10 ms·

It bums me out how the HN crowd lacks any creativity when it comes to anything Crypto. NFTs do solve a problem, and the problem that they solve is that creative

by twox2 5y ago

It bums me out how the HN crowd lacks any creativity when it comes to anything Crypto. NFTs do solve a problem, and the problem that they solve is that creatives are getting paid for their creative output. Not every NFT is a flex, or used to launder money. Some folks use NFTs as Patreon -> to support artists who's work they admire. "Why not just buy a painting?" Well people who make digital videos and 3d renderings are artists too, aren't they? The promise of NFTs is that they offer a different way for people to interact. Ownership is always based on social constructs, so folks that are involved in this space need to have some consensus of what it means to "own" an NFT on whatever chain. From there these items can be gamified. NFTs run on top of what is essentially programmable money. What if we designate an NFT to an application (a smart contract) that in exchange issues tokens to designate fractional ownership of that NFT? Never in history has anyone been able to buy shares of highly coveted art... maybe now you can? Using smart contracts you can you can also conduct trustless exchanges of digital assets (NFTs). This is huge.

phone8675309 5y ago
What stops me, technologically, from creating an NFT from an image that I didn’t actually create? If it was about creators getting paid then there'd be a better answer than "nothing, caveat emptor".
- flowless 5y ago
  Nothing. Creators are getting paid because NFTs are associated with their brand, not just magically having a value because you minted one.
  - twox2 5y ago
    Correct!
  - elevader 5y ago
    But creators aren't actually paid anything if the NFT is sold by somebody else, which seems to happen quite a lot (at least according to twitter).
    - flowless 5y ago
      Typically they get paid the initial listing sum of the auction (at least) and what happens on secondary market is not their concern, similar to classic art pieces. Royalties can be a thing provided NFTs are traded using a smart contract that pays royalties to the creator but it's not that common since artists are compensated well enough by the first approach and don't need to milk secondary market trades.
    - twox2 5y ago
      On stolen content no, but if you re-sell the NFT you bought from me, I get a royalty. That's part of the appeal for creators.
- bnralt 5y ago
  Someone mentioned hicetnunc.xyz here, so I went and took a look at their FAQ. I thought this was interesting[1]: > To make it easier for buyers, please leave a trace to any social profile or website in the description of your artwork, so potential buyers can validate the authenticity. If you can link the NFTs the artist is advertising on the profile with the NFTs on Hicetnunc, you can assume it is legit. So NFT markets are relying on third party social media sites to prove authenticity. And I suppose artists would rely on the government an actual copywright law if they wanted to enforce anything. [1] https://github.com/hicetnunc2000/hicetnunc/wiki/General https://github.com/hicetnunc2000/hicetnunc/wiki/General
  - notahacker 5y ago
    Yep. It's either decentralised or a proof of an authentic link to the artist, never both. The case for NFTs solving artists' problems is it's a way of getting noveaux rich with a particular interest in digital collectibles to spend money on art they wouldn't otherwise give a second glance to. There's real value in matching buyers and sellers. But I guess admitting the value was all in the collectors and not in the supposed transformational properties of the token wouldn't sell tokens as effectively...
- kall 5y ago
  Nothing. You are implicitly relying on centralized platforms like twitter for hardest part.
- rip_netrunner 5y ago
  A few NFT marketplaces will verify identity but no where near thoroughly enough. Privacy and KYC are going to be the biggest crypto issue for 2022. More and more projects are looking to incorporate identity oracles like Global ID and are looking to provide no more data than is necessary for KYC inquiries using tech like Zero Knowledge proofs (ZKP). Panther protocol is the most interesting of these projects I've come across, but every utility driven blockchain is making plans to incorporate identity verification in some way.
- bsanr 5y ago
  Nothing. This is a canard, though, because the fundamental nature of blockchain technology allows a potential buyer (or anyone, really) to verify the provenance of an NFT. It's then up to the buyer to verify that the NFT originated in a wallet or account associated directly with the artist. As a buyer, as always, it's your job to verify that you're not buying a counterfeit. As a seller, as always, the value of the NFT you hold is subject to its verifiable provenance.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
meheleventyone 5y ago
> Never in history has anyone been able to buy shares of highly coveted art... maybe now you can? Umm, hasn't this been a thing since art has been seen as an investment?
Traster 5y ago
I think people on HN react to NFTs perfectly resaonably and I don't think you make a good argument about their value for creatives. As far as I can see NFTs at the moment have done nothing for creatives getting paid. As you point out - we have solved the problem of creatives getting paid for their work, they can sell their work, they can take commissions, or they can use patreon or similar sites. I would bet that at the moment the commission that shopify or patreon are taking are much more creator friendly than paying to mint an NFT. You say that NFTs provide a new way to interact - but what is that interaction? What does an NFT give me that sticking a badge on a shopify store saying "Creative ownership of peice of work X" does not? And I don't see how that problem has anything at all to do with being gamified? >Never in history has anyone been able to buy shares of highly coveted art... maybe now you can Well, firstly, let's be clear that it's highly contentious whether you meaningfully own the art if you own an NFT. But let's assume that's a solved problem. YOu can already buy shares of highly coveted art - https://www.masterworks.io https://www.masterworks.io . It's exactly the same model as NFTs - some individual buys the actual art, then they offering to sell "shares" of the art. The difference is that Masterworks doesn't carry all the risk of being scammed in the crypto market.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
  Just because patron exists doesn't mean alternative revenue streams are useless
  - madeofpalk 5y ago
    Right but where's the "creativity" of the solution that NFTs supposedly bring? Or is it just the same as Patreon (no creativity or uniqueness at all) but just more complex and potential downsides?
    - casi18 5y ago
      I mean for one, a patreon staff member who doesnt like you for some reason cant just ban your nft account. That seems like a pretty good starting point.
PaulHoule 5y ago
HN people are a wider community than crypto enthusiasts. My mother-in-law would be as almost dismissive of NFTs as I am, except she doesn't understand technology so she won't be as articulate about it. I think some crypto enthusiasts hang out with other crypto enthusiasts way too much and that is how they get HODler ideas and drive the price of things up like https://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/24518-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/24518-h.htm People on HN are mostly normies, except technically articulate. Crypto enthusiasts think we hate crypto, but it's because we're reflective of the wider community which feels like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogHtl6UFSSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogHtl6UFSSI
