4 ms·

I work in this space as a Product Owner for a blockchain team at Ultra.io. I think that I can speak to some of the questions and concerns in this thread with so

I work in this space as a Product Owner for a blockchain team at Ultra.io. I think that I can speak to some of the questions and concerns in this thread with some authority. NFTs as they are being used today, as proof of ownership over a copy able, digital asset, is frankly the lowest hanging fruit. It isn't a very robust or interesting use of the technology. What we are building is a game distribution platform, like Steam, that makes games and their items NFTs. This opens up many interesting business opportunities that are defined by the built in scarcity that NFTs are built for. Because it is all on chain, it also means that ownership rights move back to end users, meaning that once you are done playing a game, it is then possible to sell or trade it on the open market. A prime example of NFT use as a business case is the ability for a game developer or publisher to create limited edition games with unique content. Basically, I see NFT art as just a proof of concept and not really where the future of this tech is going.

dmw_ng 6y ago
Your use case is definitely more interesting, but it still seems relatively pointless. I love the idea of NFTs acting as a kind of capability to unlock functionality in a piece of software (like a game), but in the particular case of just one game, the value of the token is linked to a single, central authority (the company producing the game) and implementing transactions on an open blockchain seems somewhat superfluous. The key detail of Bitcoin's use of blockchain is to enable mutually distrusting groups to agree on some state in the absence of any centralized authority. In the above case, as in so many buzzy uses, the use of some blockchain to transact seems redundant since the value of tokens being exchanged are entirely dependent on a central authority, and could much more easily be facilitated by that authority (this is just the common "99% of blockchain uses could just be a database" argument I guess). Another aspect is that when the central authority is also the sole issuer of tokens, no counteracting forces exist to drive a meaningful market dynamic. No matter how much price pressure exists from users, the authority can always act to restrict issuance or increase issuance to force a particular price, and over the long term in the absence of that authority (due to bankruptcy, obsolescence, ..) the value of all issued tokens drifts towards zero. On saying that though, there seems to be some promise one step removed -- tokens that activate functionality in software produced across a wide range of vendors. In the case of a game, that could perhaps be realized as something like a common set of power ups tied to NFTs that could be reused in multiple games. The question is how you'd incentivize multiple vendors to buy into the same set of tokens, given doing so is likely to have some real world cost attached to it, and obviously introduces a creative limitation to game design. Meanwhile, can't help but agree, the current NFT applications (million dollar web site clones, weird eBay for JPEGs clones, ..) seem entirely pointless and more a symptom of something than a solution to anything.
- HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
  >but in the particular case of just one game, the value of the token is linked to a single, central authority (the company producing the game) and implementing transactions on an open blockchain seems somewhat superfluous. I don't understand your angle here. Instead of buying a game on steam, you buy a token. You convert e.g. a stablecoin to the game token and you can trade that token on the 2nd hand market later. >Another aspect is that when the central authority is also the sole issuer of tokens, no counteracting forces exist to drive a meaningful market dynamic.No matter how much price pressure exists from users, the authority can always act to restrict issuance or increase issuance to force a particular price, and over the long term in the absence of that authority (due to bankruptcy, obsolescence, ..) the value of all issued tokens drifts towards zero. That depends on the monetary policy for the token which might not be possible to change later on( at least in some blockchains it is set in stone for trust reasons). So you can't just arbitrarily print more or less unless you set it up in such a way in the first place which is transparent. Also I don't understand how the value of tokens drifts towards zero since they live IN THE BLOCKCHAIN and the smart contracts are working regardless of the gamedev existing or not. So you have a digital second hand market essentially.
  - dmw_ng 6y ago
    > I don't understand how the value of tokens drifts towards zero This is the software industry after all. Take for example a multi-player game with purchasable trinkets. Player "invests" in a copy of the game at $50 and 20 trinkets originally costing $1 each. Platform the game is designed for becomes obsolete (say, an app targetting Windows 3.1 or Android 2.1), or the company goes bust and turns off the infrastructure supporting multiplayer functionality. Perhaps having issued all the tokens it can, the company simply loses interest in continuing to pay for that infrastructure. What happens to the value of the issued tokens? Well we know what happens, much as we know what happened to the millions of 3.5" and 5.25" floppy disks containing licensed software written for Windows 3.1 that were manufactured in the 90s. The only way to preserve the value of the "investment" is if the token is supported in perpetuity by a functioning market that must by necessity not be dependent on a single piece of software (game), OS platform, vendor or centralized authority of any sort.
gremlinsinc 6y ago
Is there a way to wrap NFT in DRM? I've been thinking of an possible business idea: Musicians sell digital copies of their music. Users can resell these but 10% of sales go back to the musician - lifetime royalties basically. Users can also "lend" the music ...think stream it like on spotify. Streamers pay a monthly fee, maybe $10/month. Every time someone streams something from your library you get a token good for a share of the monthly revenue, every stream = 1 token, or maybe more valuable streams are worth more tokens? Some sort of value based on popularity of song. Musicians could control how many albums are in circulation thus controlling their residuals to some extent, there'd be algorithms recommending a good amount based on their popularity, requests to stream, sales and second-hand sales, etc... Basically merging of CDBaby with Spotify and CD Connection (or any second-hand music store). Maybe there could be a trading function too: Trades are "free" except for a transaction fee split between platform devs and artists, so artists always get something from every trade, sale, stream. Another feature could be adding in ticket sales... creating one hub to control everything for musical artists... I'm just not sure how to possibly get started on something like this or if it's even feasible with technologies currently out there.
- ramijames 6y ago
  Yes, we use DRM to ensure that games you are trying to run are owned by a blockchain account that you control. It is all seamless. Users dont even know they are using blockchain tech.

