5 ms·

This isn't specific to web3 but more crypto but the idea of having an integrated method of collecting royalties on resale of an item indefinitely is pretty exci

by vpilcx 5y ago

This isn't specific to web3 but more crypto but the idea of having an integrated method of collecting royalties on resale of an item indefinitely is pretty exciting. That said, the hype seems a little bit overblown. When people are so focused on "overthrowing Big Tech" as to why web3 will be the next wave, it just seems like hype over substance. I forgot what the name of it was, but I tried to sign up to some web3 social media site. In order to even post, you had to drop $80 on the relevant crypto to post on the site. I understand the justification but that made me immediately just lost interest in the web3 space. Seems kinda like a pyramid scheme. The people who are already in get richer while the newcomers just get magic beans.

SoldShort22 5y ago
> This isn't specific to web3 but more crypto but the idea of having an integrated method of collecting royalties on resale of an item indefinitely is pretty exciting. Exciting for who though? The only party who benefits from resale royalties is the creator of the NFT and/or the beneficiaries they designate. But what value do they offer the buyer and seller to earn this? In almost all cases, the creators of the NFTs aren't conveying any rights beyond ownership of the token itself. They're not even selling ownership of or rights to the digital assets (GIF, etc.) their tokens point to. When you buy and sell an asset, you might very well pay a fee to a party who facilitates the transaction, like a broker. The fee is to compensate the broker for the value they provided in facilitating a deal. These middlemen are often maligned for the fees they charge even when the facilitation they provide seems minimal but that doesn't mean that giving creators of an asset a perpetual royalty every time the asset is resold is any better. To me NFT resale royalties are actually one of those things that look worse than traditional finance. Imagine if a company sold stock to the public and as part of the deal, stipulated that each time a share was sold, it would receive a royalty of 10% of the new share price. Would buyers and sellers see that as a benefit or predation? And at least in the case of company stock, your share would give you actual ownership of a piece of the company and rights that come along with ownership. With NFTs, you just get a token with a pointer to a digital asset that isn't yours. And for that, you might get to pay the NFT creator a "royalty". I haven't seen any articulation of why this is a good thing.
hooande 5y ago
The concept of "collecting royalties" requires a legal infrastructure backed by a state's monopoly on force. Nothing about web3, as I understand it, will require someone to pay me in money that I can spend. People can still copy and redistribute my content (ie this post) and profit from it in various ways. The concept of a blockchain does nothing to prevent this.
- jakupovic 5y ago
  But those platforms that let you use the scarce digital assets will. OT allow you to pull unlicensed copies from anywhere but from known endpoints, thus your digital copies are useless as none point to them. Similar to how you hosting www.google.com on your web server doesn't get any of the real Google traffic as none point to you.
  - cuteboy19 5y ago
    So if the platform is doing all the heavy lifting, why do you need the blockchain again? i.e. what is the difference between this and YouTube? Blockchain is superfluous to this scheme
    - jakupovic 5y ago
      Blockchain is the immutable ledger, a place where if someone writes something down, it is guaranteed to not change, the immutable part. The difference between Blockchain/crypto/bitcoin and YouTube, is that the latter puts no guarantees about the content of a link, we trust Google. If you go further, the content doesn't need to be a simple url, it could be data of any type. People get stuck on "who needs to pay for url, when I can copy the contents freely", but you're not buying simple url, you're buying a multidimensional point in the current manifestation of what we think as web3/metaverse. This point is the intersection of your private key, Blockchain used and the content(url). This is valuable because none can claim the same point, and it is guaranteed not to change.
      - cuteboy19 5y ago

by vpilcx 5y ago

SoldShort22 5y ago

> This isn't specific to web3 but more crypto but the idea of having an integrated method of collecting royalties on resale of an item indefinitely is pretty exciting. Exciting for who though? The only party who benefits from resale royalties is the creator of the NFT and/or the beneficiaries they designate. But what value do they offer the buyer and seller to earn this? In almost all cases, the creators of the NFTs aren't conveying any rights beyond ownership of the token itself. They're not even selling ownership of or rights to the digital assets (GIF, etc.) their tokens point to. When you buy and sell an asset, you might very well pay a fee to a party who facilitates the transaction, like a broker. The fee is to compensate the broker for the value they provided in facilitating a deal. These middlemen are often maligned for the fees they charge even when the facilitation they provide seems minimal but that doesn't mean that giving creators of an asset a perpetual royalty every time the asset is resold is any better. To me NFT resale royalties are actually one of those things that look worse than traditional finance. Imagine if a company sold stock to the public and as part of the deal, stipulated that each time a share was sold, it would receive a royalty of 10% of the new share price. Would buyers and sellers see that as a benefit or predation? And at least in the case of company stock, your share would give you actual ownership of a piece of the company and rights that come along with ownership. With NFTs, you just get a token with a pointer to a digital asset that isn't yours. And for that, you might get to pay the NFT creator a "royalty". I haven't seen any articulation of why this is a good thing.

hooande 5y ago

The concept of "collecting royalties" requires a legal infrastructure backed by a state's monopoly on force. Nothing about web3, as I understand it, will require someone to pay me in money that I can spend. People can still copy and redistribute my content (ie this post) and profit from it in various ways. The concept of a blockchain does nothing to prevent this.

jakupovic 5y ago
But those platforms that let you use the scarce digital assets will. OT allow you to pull unlicensed copies from anywhere but from known endpoints, thus your digital copies are useless as none point to them. Similar to how you hosting www.google.com on your web server doesn't get any of the real Google traffic as none point to you.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  So if the platform is doing all the heavy lifting, why do you need the blockchain again? i.e. what is the difference between this and YouTube? Blockchain is superfluous to this scheme
  - jakupovic 5y ago
    Blockchain is the immutable ledger, a place where if someone writes something down, it is guaranteed to not change, the immutable part. The difference between Blockchain/crypto/bitcoin and YouTube, is that the latter puts no guarantees about the content of a link, we trust Google. If you go further, the content doesn't need to be a simple url, it could be data of any type. People get stuck on "who needs to pay for url, when I can copy the contents freely", but you're not buying simple url, you're buying a multidimensional point in the current manifestation of what we think as web3/metaverse. This point is the intersection of your private key, Blockchain used and the content(url). This is valuable because none can claim the same point, and it is guaranteed not to change.
    - cuteboy19 5y ago