10 ms·

Someone must have heard Kevin Rose postulating a possible use for NFT's on Tim Ferris's podcast. Basically one could reserve a spot Limited Edition sneakers as

by surge 5y ago

Someone must have heard Kevin Rose postulating a possible use for NFT's on Tim Ferris's podcast. Basically one could reserve a spot Limited Edition sneakers as an NFT, then if they resold the NFT (hence the sneakers on the open market), the smart contract could give Nike a cut or fee as part of the token exchange, so they'd get a cut of third party markets and capture part of the real market value.

spyspy 5y ago
That's brilliant actually. Basically a futures contract with Nike earning the principle and then commission on every secondary sale without ever even delivering a real product.
- bpicolo 5y ago
  Though it does assume that people care about transfer of the token instead of the physical good.
  - surge 5y ago
    I should be clear, the token is the reservation to get the sneaker. Not the sneakers itself.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
majou 5y ago
This is the first time I'm hearing of a transfer-royalty. It looks like foundation.app's contracts give 10% to the original artist each time which is neat. Shame about the energy use.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  Interestingly, this has been a problem in the art world for over half a century, especially as famous pieces change hands among the uber wealthy, and no-name artists' work is catapulted to mega-millions. Very often the artist is not compensated after the work is sold again in between individuals. This would be a great way to make sure the artist doesn't die poor while their work trades hands multiple times for 100's of millions.
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  This sounds like bullshit. It's basically saying nobody ever gets to own anything. They only own a limited right to use that they can transfer, but in doing so they need to pay the original owner. We already have a means of artists and companies and what not profiting from secondary market activity. The next time they issue stock or sell a new painting, the price is higher than the last time. They don't need a cut every time everything they ever make resells. This just reduces the ability of anyone else down the line to profit and entrenches the power and wealth of original owners.
  - surge 5y ago
    In the case of the shoes, you'd be free to resale the shoes, its the reservation getting resold, kind of like ticket scalping. But your point still stands, it could be abused to where you own nothing.

by surge 5y ago

spyspy 5y ago

That's brilliant actually. Basically a futures contract with Nike earning the principle and then commission on every secondary sale without ever even delivering a real product.

bpicolo 5y ago
Though it does assume that people care about transfer of the token instead of the physical good.
- surge 5y ago
  I should be clear, the token is the reservation to get the sneaker. Not the sneakers itself.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

majou 5y ago

This is the first time I'm hearing of a transfer-royalty. It looks like foundation.app's contracts give 10% to the original artist each time which is neat. Shame about the energy use.

SavantIdiot 5y ago
Interestingly, this has been a problem in the art world for over half a century, especially as famous pieces change hands among the uber wealthy, and no-name artists' work is catapulted to mega-millions. Very often the artist is not compensated after the work is sold again in between individuals. This would be a great way to make sure the artist doesn't die poor while their work trades hands multiple times for 100's of millions.
nonameiguess 5y ago
This sounds like bullshit. It's basically saying nobody ever gets to own anything. They only own a limited right to use that they can transfer, but in doing so they need to pay the original owner. We already have a means of artists and companies and what not profiting from secondary market activity. The next time they issue stock or sell a new painting, the price is higher than the last time. They don't need a cut every time everything they ever make resells. This just reduces the ability of anyone else down the line to profit and entrenches the power and wealth of original owners.
- surge 5y ago
  In the case of the shoes, you'd be free to resale the shoes, its the reservation getting resold, kind of like ticket scalping. But your point still stands, it could be abused to where you own nothing.