- twox2 5y ago
  This is a very good point, thank you for making it. I've always approached HN with my own bias, which is an interest in underground technology, hacking, and of course crypto. I never really saw the crowd as mostly normies, but I guess I never paused to reflect that there's a lot of content here I ignore, precisely because it is that.
  - madeofpalk 5y ago
    What are "normies"?
    - twox2 5y ago
      Normies is a term that crypto enthusiasts use to refer to folks that don't know much about crypto. I guess it's pejorative, but I use it in jest. Maybe I should stop using it.
      - NicoJuicy 5y ago
        Most of these 'normies' probably started earlier in crypto than you. And got out because it's not interesting anymore.
        5y ago
tedajax 5y ago
You have to be daft or a scammer to actual believe this.
- twox2 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
andrewla 5y ago
> Ownership is always based on social constructs I mean, no? Ownership is always based on societal constructs; in the useful sense it means that the state is enforcing it. If someone takes it you can use violence or the threat of violence (legitimately, by proxy) to retrieve it. If someone else claims that it is theirs they can attempt to retrieve it through courts (with the the backing of legitimate violence or threat of violence by proxy again). You may exclude people from the use of the thing you own (with violence or threat of violence by proxy, or sometimes, by direct violence for which the state will excuse you). It devolves always to the state having an effective monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. This is a social construct in a sense, but NFTs are a poor substitute. Notably, most NFTs can be replicated bit-for-bit, and anyone else can emit a new NFT with the same exact payload, only lacking the traceability, but otherwise indistinguishable from the original. The only way to prevent that would be legal action, in which case you might as well dispense with the notion of the NFT itself. In fact, a great business if you want to get in on this scam is to just sell counterfeit NFTs; even openly counterfeit! Call yourself "The Copy-Cat" and just resell Copy-Cat original copies of existing high-value NFTs. Even in the real life art world it has transpired that well-done forgeries have acquired a value of their own.
- dandanua 5y ago
  Any sane man understands this, but crypto people are too steeped in lies. They're detached from reality, just like their beloved crypto money. Even if a perfect decentralized database will be invented, the violence, that enforces the rules under which the real world operates, can't be decentralized.
  - casi18 5y ago
    maybe we dont want a society that is based upon threats of violence. maybe thats the problem. (3,3)
    - andrewla 5y ago
      There's a strong argument that the nature of "civil society" is how far removed from that threat of violence we live. That is, people obey "the law" because it's the right thing to do and they don't do that. People don't steal, not because they worry about being arrested or imprisoned, but because stealing isn't right. Policing and Law Enforcement scales sublinearly with population size only if the population is by and large compliant, or rather, that the laws are compatible with the behavior and motivations of the majority of people. So we keep that foundation far away -- instead of violence, it's the thought of the social opprobrium of the prospect of the threat of violence. But it has to be there, otherwise people who were willing to resort to violence would take everything.
AlexandrB 5y ago
Creatives I've listened talk about NFTs have said that NFTs are a terrible deal for them. "Minting" an NFT of their work costs a not-insignificant amount of money and there is no guarantee that anyone will buy the damn thing. For the Ellens and Kanyes of the world, it's great, because their work is already in-demand and can fetch a huge price on the NFT market. For the 90% of artists in the "long tail" of content production it's probably a net loss over more conventional funding means like Patreon, commissions, and Bandcamp. Even if these collect a higher portion of their income as fees, there's less up-front investment (and hence risk) for the artist.
- twox2 5y ago
  I'm an absolute nobody in the art world. I started minting my art in early 2020. This year i have made about 2.5x my tech salary from NFT sales and royalties. NFTS are an amazing deal for creators. You are right that there's a barrier to entry as far as minting costs, but it's a small price to pay to find out if you have an audience. Furthermore, there are now thriving NFT communities on chains like Tezos and Solana, where it costs pennies to mint.
  - serverholic 5y ago
    This is what I've seen too. For example, I saw an artist on twitter crying because she was able to get out of debt from selling NFTs. My experience has been largely positive. Artists get better paid. The fans can buy something that gives them a more personal connection with the artist. Everyone else can still view the art for free.
    - iamacyborg 5y ago
      What was stopping people from buying your art before? Are they only buying it now because of FOMO that other people are making money by buying jpg's?
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    >I'm an absolute nobody in the art world. I started minting my art in early 2020. This year i have made about 2.5x my tech salary from NFT sales and royalties. NFTS are an amazing deal for creators. You perfectly explain why you are into NFT's. It's greed and we know :)
NicoJuicy 5y ago
I see you're new and probably young. You're mistaking "lack of creativity" for realism. Right-Click - Save image. Create an NFT, done. Work from an artist digitally is not unique and can be easily copied ( and even become more popular). Creativity? Dogs, lost cowboy, punks, pigs, hungry aliens are the typical NFT's. That's not art, they mostly sell avatars. ML models creating art => Not art and again the most technical knowledge person is getting paid. Wash-trading has become the new normal. The people who pump and dump their own "art" see attraction and as usual, the average people are getting left behind with no piece of the pie. The most popular people ( not even artists) with the biggest following online win. Nothing is legally backed. NTF's don't have copyright and you don't have a legal standing. BUT... You can cry on Twitter - https://twitter.com/RookieXBT/status/1421548360868286464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1421548360868286464%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2Farticle%2Fnon-fungible-tokens-nfts-right-click-save https://twitter.com/RookieXBT/status/1421548360868286464?ref... Mostly it's a technical person that steals artwork or just hires a digital designer for a couple of hours and then creates the NFT: https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/20/22334527/nft-scams-artists-opensea-rarible-marble-cards-fraud-art https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/20/22334527/nft-scams-artist... That's realism.
- twox2 5y ago
