4 ms·

The author's interpretations of Chris's points (the Spotify example is a clear one) keep trying to reinterpret Web3 as a set of incremental improvements ("let's

The author's interpretations of Chris's points (the Spotify example is a clear one) keep trying to reinterpret Web3 as a set of incremental improvements ("let's cut the take rate") rather than create a new set of opportunities to replace (and sometimes invert) the old business models. Here's my example for Spotify: music shouldn't be monetized by taxing distribution; instead, let artists directly monetize through myriad new ways where they don't take platform risk — ever. NFTs, social/community tokens, direct ticketing + access to secondary sales, and so many more methods are all being explored now. It's great to dig in here and continue the dialogue, but most crypto critiques on HN feel like tourism.

Daishiman 5y ago
As someone who's been involved at a short distance with the music industry, I have not fricking clue what people are smoking with regards to NFTs and monetization. Musicians can already monetize their work through a myriad methods. There's a ton of independent labels, larger labels, Bandcamp and Bandcamp-like websites for purchasing music, managers who can help you get gigs and promote yourself, etc. The problem is not, and has never been, that the big bad labels are taking all the money. The problem is that it's just not fundamentally profitable to have a sustained business as a musician at the price point most people are willing to pay for content and products made for fan consumption. You can't really automate promotion; it's an extremely human-intensive task, and managers/promoters cost money. Venues have an upper bound on how much money you can make because owning a venue is already a money-losing proposition. Merch? The vast majority of music fans are young and don't have much disposable income, with the exception of some very large acts where fans continue to spend money on concerts and albums into middle age and beyond. Music just isn't profitable because for the vast majority of people it's a labor of love, where monetary incentives just don't play the way they do in other industries, and where the most enthusiastic fans don't have much money to spend and have a thousand other alternatives. There is not a single proposition in the NFT space that alters any of these mechanics. If you're not willing to spend two bucks to buy a track on Bandcamp you sure as hell aren't gonna do so with an NFT.
- BrightGlow 5y ago
  You spent a lot of time explaining this and I agree with everything you said. But that's a really long-winded technologist's way of putting it. I'd personally phrase in a simpler way: music is useless and has no value. It serves no purpose besides entertainment. It can be made trivially for literally zero cost by anyone who has working hands or vocal cords, no technology or investment is required. NFTs certainly don't and can't change this. (Disclaimer: I am a musician and I've spent a lot of time working on music apps. It's a hard sell out there for everybody)
- Tarq0n 5y ago
  Isn't part of the problem that promotion is a zero-sum activity, and the very existence of well-capitalized actors in the space means that everyone has to sign up with one or be drowned out by the noise? It's a self-reinforcing cycle.

Daishiman 5y ago

As someone who's been involved at a short distance with the music industry, I have not fricking clue what people are smoking with regards to NFTs and monetization. Musicians can already monetize their work through a myriad methods. There's a ton of independent labels, larger labels, Bandcamp and Bandcamp-like websites for purchasing music, managers who can help you get gigs and promote yourself, etc. The problem is not, and has never been, that the big bad labels are taking all the money. The problem is that it's just not fundamentally profitable to have a sustained business as a musician at the price point most people are willing to pay for content and products made for fan consumption. You can't really automate promotion; it's an extremely human-intensive task, and managers/promoters cost money. Venues have an upper bound on how much money you can make because owning a venue is already a money-losing proposition. Merch? The vast majority of music fans are young and don't have much disposable income, with the exception of some very large acts where fans continue to spend money on concerts and albums into middle age and beyond. Music just isn't profitable because for the vast majority of people it's a labor of love, where monetary incentives just don't play the way they do in other industries, and where the most enthusiastic fans don't have much money to spend and have a thousand other alternatives. There is not a single proposition in the NFT space that alters any of these mechanics. If you're not willing to spend two bucks to buy a track on Bandcamp you sure as hell aren't gonna do so with an NFT.

BrightGlow 5y ago
You spent a lot of time explaining this and I agree with everything you said. But that's a really long-winded technologist's way of putting it. I'd personally phrase in a simpler way: music is useless and has no value. It serves no purpose besides entertainment. It can be made trivially for literally zero cost by anyone who has working hands or vocal cords, no technology or investment is required. NFTs certainly don't and can't change this. (Disclaimer: I am a musician and I've spent a lot of time working on music apps. It's a hard sell out there for everybody)
Tarq0n 5y ago
Isn't part of the problem that promotion is a zero-sum activity, and the very existence of well-capitalized actors in the space means that everyone has to sign up with one or be drowned out by the noise? It's a self-reinforcing cycle.