dmw_ng 6y ago

Your use case is definitely more interesting, but it still seems relatively pointless. I love the idea of NFTs acting as a kind of capability to unlock functionality in a piece of software (like a game), but in the particular case of just one game, the value of the token is linked to a single, central authority (the company producing the game) and implementing transactions on an open blockchain seems somewhat superfluous. The key detail of Bitcoin's use of blockchain is to enable mutually distrusting groups to agree on some state in the absence of any centralized authority. In the above case, as in so many buzzy uses, the use of some blockchain to transact seems redundant since the value of tokens being exchanged are entirely dependent on a central authority, and could much more easily be facilitated by that authority (this is just the common "99% of blockchain uses could just be a database" argument I guess). Another aspect is that when the central authority is also the sole issuer of tokens, no counteracting forces exist to drive a meaningful market dynamic. No matter how much price pressure exists from users, the authority can always act to restrict issuance or increase issuance to force a particular price, and over the long term in the absence of that authority (due to bankruptcy, obsolescence, ..) the value of all issued tokens drifts towards zero. On saying that though, there seems to be some promise one step removed -- tokens that activate functionality in software produced across a wide range of vendors. In the case of a game, that could perhaps be realized as something like a common set of power ups tied to NFTs that could be reused in multiple games. The question is how you'd incentivize multiple vendors to buy into the same set of tokens, given doing so is likely to have some real world cost attached to it, and obviously introduces a creative limitation to game design. Meanwhile, can't help but agree, the current NFT applications (million dollar web site clones, weird eBay for JPEGs clones, ..) seem entirely pointless and more a symptom of something than a solution to anything.

HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
>but in the particular case of just one game, the value of the token is linked to a single, central authority (the company producing the game) and implementing transactions on an open blockchain seems somewhat superfluous. I don't understand your angle here. Instead of buying a game on steam, you buy a token. You convert e.g. a stablecoin to the game token and you can trade that token on the 2nd hand market later. >Another aspect is that when the central authority is also the sole issuer of tokens, no counteracting forces exist to drive a meaningful market dynamic.No matter how much price pressure exists from users, the authority can always act to restrict issuance or increase issuance to force a particular price, and over the long term in the absence of that authority (due to bankruptcy, obsolescence, ..) the value of all issued tokens drifts towards zero. That depends on the monetary policy for the token which might not be possible to change later on( at least in some blockchains it is set in stone for trust reasons). So you can't just arbitrarily print more or less unless you set it up in such a way in the first place which is transparent. Also I don't understand how the value of tokens drifts towards zero since they live IN THE BLOCKCHAIN and the smart contracts are working regardless of the gamedev existing or not. So you have a digital second hand market essentially.
- dmw_ng 6y ago
  > I don't understand how the value of tokens drifts towards zero This is the software industry after all. Take for example a multi-player game with purchasable trinkets. Player "invests" in a copy of the game at $50 and 20 trinkets originally costing $1 each. Platform the game is designed for becomes obsolete (say, an app targetting Windows 3.1 or Android 2.1), or the company goes bust and turns off the infrastructure supporting multiplayer functionality. Perhaps having issued all the tokens it can, the company simply loses interest in continuing to pay for that infrastructure. What happens to the value of the issued tokens? Well we know what happens, much as we know what happened to the millions of 3.5" and 5.25" floppy disks containing licensed software written for Windows 3.1 that were manufactured in the 90s. The only way to preserve the value of the "investment" is if the token is supported in perpetuity by a functioning market that must by necessity not be dependent on a single piece of software (game), OS platform, vendor or centralized authority of any sort.

gremlinsinc 6y ago

Is there a way to wrap NFT in DRM? I've been thinking of an possible business idea: Musicians sell digital copies of their music. Users can resell these but 10% of sales go back to the musician - lifetime royalties basically. Users can also "lend" the music ...think stream it like on spotify. Streamers pay a monthly fee, maybe $10/month. Every time someone streams something from your library you get a token good for a share of the monthly revenue, every stream = 1 token, or maybe more valuable streams are worth more tokens? Some sort of value based on popularity of song. Musicians could control how many albums are in circulation thus controlling their residuals to some extent, there'd be algorithms recommending a good amount based on their popularity, requests to stream, sales and second-hand sales, etc... Basically merging of CDBaby with Spotify and CD Connection (or any second-hand music store). Maybe there could be a trading function too: Trades are "free" except for a transaction fee split between platform devs and artists, so artists always get something from every trade, sale, stream. Another feature could be adding in ticket sales... creating one hub to control everything for musical artists... I'm just not sure how to possibly get started on something like this or if it's even feasible with technologies currently out there.

ramijames 6y ago
Yes, we use DRM to ensure that games you are trying to run are owned by a blockchain account that you control. It is all seamless. Users dont even know they are using blockchain tech.