  I'm neither new nor young - I'm just a guy that gave this thing a chance and really liked the results. The right click save argument is boring. It's not the image that's the NFT, it's the entry on the blockchain. I agree about the "typical" NFTs you're talking about, they are referred to as digital collectibles, and yeah they don't do it for me either, but within NFT land there are multiple eco-systems, including those that are centered around what you would traditionally perceive as art. You are right that nothing is legally backed... but why does it need to be? The blockchain is immutable, so anyone who participates in it has no choice but to honor who the chain designates as an owner.
  - detaro 5y ago
    > You are right that nothing is legally backed... Also not entirely true, at least some of the platforms use licenses for the art that grant the token holders rights.
abraxaz 5y ago
> NFTs do solve a problem, and the problem that they solve is that creatives are getting paid for their creative output. This has been happening for 1000s of years already before NFTs. > Never in history has anyone been able to buy shares of highly coveted art... maybe now you can? Yes, they have: https://www.masterworks.io/ https://www.masterworks.io/
jordanpg 5y ago
I suspect that there is a strong relationship between distaste for anything crypto and lack of any crypto substantial assets. The problem is that just about everyone here could be a multi-millionaire if they had just taken a few minutes to set up pool mining on their gaming rig back in 2010. I think there is a tremendous amount of latent bitterness, embarrassment, and frustration about this. I include myself in this group. Folks should pause to reflect on this and determine how much these facts are clouding their opinions. Crypto is just a new interesting technology. Maybe it will last, maybe not. But the amount of hate and skepticism on this forum is way, way out of proportion to the reality of the thing.
- bsagdiyev 5y ago
  Or, and hear me out, we’ve all seen our fair share of swindlers and con men in crypto and understand this isn’t much different.
  - bsanr 5y ago
    Could be both. I think it's both. What I don't understand is the vociferousness of the detraction. This community loves Capitalism; crypto is just Capitalism Capitalisming. We've had snake oil salesmen and door-to-door salesmen and contract housing and pyramid schemes and dotcom startups and on and on. People abuse the freedom of the free market; we've always had to cut the "promise" of such markets short with regulation to stop real harm from being done to consumers. That doesn't mean that every possible iteration of such products were useless, or their sale predatory. Or maybe that's wrong. But that would tend to make most HNers hypocrites, and it's only fair to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
- kall 5y ago
  I think you are right that most people critical of crypto don‘t hold any significant assets. But that seems obvious and means nothing. If you have a lot of crypto assets, you think it‘s a good thing. If you didn‘t, you would probably divest or would have done long ago. Even if you where ambivalent you may keep it to yourself or erase that doubt, because "you have to believe, wagmi“ seems to be pretty strong in the community (maybe thats too harsh, I‘m not in it). If you don‘t think they are a good idea, why would you buy into them? Most people in tech aren‘t really strapped for cash and becoming a millionaire with something you think is bad for the world is something many people don‘t want. But yeah, I also regret selling my 2013 era playing-around assets that would make me a millionaire today. It probably does color my opinion, and if for some reason I had kept them till now, I would have a very positive take, which is also self selecting and means nothing. If I had changed my opinion at any point in those 9 years, I would have sold at the next 10x. I still think that analysis and opinion is colored much stronger for those who hold then for those who don‘t.
sandworm101 5y ago
>> Never in history has anyone been able to buy shares of highly coveted art What? Anyone can buy a part-share of any work of art. Want to own a 5% share of the Mona Lisa, just ask. If the owner want they can sell you a percentage of that object. Or you can buy a percentage without ownership rights. Or do anything else you want. Property law and the concept of partial ownerships has been around for thousands of years. Most every possible permutation is available should two parties agree.
- twox2 5y ago
  With NFTs you don't have to ask.
  - birdyrooster 5y ago
    So if you have an NFT I can buy 5% of it from you without your consent? How does that even work?
    - twox2 5y ago
      The owner of the NFT would have to fractionalize it, then anyone can buy fractionalized tokens that are backed by the NFT.
      - debaserab2 5y ago
        isn't that the asking part?
        sandworm101 5y ago
        Yes.
danShumway 5y ago
> Some folks use NFTs as Patreon -> to support artists who's work they admire. No, I don't buy this. Patreon already exists. And when you factor in gas fees, people who use NFTs to support artists are picking one of the least efficient ways to do so. Etherium in its current form is not a scalable model for how to pay for content, the fees make micropayments unnecessarily cumbersome and inefficient. The fact that none of these people who are using NFTs "to support artists" were interested in supporting digital artists through any of the multitude of existing ways that existed before NFTs leads me to cast serious doubt on their claims that they actually care about the art ecosystem. So, let's say you actually want to support artists: ---- If you want to buy the digital equivalent of "shares" of an artist's work, use Patreon/Liberapay/etc and join the community of people who are regularly investing into their output. This is the preferable method for many indie artists, because many indie digital artists want predictable income, and Patreon allows you to commit to regular donations instead of one-off payments. Many artists will use Patreon as a way of soliciting early feedback and providing early access to their projects. If you want to buy specific pieces, donate directly or just buy those pieces on any of the many art-selling sites that exist online (Gumroad, Itch, etc). This is the really straightforward way of saying "this thing that exists is worth money." If you want to own something more tangible for supporting your artists, look into printing sites and physical products (Etsy, Topatoco, etc). This requires a little bit of setup from the artist, but not any more than NFTs would, and it allows you to somewhat "advertise" your support with physical objects in a more tangible/public way than NFTs would ever allow. If you want to get something unique and personal out of supporting an artist, commission them. Commissions are often going to be more affordable than buying NFTs, they provide you with an actually unique product instead of just a unique ID number, they allow you to directly interact with the artist you're supporting, and commissions usually come with better IP assignments. If you want to encourage investment into a piece of artwork, encourage the artist to set up a Kickstarter/IndieGoGo campaign. Kickstarter isn't just usable for funding theoretical products, artists can use Kickstarter to fund predictable work and specific releases. Krita for example used Kickstarter to fund development on specific features, even allowing contributors to "vote" on what features should be prioritized. If you want status/clout for donating, and you want to be publicly recognized, sponsor artists. Many artists