3 ms·

I have pretty mixed feelings about NFTs in general. But I am intrigued by the use case of allowing a large number of individuals to patron a given artist (and

I have pretty mixed feelings about NFTs in general. But I am intrigued by the use case of allowing a large number of individuals to patron a given artist (and give them recurring income on subsequent resale of their work). All else being equal, I would prefer to live in a society where artists and other makers have time to follow their passion and create instead of spending their time on some job just to pay the bills. So to the extent that NFTs can enable that, I'm tentatively onboard.

anamexis 5y ago
> So to the extent that NFTs can enable that, I'm tentatively onboard. And what extent is that? There are plenty of ways to send money to an artist, both with crypto and without. What value do NFTs add, as far as patronizing artists?
- joshmarlow 5y ago
  It's possible - if not common - to setup the underlying smart contract to send some amount of funds back to the creator when an NFT changes hands. So that turns selling a piece of art once to pay the bills into selling it once and then subsequently collecting royalties (potentially indefinitely). As far as I know, that's a pretty novel offering. EDIT: for grammar
  - anamexis 5y ago
    But at the end of the day, you're not reselling the art, you're reselling the NFT. There's nothing that makes this capability unique to NFTs or crypto - you could sell a license to an artwork that has similar terms.
    - joshmarlow 5y ago
      > There's nothing that makes this capability unique to NFTs or crypto Yeah, you're probably right here. This is a slight pivot in discussion but - you're right, the proper license agreement (if enforced) would give a similar effect. And there's a strong argument that NFTs, DAOs for gathering capital, etc are just serving functions similar to Patreon or Kickstarter. But there are a lot of projects popping up and getting varying degrees of attraction in the crypto space. Maybe crypto isn't making many new things possible - but it might be making lots of things a little easier?
kranke155 5y ago
You’ve nailed it. People don’t understand what artists used to have to do to make a living. They complain about carbon usage yet I know many talented artists who had to work for BP, Shell and ICE car companies so they could pay their rent. On Tezos the chain is low carbon usage anyway.
karmakaze 5y ago
NFTs are not about giving, they're about having.
- karmakaze 5y ago
  Perhaps not as self-evident as I thought: Artificial scarcity--having something others can't.
npteljes 5y ago
Supporting artists is fine, but it also facilitates a lot of art theft. Random article: https://www.businessofbusiness.com/articles/nfts-turning-artists-into-millionaires-overnight-these-10-creators-are-against-the-hype/ https://www.businessofbusiness.com/articles/nfts-turning-art...
Hjfrf 5y ago
In the current iteration, they don't solve that problem. You still need a centralised entity to enforce ownership, making the blockchain redundant. A future attempt might be better, maybe.
- joshmarlow 5y ago
  You're not wrong. It's an imperfect solution right now; but it is a step in exploring what's possible. And exploratory steps are really helpful for iterating on a good solution.

anamexis 5y ago

> So to the extent that NFTs can enable that, I'm tentatively onboard. And what extent is that? There are plenty of ways to send money to an artist, both with crypto and without. What value do NFTs add, as far as patronizing artists?

joshmarlow 5y ago
It's possible - if not common - to setup the underlying smart contract to send some amount of funds back to the creator when an NFT changes hands. So that turns selling a piece of art once to pay the bills into selling it once and then subsequently collecting royalties (potentially indefinitely). As far as I know, that's a pretty novel offering. EDIT: for grammar
- anamexis 5y ago
  But at the end of the day, you're not reselling the art, you're reselling the NFT. There's nothing that makes this capability unique to NFTs or crypto - you could sell a license to an artwork that has similar terms.
  - joshmarlow 5y ago
    > There's nothing that makes this capability unique to NFTs or crypto Yeah, you're probably right here. This is a slight pivot in discussion but - you're right, the proper license agreement (if enforced) would give a similar effect. And there's a strong argument that NFTs, DAOs for gathering capital, etc are just serving functions similar to Patreon or Kickstarter. But there are a lot of projects popping up and getting varying degrees of attraction in the crypto space. Maybe crypto isn't making many new things possible - but it might be making lots of things a little easier?

kranke155 5y ago

You’ve nailed it. People don’t understand what artists used to have to do to make a living. They complain about carbon usage yet I know many talented artists who had to work for BP, Shell and ICE car companies so they could pay their rent. On Tezos the chain is low carbon usage anyway.

karmakaze 5y ago

NFTs are not about giving, they're about having.

karmakaze 5y ago
Perhaps not as self-evident as I thought: Artificial scarcity--having something others can't.

npteljes 5y ago

Supporting artists is fine, but it also facilitates a lot of art theft. Random article: https://www.businessofbusiness.com/articles/nfts-turning-artists-into-millionaires-overnight-these-10-creators-are-against-the-hype/ https://www.businessofbusiness.com/articles/nfts-turning-art...

Hjfrf 5y ago

In the current iteration, they don't solve that problem. You still need a centralised entity to enforce ownership, making the blockchain redundant. A future attempt might be better, maybe.

joshmarlow 5y ago
You're not wrong. It's an imperfect solution right now; but it is a step in exploring what's possible. And exploratory steps are really helpful for iterating on a good solution.