or does the moment only consist of the metadata that allows me to view the content? Is it even that? Is the Moment really just a way to hang a tag that says "I've got this one and this one" on a website that hosts all the actual content?
Amazing to see how the tech/SV mainstream completely missed out on Defi, and are now missing out on NFTs.
This comment explains HNs relationship with crypto perfectly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24310174. Good quote from @balajis: "Crypto is what comes after Silicon Valley"
Check out a16z, sequoia portfolios or check out the founders of the top defi projects...
> "Crypto is what comes after Silicon Valley"
yet some of the biggest success stories to come out of crypto are "Silicon Valley" (or close enough in this context) companies such as Coinbase ?
There are many VCs who are into crypto that have invested in smart contract platforms (i.e. ETH killers), but missed out on investing in the actual applications built on Ethereum (Defi protocols). The applications have heavily outperformed the ETH killers. USV is an example of this, pioneering the fat protocol thesis and completely missing out on actual applications.
While there are SV based crypto companies like Coinbase, the majority of things happening in crypto happens outside of SV. Binance, FTX, Bitfinex, Bitmex, Bitstamp are all non US. Out of the top 10 defi projects, only 2 are SV based and the majority are non US based.
In crypto SV is not the center at all, which is very different to the internet where SV is obviously the center
In some artworks the certificate is the only non transitory asset (e.g. banana taped to wall, or the famous lawyers dot painting)
Made me wonder if authors of open source code could use something similar to provide for themselves.
The "you don't have to understand it, just accept that it exists and believe in it" line of nonthinking is a memetic neurotoxin. It sucks whether it's applied to blockchain, NFTs, gods, homeopathy, or an MLM, and a healthy mind should expel it on exposure.