have systems where they'll give you public credit for sponsoring a piece of work. This is also a far better system than NFTs because that clout can't be re-sold or faked, and because the artist directly promotes you to everyone who sees their work; other people don't need to go find your digital wallet and validate it on the blockchain in order to recognize what you've done. ---- So what do NFTs provide that the above solutions don't? A tiny bit of standardization (although it's questionable how standardized they really are), and other than that, pretty much just speculation. NFTs are kind of awful at a lot of this stuff, they're expensive to create and trade, they're complicated to work with, validating copyright/legitimacy is annoying, they're more subject to regulation, they're less private, they can be traded around which devalues the original statement of buying them, a large percentage of them are subject to link rot, the "gamification" of them is laughably bad because gas fees make it impossible to do most interesting mechanics, and even their display/status value is underdeveloped and still in its infancy. But they allow you to gamble that the token you're holding will go up in value and that you can sell it later for a profit. And that's why people buy them. Not to support artists, all of these people could have been supporting artists ages ago, and they didn't. They buy NTFs because they're a speculative asset. They talk about supporting artists because it makes them feel better and because that conversation feeds into the hype, and that helps their speculative assets grow in value. That's all that's happening here.
egypturnash 5y ago
Hi. I'm an artist who works exclusively digitally. Getting paid for my work is a solved problem, I can draw a thing for a client and get money via PayPal or any of the other payment processors competing with it. I have a Patreon campaign to let my fans toss money in my tipjar for me to go draw whatever the heck I want to draw. So do people who make videos and 3d work. I see them doing it all the damn time. Neither of these methods involve a system where huge numbers of people are converting energy into waste heat as they compete to be the one who gets the token reward for recording a pathetically small number of transactions. "Proof of ownership"? How about "I have the source file and you don't"? How about "I have an email chain with the artist that goes from asking if they're open for work, through agreeing to a contract, and multiple WIP files, to a final rendering, source file, and settling up of the finances"? Why does converting energy into waste heat in competition to be the one rewarded for recording a tiny number of transactions need to be involved at all?
Dumblydorr 5y ago
This may be a dumb question, but why should people pay to "own" the art if it can be digitally copied and given to others (can it?)? I understand the artists need money and support, but other than that, why would anyone want to pay a lot to own a file that's accessible for viewing in a free way?
- koonsolo 5y ago
  bragging rights
015a 5y ago
Most of the arguments against NFTs ultimately boil down to "centralized systems already do this". Which to me is very sad and uncreative. The entire point just flew straight over-head at ten thousand miles per hour. Yeah, centralized systems already do this; what is necessary to create a world where they don't? Where people can transfer value without the help of a centralized authority. Ok so: "How do you verify authenticity". Two responses: 1) What if you don't? What if the NFT itself is the value? We already see this with, for example, the Bored Ape Yacht Club; people can create duplicates, but the originals are cryptographically verified. They created value out of thin air, which is where all value comes from at the end of the day. 2) And in other situations, where the value comes from something real outside the blockchain like the original artist; use centralized systems! It's not all or nothing! Centralized systems are great at verifying providence. Use 'em! "This NFT was the one the artist tweeted about". Then they follow up with: "Lol I can just copy-paste". Yeah! Isn't that fantastic? NFTs create value for the people who want that value, by having a concept of "ownership of the original". But nothing is stopping all of us from also enjoying it. Finally, the end-stage of any debate always arrives at "its destroying the planet". This is, of course, typed as a comment into a website via a computer burning dirty coal power, through 3,000 miles of underground plastic fiber and fifty network appliances, to a beefy server running in a data center. Afterward, Captain Planet will hop in their gas-burning car to drive to work, drink a grande Starbucks coffee from a disposable cup, flush the toilet ten times throughout the day, pick up the newest iPhone from the Apple Store on the drive home, then watch an hour of Foundation on their 65" TV with 5.1 surround sound. I'm obviously being a dramatic. More generally and accurately; humanity is destroying the planet. We're really good at it. People act like NFTs are destroying the planet, while every day doing far more to destroy the planet than NFTs ever will. It's a bad argument, especially when NFTs (and ETH in general) present a fantastically optimizable solution to the problem of value ownership; they'll get more efficient over time. Data centers can easily be powered by clean energy. Here's the axiom I've noticed: the pro-NFT crowd has seen every single argument against them. I don't know if the people who post articles & comments like these think they're being original, like they're the first one to notice that verifiable providence is a difficult problem, but trust me; many people in this community have been thinking about this long before you first heard the word "cryptocurrency". Your inability to exhibit creativity in reasoning about a solution to the problems you present does not mean there is no solution, or that the technology won't continue to flourish.
saltminer 5y ago
> NFTs do solve a problem, and the problem that they solve is that creatives are getting paid for their creative output. It did not. There are already plenty of ways artists can get paid for their work. If you had said "this creates another way for artists to get paid," sure (ignoring all the NFTs that are blatantly stolen), but asserting that this is the only way is false. > The promise of NFTs is that they offer a different way for people to interact. Ownership is always based on social constructs, so folks that are involved in this space need to have some consensus of what it means to "own" an NFT on whatever chain. I see "ownership" tossed around so often. But I just pulled up two recently sold listings on OpenSea (one from Bored Apes, the other from Cryptopunks), and unless OpenSea hides information if you're not logged in, there were no rights transferred for the original works themselves - you just own the NFT listing. What's the point of shelling out six figures for mass-generated artwork when you don't even have any IP rights? Sure, there's the "exclusive community" of Bored Apes (though you can apparently have your NFT stolen but still be in the community, so...not sure how exclusive it really is), but other than that, it just seems like a way to flex on everyone. I have more legally enforceable rights to a $20 drawing I commissioned (paid for on ko-fi) than many NFTs going for $100k+. It's either a speculative bubble which will burst eventually, or the community is worth the price (plus the flexing privileges).

