2 ms·

I don't get this. The concept hasn't changed since and those genuine artists are still there you supported. Or things are only cool until they are not mainstre

• wpietri 5y ago
  I think the NFT thing is kinda ridiculous. But then so are plenty of other marketing shenanigans. Maybe it could have worked? But once it was picked up by the grift/hype/fincrime machine that has eaten cryptocurrencies, it lost all semblance of plausibility to me. It has gone from something like "I bought a small piece of a creator whose work I treasure" to "ZOMG MAKE MONEY FAST". As an example, take the guy who was big on what he calls investing and I call gambling, who proposed to his girlfriend with an NFT: https://twitter.com/redditships/status/1432396694608662536?lang=en https://twitter.com/redditships/status/1432396694608662536?l... For me it's the same deal with cryptocurrencies in general. Interesting idea, and I want to visit the alternate reality where it was developed gradually and sanely by the sort of curious, well-meaning person that got into it early on. But the sort of value-based innovation I care about got stomped long ago.
• II2II 5y ago
  My interpretation of what they were saying: NFTs are a worthy means of supporting artists but have been tainted by the other breed of artist (the scam artist). I would extend that by suggesting that NFTs should be a valid means of supporting new artists. The problem arises when people dump garbage into the market to make a quick buck. This will ultimately diminish the long term value of NFTs, meaning there is less value for those who are trying to make a living from their art (and even for those who are trying to make a living investing in art).