3 ms·
Let's take music as an example. On web2 music artists only get 18% of the revenue. Spotify gets 33%. The music industry takes 49%. Web3 flips the script. Artist
by evergrande 5y ago
Let's take music as an example. On web2 music artists only get 18% of the revenue. Spotify gets 33%. The music industry takes 49%. Web3 flips the script. Artists get 95%, the rest are fees. So yes, I do think web3-style ownership is desirable.
- ARandumGuy 5y agoRight now, a music artist can sell their albums on their own website, and get all of the revenue (minus payment processor fees). The reason people gravitate to Spotify is because it's incredibly convenient. A lot of people (myself included) like paying $10 a month for unlimited access to an incredible variety of music. "Web3" will only disrupt the status quo if it provides a better user experience then Spotify. From what I've seen, "Web3" doesn't do anything that Spotify doesn't do better.
- MarkOSullivan 5y agoLove those stats but it's always better to provide a source for the numbers. Are you referring to Audius or some other web3 platform for music?
- astoor 5y ago>"On web2 music artists only get 18% of the revenue." Centralised "web2" solutions like bandcamp.com give the artist 80-90%. You don't need "web3" to be fairer to artists.