by twox2 5y ago

phone8675309 5y ago

What stops me, technologically, from creating an NFT from an image that I didn’t actually create? If it was about creators getting paid then there'd be a better answer than "nothing, caveat emptor".

flowless 5y ago
Nothing. Creators are getting paid because NFTs are associated with their brand, not just magically having a value because you minted one.
- twox2 5y ago
  Correct!
- elevader 5y ago
  But creators aren't actually paid anything if the NFT is sold by somebody else, which seems to happen quite a lot (at least according to twitter).
  - flowless 5y ago
    Typically they get paid the initial listing sum of the auction (at least) and what happens on secondary market is not their concern, similar to classic art pieces. Royalties can be a thing provided NFTs are traded using a smart contract that pays royalties to the creator but it's not that common since artists are compensated well enough by the first approach and don't need to milk secondary market trades.
  - twox2 5y ago
    On stolen content no, but if you re-sell the NFT you bought from me, I get a royalty. That's part of the appeal for creators.
bnralt 5y ago
Someone mentioned hicetnunc.xyz here, so I went and took a look at their FAQ. I thought this was interesting[1]: > To make it easier for buyers, please leave a trace to any social profile or website in the description of your artwork, so potential buyers can validate the authenticity. If you can link the NFTs the artist is advertising on the profile with the NFTs on Hicetnunc, you can assume it is legit. So NFT markets are relying on third party social media sites to prove authenticity. And I suppose artists would rely on the government an actual copywright law if they wanted to enforce anything. [1] https://github.com/hicetnunc2000/hicetnunc/wiki/General https://github.com/hicetnunc2000/hicetnunc/wiki/General
- notahacker 5y ago
  Yep. It's either decentralised or a proof of an authentic link to the artist, never both. The case for NFTs solving artists' problems is it's a way of getting noveaux rich with a particular interest in digital collectibles to spend money on art they wouldn't otherwise give a second glance to. There's real value in matching buyers and sellers. But I guess admitting the value was all in the collectors and not in the supposed transformational properties of the token wouldn't sell tokens as effectively...
kall 5y ago
Nothing. You are implicitly relying on centralized platforms like twitter for hardest part.
rip_netrunner 5y ago
A few NFT marketplaces will verify identity but no where near thoroughly enough. Privacy and KYC are going to be the biggest crypto issue for 2022. More and more projects are looking to incorporate identity oracles like Global ID and are looking to provide no more data than is necessary for KYC inquiries using tech like Zero Knowledge proofs (ZKP). Panther protocol is the most interesting of these projects I've come across, but every utility driven blockchain is making plans to incorporate identity verification in some way.
bsanr 5y ago
Nothing. This is a canard, though, because the fundamental nature of blockchain technology allows a potential buyer (or anyone, really) to verify the provenance of an NFT. It's then up to the buyer to verify that the NFT originated in a wallet or account associated directly with the artist. As a buyer, as always, it's your job to verify that you're not buying a counterfeit. As a seller, as always, the value of the NFT you hold is subject to its verifiable provenance.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

meheleventyone 5y ago

> Never in history has anyone been able to buy shares of highly coveted art... maybe now you can? Umm, hasn't this been a thing since art has been seen as an investment?

Traster 5y ago

I think people on HN react to NFTs perfectly resaonably and I don't think you make a good argument about their value for creatives. As far as I can see NFTs at the moment have done nothing for creatives getting paid. As you point out - we have solved the problem of creatives getting paid for their work, they can sell their work, they can take commissions, or they can use patreon or similar sites. I would bet that at the moment the commission that shopify or patreon are taking are much more creator friendly than paying to mint an NFT. You say that NFTs provide a new way to interact - but what is that interaction? What does an NFT give me that sticking a badge on a shopify store saying "Creative ownership of peice of work X" does not? And I don't see how that problem has anything at all to do with being gamified? >Never in history has anyone been able to buy shares of highly coveted art... maybe now you can Well, firstly, let's be clear that it's highly contentious whether you meaningfully own the art if you own an NFT. But let's assume that's a solved problem. YOu can already buy shares of highly coveted art - https://www.masterworks.io https://www.masterworks.io . It's exactly the same model as NFTs - some individual buys the actual art, then they offering to sell "shares" of the art. The difference is that Masterworks doesn't carry all the risk of being scammed in the crypto market.

X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
Just because patron exists doesn't mean alternative revenue streams are useless
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  Right but where's the "creativity" of the solution that NFTs supposedly bring? Or is it just the same as Patreon (no creativity or uniqueness at all) but just more complex and potential downsides?
  - casi18 5y ago
    I mean for one, a patreon staff member who doesnt like you for some reason cant just ban your nft account. That seems like a pretty good starting point.

