4 ms·

1. You can already donate to an artist you like through a platform like Patreon 2. If it's a feature of a social network, don't you already need a central auth

by skohan 5y ago

1. You can already donate to an artist you like through a platform like Patreon 2. If it's a feature of a social network, don't you already need a central authority? What's the value of an NFT then rather than just an entry in a database? 3. Similar: whoever is implementing this theoretical VR environment could just be the authority of who owns what. I don't see what an NFT adds here

BlueDingo 5y ago
I think they mean that NFTs could be brought into the game or platform like Twitter. Buy a painting NFT, show it off in Second Life or the like. So the apps wouldn't control the assets, only verify them. I'm not "for" NFTs but that seems like it could be used in cool ways.
- danaris 5y ago
  That still requires a massive distributed investment in infrastructure to support this. Every game that you want to show off your painting in needs to a) support importing any of these "portable NFT-based items", b) actually implement the models (and any necessary supporting code) for them in their own format, whatever that happens to be, and c) implement restrictions based on checking the ownership of NFTs against some identifier for the actual items. Again: Every game/environment that you want to bring your NFT-items to has to implement this. And they're not getting paid to do so, because your NFT money is going to whoever is brokering them. Where the hell is the incentive...?
  - kevinventullo 5y ago
    One incentive might be that the game/environment wants to compete against other games/environments on being a platform which facilitates NFT trading. Taking their pound of flesh off the top of course. I’m not a big crypto guy at all, but I do see the analogy with the very real digital economies you see on platforms like Steam.
    - skohan 5y ago
      But again, what's the incentive? For instance with something like CS: Go skins, the developers of the game are doing all the investment creating the asset, and they have zero incentive to make this available outside of their game?
      - sinsterizme 5y ago
        Secondary markets increase demand for the primary market
    - acdha 5y ago
      How would that benefit them? The major game companies already have robust systems for making digital assets and selling them to people, does it really seem likely that they’d jump to give a large fraction of that revenue to someone else for the privilege of having a slow, cumbersome intermediary which would still require custom integration work for every game?
bko 5y ago
> 1. You can already donate to an artist you like through a platform like Patreon You feel like you own something that the artist can only sell once (assuming they're honest). Also, I don't know if there is a credible receipt for a donation on Patreon that you can use to flex > 2. If it's a feature of a social network, don't you already need a central authority? What's the value of an NFT then rather than just an entry in a database? I guess a social network could leverage the hype behind existing NFTs rather than rolling their own. Sure there will be some that will try to have home-spun NFTs, but Twitter indicated for now they just want to use existing NFTS > 3. Similar: whoever is implementing this theoretical VR environment could just be the authority of who owns what. I don't see what an NFT adds here NFTs could also be transferable across platforms. Obviously platforms wouldn't like this, but as a user if I buy a virtual house, it would be better not to be tied to any one platform. So new or existing platforms could try to lure me over by saying I can bring my house with me
- skohan 5y ago
  > You feel like you own something that the artist can only sell once (assuming they're honest). Also, I don't know if there is a credible receipt for a donation on Patreon that you can use to flex Yeah I mean I understand the appeal of ownership, but it's just so abstract in this case. If you "own" a picasso, you have something nobody else has. If you "own" an NFT, anyone with a copy of the file has exactly what you have. > I guess a social network could leverage the hype behind existing NFTs rather than rolling their own. Sure there will be some that will try to have home-spun NFTs, but Twitter indicated for now they just want to use existing NFTS What would this feature/integration actually look like? > NFTs could also be transferable across platforms. Obviously platforms wouldn't like this, but as a user if I buy a virtual house, it would be better not to be tied to any one platform. So new or existing platforms could try to lure me over by saying I can bring my house with me Yeah but why would they? So what would my NFT "house" be? I guess this is a 3D asset, with a model, some textures, and a collision model that can be rendered inside this VR world. Basically every platform which wants to make this asset usable has to bear the costs of supporting and rendering this asset, while the NFT issuer reaps the profits. What is the incentive here?
- acdha 5y ago

by skohan 5y ago

BlueDingo 5y ago

I think they mean that NFTs could be brought into the game or platform like Twitter. Buy a painting NFT, show it off in Second Life or the like. So the apps wouldn't control the assets, only verify them. I'm not "for" NFTs but that seems like it could be used in cool ways.

danaris 5y ago
That still requires a massive distributed investment in infrastructure to support this. Every game that you want to show off your painting in needs to a) support importing any of these "portable NFT-based items", b) actually implement the models (and any necessary supporting code) for them in their own format, whatever that happens to be, and c) implement restrictions based on checking the ownership of NFTs against some identifier for the actual items. Again: Every game/environment that you want to bring your NFT-items to has to implement this. And they're not getting paid to do so, because your NFT money is going to whoever is brokering them. Where the hell is the incentive...?
- kevinventullo 5y ago
  One incentive might be that the game/environment wants to compete against other games/environments on being a platform which facilitates NFT trading. Taking their pound of flesh off the top of course. I’m not a big crypto guy at all, but I do see the analogy with the very real digital economies you see on platforms like Steam.
  - skohan 5y ago
    But again, what's the incentive? For instance with something like CS: Go skins, the developers of the game are doing all the investment creating the asset, and they have zero incentive to make this available outside of their game?
    - sinsterizme 5y ago
      Secondary markets increase demand for the primary market
  - acdha 5y ago
    How would that benefit them? The major game companies already have robust systems for making digital assets and selling them to people, does it really seem likely that they’d jump to give a large fraction of that revenue to someone else for the privilege of having a slow, cumbersome intermediary which would still require custom integration work for every game?

bko 5y ago

> 1. You can already donate to an artist you like through a platform like Patreon You feel like you own something that the artist can only sell once (assuming they're honest). Also, I don't know if there is a credible receipt for a donation on Patreon that you can use to flex > 2. If it's a feature of a social network, don't you already need a central authority? What's the value of an NFT then rather than just an entry in a database? I guess a social network could leverage the hype behind existing NFTs rather than rolling their own. Sure there will be some that will try to have home-spun NFTs, but Twitter indicated for now they just want to use existing NFTS > 3. Similar: whoever is implementing this theoretical VR environment could just be the authority of who owns what. I don't see what an NFT adds here NFTs could also be transferable across platforms. Obviously platforms wouldn't like this, but as a user if I buy a virtual house, it would be better not to be tied to any one platform. So new or existing platforms could try to lure me over by saying I can bring my house with me

skohan 5y ago
> You feel like you own something that the artist can only sell once (assuming they're honest). Also, I don't know if there is a credible receipt for a donation on Patreon that you can use to flex Yeah I mean I understand the appeal of ownership, but it's just so abstract in this case. If you "own" a picasso, you have something nobody else has. If you "own" an NFT, anyone with a copy of the file has exactly what you have. > I guess a social network could leverage the hype behind existing NFTs rather than rolling their own. Sure there will be some that will try to have home-spun NFTs, but Twitter indicated for now they just want to use existing NFTS What would this feature/integration actually look like? > NFTs could also be transferable across platforms. Obviously platforms wouldn't like this, but as a user if I buy a virtual house, it would be better not to be tied to any one platform. So new or existing platforms could try to lure me over by saying I can bring my house with me Yeah but why would they? So what would my NFT "house" be? I guess this is a 3D asset, with a model, some textures, and a collision model that can be rendered inside this VR world. Basically every platform which wants to make this asset usable has to bear the costs of supporting and rendering this asset, while the NFT issuer reaps the profits. What is the incentive here?
acdha 5y ago