> If you can instead buy a lossless audio file as a token, unlocking community access and a creator-audience relationship, and giving you the ability to on-sell

> If you can instead buy a lossless audio file as a token, unlocking community access and a creator-audience relationship, and giving you the ability to on-sell your assets in a secondary market that continues to support the creator through residuals - the benefits to the creator economy are enormous. This sounds like it was written by the Creator version of the Web 2.0 Bullshit Generator. I enjoy music. I can buy a digital copy of the songs I like and enjoy them in perpetuity. The artists get paid for the download. Simple and sweet. Why would I want to buy a tokenized lossless audio file that I treat like an "asset" that I can "on-sell" into a secondary market? "Community access"? If I'm a fan of somebody, chances are there are communities of fans online (and in real life) that I can participate in. I don't need to pay thousands of dollars for an NFT to unlock interaction with other fans. > Let's support artists and their work: decentralized or not. If we want more of it, let's give them a reason to keep making stuff for us by supporting the people who make art - because they're genuinely irreplaceable. There are more "creators" and "art" than ever before. If you think about it, the biggest threat to creators today is not their ability to monetize their "art" if it proves attractive to the marketplace. The platforms that the author is complaining about are incredibly efficient monetization engines that are minting millionaires of some creators. The biggest threat to creators today is that the supply of their "art" vastly exceeds the demand, so creating "art" that is appealing enough to be commercially successful is getting harder and harder. If anything, this is the very reason that investors are foolish to invest directly in artists. If you're a billionaire who is a fan of a creator, you can be their patron. There's no appeal to being their banker.