PaulHoule 5y ago

HN people are a wider community than crypto enthusiasts. My mother-in-law would be as almost dismissive of NFTs as I am, except she doesn't understand technology so she won't be as articulate about it. I think some crypto enthusiasts hang out with other crypto enthusiasts way too much and that is how they get HODler ideas and drive the price of things up like https://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/24518-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/24518-h.htm People on HN are mostly normies, except technically articulate. Crypto enthusiasts think we hate crypto, but it's because we're reflective of the wider community which feels like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogHtl6UFSSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogHtl6UFSSI

twox2 5y ago
This is a very good point, thank you for making it. I've always approached HN with my own bias, which is an interest in underground technology, hacking, and of course crypto. I never really saw the crowd as mostly normies, but I guess I never paused to reflect that there's a lot of content here I ignore, precisely because it is that.
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  What are "normies"?
  - twox2 5y ago
    Normies is a term that crypto enthusiasts use to refer to folks that don't know much about crypto. I guess it's pejorative, but I use it in jest. Maybe I should stop using it.
    - NicoJuicy 5y ago
      Most of these 'normies' probably started earlier in crypto than you. And got out because it's not interesting anymore.
      - 5y ago

tedajax 5y ago

You have to be daft or a scammer to actual believe this.

twox2 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

andrewla 5y ago

> Ownership is always based on social constructs I mean, no? Ownership is always based on societal constructs; in the useful sense it means that the state is enforcing it. If someone takes it you can use violence or the threat of violence (legitimately, by proxy) to retrieve it. If someone else claims that it is theirs they can attempt to retrieve it through courts (with the the backing of legitimate violence or threat of violence by proxy again). You may exclude people from the use of the thing you own (with violence or threat of violence by proxy, or sometimes, by direct violence for which the state will excuse you). It devolves always to the state having an effective monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. This is a social construct in a sense, but NFTs are a poor substitute. Notably, most NFTs can be replicated bit-for-bit, and anyone else can emit a new NFT with the same exact payload, only lacking the traceability, but otherwise indistinguishable from the original. The only way to prevent that would be legal action, in which case you might as well dispense with the notion of the NFT itself. In fact, a great business if you want to get in on this scam is to just sell counterfeit NFTs; even openly counterfeit! Call yourself "The Copy-Cat" and just resell Copy-Cat original copies of existing high-value NFTs. Even in the real life art world it has transpired that well-done forgeries have acquired a value of their own.

dandanua 5y ago
Any sane man understands this, but crypto people are too steeped in lies. They're detached from reality, just like their beloved crypto money. Even if a perfect decentralized database will be invented, the violence, that enforces the rules under which the real world operates, can't be decentralized.
- casi18 5y ago
  maybe we dont want a society that is based upon threats of violence. maybe thats the problem. (3,3)
  - andrewla 5y ago
    There's a strong argument that the nature of "civil society" is how far removed from that threat of violence we live. That is, people obey "the law" because it's the right thing to do and they don't do that. People don't steal, not because they worry about being arrested or imprisoned, but because stealing isn't right. Policing and Law Enforcement scales sublinearly with population size only if the population is by and large compliant, or rather, that the laws are compatible with the behavior and motivations of the majority of people. So we keep that foundation far away -- instead of violence, it's the thought of the social opprobrium of the prospect of the threat of violence. But it has to be there, otherwise people who were willing to resort to violence would take everything.

AlexandrB 5y ago

Creatives I've listened talk about NFTs have said that NFTs are a terrible deal for them. "Minting" an NFT of their work costs a not-insignificant amount of money and there is no guarantee that anyone will buy the damn thing. For the Ellens and Kanyes of the world, it's great, because their work is already in-demand and can fetch a huge price on the NFT market. For the 90% of artists in the "long tail" of content production it's probably a net loss over more conventional funding means like Patreon, commissions, and Bandcamp. Even if these collect a higher portion of their income as fees, there's less up-front investment (and hence risk) for the artist.

twox2 5y ago
I'm an absolute nobody in the art world. I started minting my art in early 2020. This year i have made about 2.5x my tech salary from NFT sales and royalties. NFTS are an amazing deal for creators. You are right that there's a barrier to entry as far as minting costs, but it's a small price to pay to find out if you have an audience. Furthermore, there are now thriving NFT communities on chains like Tezos and Solana, where it costs pennies to mint.
- serverholic 5y ago
  This is what I've seen too. For example, I saw an artist on twitter crying because she was able to get out of debt from selling NFTs. My experience has been largely positive. Artists get better paid. The fans can buy something that gives them a more personal connection with the artist. Everyone else can still view the art for free.
  - iamacyborg 5y ago
    What was stopping people from buying your art before? Are they only buying it now because of FOMO that other people are making money by buying jpg's?
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  >I'm an absolute nobody in the art world. I started minting my art in early 2020. This year i have made about 2.5x my tech salary from NFT sales and royalties. NFTS are an amazing deal for creators. You perfectly explain why you are into NFT's. It's greed and we know :)

NicoJuicy 5y ago

I see you're new and probably young. You're mistaking "lack of creativity" for realism. Right-Click - Save image. Create an NFT, done. Work from an artist digitally is not unique and can be easily copied ( and even become more popular). Creativity? Dogs, lost cowboy, punks, pigs, hungry aliens are the typical NFT's. That's not art, they mostly sell avatars. ML models creating art => Not art and again the most technical knowledge person is getting paid. Wash-trading has become the new normal. The people who pump and dump their own "art" see attraction and as usual, the average people are getting left behind with no piece of the pie. The most popular people ( not even artists) with the biggest following online win. Nothing is legally backed. NTF's don't have copyright and you don't have a legal standing. BUT... You can cry on Twitter - https://twitter.com/RookieXBT/status/1421548360868286464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1421548360868286464%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2Farticle%2Fnon-fungible-tokens-nfts-right-click-save https://twitter.com/RookieXBT/status/1421548360868286464?ref... Mostly it's a technical person that steals artwork or just hires a digital designer for a couple of hours and then creates the NFT: https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/20/22334527/nft-scams-artists-opensea-rarible-marble-cards-fraud-art https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/20/22334527/nft-scams-artist... That's realism.

