4 ms·

I would point to Hicetnunc as one example[1], which provides real value for many artists on the platform. I’m sure it’s possible to build a similar platform wi

I would point to Hicetnunc as one example[1], which provides real value for many artists on the platform. I’m sure it’s possible to build a similar platform with a central database handling transactions and Stripe payouts, but I’m not sure it would be met with the same enthusiasm (and, despite the possibility of this with past tech, no pre-blockchain digital art marketplace has come close to meeting it in sales). Due to the decentralization of the art tokens (via the blockchain), the community has been able to grow and evolve in a way that a centralized platform could not. For example: while the site’s contract was paused to repair a bug, artists continued to trade tokens directly peer-to-peer (no platform needed), and even build new sites and platforms that enabled trading & auctioning on the same Hicetnunc-minted tokens. [1] https://restofworld.org/2021/inside-brazils-diy-nft-art-marketplace/ https://restofworld.org/2021/inside-brazils-diy-nft-art-mark...

skohan 5y ago
So I would agree that this marketplace is creating profit for artists. Whether there is real value creation happening I would consider debatable. NFT's themselves are a highly speculative asset, and I would not count on this marketplace continuing to grow and thrive a decade from now. In other words, a lot of people probably made a very good profit operating tulip markets in Holland in the 1600's, but that doesn't mean they were creating value.
- mattdesl 5y ago
  That’s an interesting argument. What defines “value” in your mind? The platform brings value to artists (financial freedom to create more art), value to collectors (digital ownership over a scarce conceptual artwork), and value to the art world (more digital art being created by a more diverse group of people). Not all may agree with these values, and perhaps this platform and it’s tokens will not persist after some years, but I’m not sure that means the project does not currently provide value to those participating in it. Because “NFTs are dead” (according to the media) we have hopefully past the moment of tulip mania. But perhaps it will really take some more months or years for this to truly “die” — during which time the artists have a viable marketplace to distribute their art and earn revenue on it, where no prior option existed for them. Or, perhaps it will not die so quickly, if enough people continue to see value in collecting and supporting digital artists in this way. Time will tell.
  - skohan 5y ago
    Value is a tricky thing to define, but I would probably define value in terms of utility: you are able to create value for someone if you allow them to solve a problem or gain satisfaction, using less resources than they otherwise could. The sticking point for me with your proposed value proposition is here: > value to collectors (digital ownership over a scarce conceptual artwork) My question would be: is it really digital ownership that collectors are interested in? Or is it the chance for future profit on the assumption that these NFTs may increase in value. I suspect in most cases it is the latter, and in this case we don't have value creation, we have speculation. Essentially it's just a bet with a very significant downside risk. Speculation, especially in an atmosphere of irrational exuberance, is much more likely to result in the destruction of value than the creation of it.
    - mattdesl 5y ago
      I think you may be viewing this through the lens of high priced NFTs that are in the millions, and are mostly speculative assets for a crypto trader’s portfolio. When I buy a digital art token worth 1 XTZ (around 2-3 USD), it is closer to skipping my morning coffee for the chance to support an artist’s latest work, perhaps from an artist that I have been following for years on Twitter or Instagram without giving them any support besides Likes and Retweets (“exposure”). I have no intention of flipping or speculating on the art — but of course if there is demand for that token I may consider trading it, as it would give me even more XTZ funds to continue supporting other artists in this way. I have not yet re-sold any Tezos NFTs, and I have bought hundreds from many different artists and illustrators. If none of these ever sell, I won’t feel like I have lost anything, because the value I see in this is not in the speculative nature of the asset. And to your question: yes, many collectors appreciate the digital ownership aspect, and enjoy building out carefully curated galleries and showcases of their owned tokens, much like many traditional art collectors take pride in owning and displaying their collection.
      - Traster 5y ago
        What value does crypto bring to you that a artist running a shopify store does not? It sounds like the NFT is entirely irrelevant in this transaction other than possibly providing a socially acceptable route that is better than a PayPal donate button.
creshal 5y ago
> I’m sure it’s possible to build a similar platform with a central database handling transactions and Stripe payouts, but I’m not sure it would be met with the same enthusiasm (and, despite the possibility of this with past tech, no pre-blockchain digital art marketplace has come close to meeting it in sales). So blockchain itself is completely useless here, and all the value lies in the hype. And once the hype goes away, there's nothing underwriting the value of the system.
- mattdesl 5y ago
  Similar but not equal. Part of the enthusiasm around these platforms is in the idea of decentralization of art assets (which cannot be achieved with a central database). See the latter part of the post you replied to.
  - creshal 5y ago
    How decentralized is it truly when it's all depending on the Hicetnunc brand? If you had Hicetnunc-branded certificates of authenticity, you'd have the same "decentralized" trade opportunities, and in both cases the only value these trades have derive from the branding attached to them.
    - mattdesl 5y ago
      The premise of this space is that the tokens hold value because of who distributed the tokens (the artist), and what they conceptually represent (the artwork), and this value can exist beyond the scope of the website or platform that originally facilitated their distribution. For example, some artists on Ethereum are deploying their own token contracts[1], without the need for a distribution platform like Hicetnunc, SuperRare, etc. Once minted, these tokens can be traded on a secondary marketplace such as OpenSea (which may not have taken part in the initial distribution). If those secondary markets fail, the source of truth still lies in the blockchain, and the tokens can still be traded via any new marketplaces that emerge, or via smart contract queries through blockchain explorers like Etherscan, or even via one's own command-line (the web merely acts as a thin interface over these distributed endpoints). I do agree that artists on Tezos are becoming too centralized to Hicetnunc (compared to, say, NFTs on Ethereum, which tend to be very diverse), but I believe this to be a solvable problem[2]. [1] - https://www.deafbeef.com/ https://www.deafbeef.com/ [2] - https://twitter.com/mattdesl/status/1412713480893960195 https://twitter.com/mattdesl/status/1412713480893960195

skohan 5y ago

So I would agree that this marketplace is creating profit for artists. Whether there is real value creation happening I would consider debatable. NFT's themselves are a highly speculative asset, and I would not count on this marketplace continuing to grow and thrive a decade from now. In other words, a lot of people probably made a very good profit operating tulip markets in Holland in the 1600's, but that doesn't mean they were creating value.

mattdesl 5y ago
That’s an interesting argument. What defines “value” in your mind? The platform brings value to artists (financial freedom to create more art), value to collectors (digital ownership over a scarce conceptual artwork), and value to the art world (more digital art being created by a more diverse group of people). Not all may agree with these values, and perhaps this platform and it’s tokens will not persist after some years, but I’m not sure that means the project does not currently provide value to those participating in it. Because “NFTs are dead” (according to the media) we have hopefully past the moment of tulip mania. But perhaps it will really take some more months or years for this to truly “die” — during which time the artists have a viable marketplace to distribute their art and earn revenue on it, where no prior option existed for them. Or, perhaps it will not die so quickly, if enough people continue to see value in collecting and supporting digital artists in this way. Time will tell.
- skohan 5y ago
  Value is a tricky thing to define, but I would probably define value in terms of utility: you are able to create value for someone if you allow them to solve a problem or gain satisfaction, using less resources than they otherwise could. The sticking point for me with your proposed value proposition is here: > value to collectors (digital ownership over a scarce conceptual artwork) My question would be: is it really digital ownership that collectors are interested in? Or is it the chance for future profit on the assumption that these NFTs may increase in value. I suspect in most cases it is the latter, and in this case we don't have value creation, we have speculation. Essentially it's just a bet with a very significant downside risk. Speculation, especially in an atmosphere of irrational exuberance, is much more likely to result in the destruction of value than the creation of it.
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    I think you may be viewing this through the lens of high priced NFTs that are in the millions, and are mostly speculative assets for a crypto trader’s portfolio. When I buy a digital art token worth 1 XTZ (around 2-3 USD), it is closer to skipping my morning coffee for the chance to support an artist’s latest work, perhaps from an artist that I have been following for years on Twitter or Instagram without giving them any support besides Likes and Retweets (“exposure”). I have no intention of flipping or speculating on the art — but of course if there is demand for that token I may consider trading it, as it would give me even more XTZ funds to continue supporting other artists in this way. I have not yet re-sold any Tezos NFTs, and I have bought hundreds from many different artists and illustrators. If none of these ever sell, I won’t feel like I have lost anything, because the value I see in this is not in the speculative nature of the asset. And to your question: yes, many collectors appreciate the digital ownership aspect, and enjoy building out carefully curated galleries and showcases of their owned tokens, much like many traditional art collectors take pride in owning and displaying their collection.
    - Traster 5y ago
      What value does crypto bring to you that a artist running a shopify store does not? It sounds like the NFT is entirely irrelevant in this transaction other than possibly providing a socially acceptable route that is better than a PayPal donate button.

creshal 5y ago

> I’m sure it’s possible to build a similar platform with a central database handling transactions and Stripe payouts, but I’m not sure it would be met with the same enthusiasm (and, despite the possibility of this with past tech, no pre-blockchain digital art marketplace has come close to meeting it in sales). So blockchain itself is completely useless here, and all the value lies in the hype. And once the hype goes away, there's nothing underwriting the value of the system.

mattdesl 5y ago
Similar but not equal. Part of the enthusiasm around these platforms is in the idea of decentralization of art assets (which cannot be achieved with a central database). See the latter part of the post you replied to.
- creshal 5y ago
  How decentralized is it truly when it's all depending on the Hicetnunc brand? If you had Hicetnunc-branded certificates of authenticity, you'd have the same "decentralized" trade opportunities, and in both cases the only value these trades have derive from the branding attached to them.
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    The premise of this space is that the tokens hold value because of who distributed the tokens (the artist), and what they conceptually represent (the artwork), and this value can exist beyond the scope of the website or platform that originally facilitated their distribution. For example, some artists on Ethereum are deploying their own token contracts[1], without the need for a distribution platform like Hicetnunc, SuperRare, etc. Once minted, these tokens can be traded on a secondary marketplace such as OpenSea (which may not have taken part in the initial distribution). If those secondary markets fail, the source of truth still lies in the blockchain, and the tokens can still be traded via any new marketplaces that emerge, or via smart contract queries through blockchain explorers like Etherscan, or even via one's own command-line (the web merely acts as a thin interface over these distributed endpoints). I do agree that artists on Tezos are becoming too centralized to Hicetnunc (compared to, say, NFTs on Ethereum, which tend to be very diverse), but I believe this to be a solvable problem[2]. [1] - https://www.deafbeef.com/ https://www.deafbeef.com/ [2] - https://twitter.com/mattdesl/status/1412713480893960195 https://twitter.com/mattdesl/status/1412713480893960195