twox2 5y ago
I'm neither new nor young - I'm just a guy that gave this thing a chance and really liked the results. The right click save argument is boring. It's not the image that's the NFT, it's the entry on the blockchain. I agree about the "typical" NFTs you're talking about, they are referred to as digital collectibles, and yeah they don't do it for me either, but within NFT land there are multiple eco-systems, including those that are centered around what you would traditionally perceive as art. You are right that nothing is legally backed... but why does it need to be? The blockchain is immutable, so anyone who participates in it has no choice but to honor who the chain designates as an owner.
- detaro 5y ago
  > You are right that nothing is legally backed... Also not entirely true, at least some of the platforms use licenses for the art that grant the token holders rights.

abraxaz 5y ago

> NFTs do solve a problem, and the problem that they solve is that creatives are getting paid for their creative output. This has been happening for 1000s of years already before NFTs. > Never in history has anyone been able to buy shares of highly coveted art... maybe now you can? Yes, they have: https://www.masterworks.io/ https://www.masterworks.io/

jordanpg 5y ago

I suspect that there is a strong relationship between distaste for anything crypto and lack of any crypto substantial assets. The problem is that just about everyone here could be a multi-millionaire if they had just taken a few minutes to set up pool mining on their gaming rig back in 2010. I think there is a tremendous amount of latent bitterness, embarrassment, and frustration about this. I include myself in this group. Folks should pause to reflect on this and determine how much these facts are clouding their opinions. Crypto is just a new interesting technology. Maybe it will last, maybe not. But the amount of hate and skepticism on this forum is way, way out of proportion to the reality of the thing.

bsagdiyev 5y ago
Or, and hear me out, we’ve all seen our fair share of swindlers and con men in crypto and understand this isn’t much different.
- bsanr 5y ago
  Could be both. I think it's both. What I don't understand is the vociferousness of the detraction. This community loves Capitalism; crypto is just Capitalism Capitalisming. We've had snake oil salesmen and door-to-door salesmen and contract housing and pyramid schemes and dotcom startups and on and on. People abuse the freedom of the free market; we've always had to cut the "promise" of such markets short with regulation to stop real harm from being done to consumers. That doesn't mean that every possible iteration of such products were useless, or their sale predatory. Or maybe that's wrong. But that would tend to make most HNers hypocrites, and it's only fair to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
kall 5y ago
I think you are right that most people critical of crypto don‘t hold any significant assets. But that seems obvious and means nothing. If you have a lot of crypto assets, you think it‘s a good thing. If you didn‘t, you would probably divest or would have done long ago. Even if you where ambivalent you may keep it to yourself or erase that doubt, because "you have to believe, wagmi“ seems to be pretty strong in the community (maybe thats too harsh, I‘m not in it). If you don‘t think they are a good idea, why would you buy into them? Most people in tech aren‘t really strapped for cash and becoming a millionaire with something you think is bad for the world is something many people don‘t want. But yeah, I also regret selling my 2013 era playing-around assets that would make me a millionaire today. It probably does color my opinion, and if for some reason I had kept them till now, I would have a very positive take, which is also self selecting and means nothing. If I had changed my opinion at any point in those 9 years, I would have sold at the next 10x. I still think that analysis and opinion is colored much stronger for those who hold then for those who don‘t.

sandworm101 5y ago

>> Never in history has anyone been able to buy shares of highly coveted art What? Anyone can buy a part-share of any work of art. Want to own a 5% share of the Mona Lisa, just ask. If the owner want they can sell you a percentage of that object. Or you can buy a percentage without ownership rights. Or do anything else you want. Property law and the concept of partial ownerships has been around for thousands of years. Most every possible permutation is available should two parties agree.

twox2 5y ago
With NFTs you don't have to ask.
- birdyrooster 5y ago
  So if you have an NFT I can buy 5% of it from you without your consent? How does that even work?
  - twox2 5y ago
    The owner of the NFT would have to fractionalize it, then anyone can buy fractionalized tokens that are backed by the NFT.
    - debaserab2 5y ago
      isn't that the asking part?
      - sandworm101 5y ago
        Yes.

danShumway 5y ago

> Some folks use NFTs as Patreon -> to support artists who's work they admire. No, I don't buy this. Patreon already exists. And when you factor in gas fees, people who use NFTs to support artists are picking one of the least efficient ways to do so. Etherium in its current form is not a scalable model for how to pay for content, the fees make micropayments unnecessarily cumbersome and inefficient. The fact that none of these people who are using NFTs "to support artists" were interested in supporting digital artists through any of the multitude of existing ways that existed before NFTs leads me to cast serious doubt on their claims that they actually care about the art ecosystem. So, let's say you actually want to support artists: ---- If you want to buy the digital equivalent of "shares" of an artist's work, use Patreon/Liberapay/etc and join the community of people who are regularly investing into their output. This is the preferable method for many indie artists, because many indie digital artists want predictable income, and Patreon allows you to commit to regular donations instead of one-off payments. Many artists will use Patreon as a way of soliciting early feedback and providing early access to their projects. If you want to buy specific pieces, donate directly or just buy those pieces on any of the many art-selling sites that exist online (Gumroad, Itch, etc). This is the really straightforward way of saying "this thing that exists is worth money." If you want to own something more tangible for supporting your artists, look into printing sites and physical products (Etsy, Topatoco, etc). This requires a little bit of setup from the artist, but not any more than NFTs would, and it allows you to somewhat "advertise" your support with physical objects in a more tangible/public way than NFTs would ever allow. If you want to get something unique and personal out of supporting an artist, commission them. Commissions are often going to be more affordable than buying NFTs, they provide you with an actually unique product instead of just a unique ID number, they allow you to directly interact with the artist you're supporting, and commissions usually come with better IP assignments. If you want to encourage investment into a piece of artwork, encourage the artist to set up a Kickstarter/IndieGoGo campaign. Kickstarter isn't just usable for funding theoretical products, artists can use Kickstarter to fund predictable work and specific releases. Krita for example used Kickstarter to fund development on specific features, even allowing contributors to "vote" on what features should be prioritized. If you want status/clout for donating, and you want to be publicly recognized, sponsor artists. Many artists have systems where they'll give you public credit for sponsoring a piece of work. This is also a far better system than NFTs because that clout can't be re-sold or faked, and because the artist directly promotes you to everyone who sees their work; other people don't need to go find your digital wallet and validate it on the blockchain in order to recognize what you've done. ---- So what do NFTs provide that the above solutions don't? A tiny bit of standardization (although it's questionable how standardized they really are), and other than that, pretty much just speculation. NFTs are kind of awful at a lot of this stuff, they're expensive to create and trade, they're complicated to work with, validating copyright/legitimacy is annoying, they're more subject to regulation, they're less private, they can be traded around which devalues the original statement of buying them, a large percentage of them are subject to link rot, the "gamification" of them is laughably bad because gas fees make it impossible to do most interesting mechanics, and even their display/status value is underdeveloped and still in its infancy. But they allow you to gamble that the token you're holding will go up in value and that you can sell it later for a profit. And that's why people buy them. Not to support artists, all of these people could have been supporting artists ages ago, and they didn't. They buy NTFs because they're a speculative asset. They talk about supporting artists because it makes them feel better and because that conversation feeds into the hype, and that helps their speculative assets grow in value. That's all that's happening here.

egypturnash 5y ago

Hi. I'm an artist who works exclusively digitally. Getting paid for my work is a solved problem, I can draw a thing for a client and get money via PayPal or any of the other payment processors competing with it. I have a Patreon campaign to let my fans toss money in my tipjar for me to go draw whatever the heck I want to draw. So do people who make videos and 3d work. I see them doing it all the damn time. Neither of these methods involve a system where huge numbers of people are converting energy into waste heat as they compete to be the one who gets the token reward for recording a pathetically small number of transactions. "Proof of ownership"? How about "I have the source file and you don't"? How about "I have an email chain with the artist that goes from asking if they're open for work, through agreeing to a contract, and multiple WIP files, to a final rendering, source file, and settling up of the finances"? Why does converting energy into waste heat in competition to be the one rewarded for recording a tiny number of transactions need to be involved at all?

Dumblydorr 5y ago

This may be a dumb question, but why should people pay to "own" the art if it can be digitally copied and given to others (can it?)? I understand the artists need money and support, but other than that, why would anyone want to pay a lot to own a file that's accessible for viewing in a free way?

koonsolo 5y ago
bragging rights

015a 5y ago

Most of the arguments against NFTs ultimately boil down to "centralized systems already do this". Which to me is very sad and uncreative. The entire point just flew straight over-head at ten thousand miles per hour. Yeah, centralized systems already do this; what is necessary to create a world where they don't? Where people can transfer value without the help of a centralized authority. Ok so: "How do you verify authenticity". Two responses: 1) What if you don't? What if the NFT itself is the value? We already see this with, for example, the Bored Ape Yacht Club; people can create duplicates, but the originals are cryptographically verified. They created value out of thin air, which is where all value comes from at the end of the day. 2) And in other situations, where the value comes from something real outside the blockchain like the original artist; use centralized systems! It's not all or nothing! Centralized systems are great at verifying providence. Use 'em! "This NFT was the one the artist tweeted about". Then they follow up with: "Lol I can just copy-paste". Yeah! Isn't that fantastic? NFTs create value for the people who want that value, by having a concept of "ownership of the original". But nothing is stopping all of us from also enjoying it. Finally, the end-stage of any debate always arrives at "its destroying the planet". This is, of course, typed as a comment into a website via a computer burning dirty coal power, through 3,000 miles of underground plastic fiber and fifty network appliances, to a beefy server running in a data center. Afterward, Captain Planet will hop in their gas-burning car to drive to work, drink a grande Starbucks coffee from a disposable cup, flush the toilet ten times throughout the day, pick up the newest iPhone from the Apple Store on the drive home, then watch an hour of Foundation on their 65" TV with 5.1 surround sound. I'm obviously being a dramatic. More generally and accurately; humanity is destroying the planet. We're really good at it. People act like NFTs are destroying the planet, while every day doing far more to destroy the planet than NFTs ever will. It's a bad argument, especially when NFTs (and ETH in general) present a fantastically optimizable solution to the problem of value ownership; they'll get more efficient over time. Data centers can easily be powered by clean energy. Here's the axiom I've noticed: the pro-NFT crowd has seen every single argument against them. I don't know if the people who post articles & comments like these think they're being original, like they're the first one to notice that verifiable providence is a difficult problem, but trust me; many people in this community have been thinking about this long before you first heard the word "cryptocurrency". Your inability to exhibit creativity in reasoning about a solution to the problems you present does not mean there is no solution, or that the technology won't continue to flourish.

saltminer 5y ago

> NFTs do solve a problem, and the problem that they solve is that creatives are getting paid for their creative output. It did not. There are already plenty of ways artists can get paid for their work. If you had said "this creates another way for artists to get paid," sure (ignoring all the NFTs that are blatantly stolen), but asserting that this is the only way is false. > The promise of NFTs is that they offer a different way for people to interact. Ownership is always based on social constructs, so folks that are involved in this space need to have some consensus of what it means to "own" an NFT on whatever chain. I see "ownership" tossed around so often. But I just pulled up two recently sold listings on OpenSea (one from Bored Apes, the other from Cryptopunks), and unless OpenSea hides information if you're not logged in, there were no rights transferred for the original works themselves - you just own the NFT listing. What's the point of shelling out six figures for mass-generated artwork when you don't even have any IP rights? Sure, there's the "exclusive community" of Bored Apes (though you can apparently have your NFT stolen but still be in the community, so...not sure how exclusive it really is), but other than that, it just seems like a way to flex on everyone. I have more legally enforceable rights to a $20 drawing I commissioned (paid for on ko-fi) than many NFTs going for $100k+. It's either a speculative bubble which will burst eventually, or the community is worth the price (plus the flexing privileges).