3 ms·

> studios can - at least in theory - create a system where they could get a cut of monkey millions through the actual use of blockchains, which they would absol

by dpark 5y ago

> studios can - at least in theory - create a system where they could get a cut of monkey millions through the actual use of blockchains, which they would absolutely not be able to achieve without blockchains. Sorry, I missed something. What exactly can they not build without blockchains? Surely you’re not saying that the thing they can’t do without the blockchain is “use the blockchain”, because that’s vacuous. (I’m actually not sure how they wound build this hypothetical system you described with a blockchain, though. Is there a mechanism that allows NFT transfers to accumulate “royalties” to the original seller? Or is this a hypothetical feature of a hypothetical custom blockchain that’s controlled 100% by the studio, eliminating even the distributed nature?) > But here is the thing: things like currency and trade able tokens only have value because people think they do. There is a fine line between “gullible” and “currency” here. I don’t entirely disagree with this, but 1) Most people investing in this stuff would have zero interest if it were actually a stable currency. They’re interested in speculation. This is in contrast with dollars (or euros or whatever) which people very commonly hoard in banks, even knowing they are actually declining in value. 2) NFTs are not intended to be currency. So even if you believe that Bitcoin or whatever cryptocurrency has long term real currency potential, NFTs are still stupid.

alkonaut 5y ago
> Sorry, I missed something. What exactly can they not build without blockchains? They can’t build tokens that people would speculate in to the point that they are worth millions unless they use a big ledger like eth where people might believe that the tokens have a lifespan longer than the games. > Is there a mechanism that allows NFT transfers to accumulate “royalties” to the original seller? That is my understanding yes, and this would be a premise for the whole thing. So yes - the whole idea would be to set up a market for speculation and see a cut from each transaction. And the chain isn’t necessary, technically, it’s a necessity to ensure the inflated speculation only. And both studios and users have aligned interest: speculation, only. Not hats, not currency. They get shiny gear but it’s also a lottery.
- dpark 5y ago
  Okay, so we’re back to it’s valuable because some people are gullible. This is not particularly compelling. Yeah, from a money grabbing, no ethics wanted standpoint, that is a compelling argument that it will make money. It is not a compelling argument that it actually provides meaningful value to anyone except the ones perpetuating the scam, though. A Ponzi scheme is also profitable. It is interesting that NFT royalties are thing. I was not aware of that. Although I don’t see that this makes it valuable. Royalties are generally paid for reproduction. If you have to pay the creator to transfer the token, then it seems evident that you don’t even own the token, whatever that’s worth.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    Yeah to be absolutely clear: I believe there is value here only in the sense that there is value at the top of any Ponzi scheme (value for early investors) or at best - a lottery or volatile instrument (value only for lucky investors). And this is the reason I think that it will happen in some spaces such as gaming. I don’t think it’s something that has or adds any value from a technical viewpoint. At least not to the point where it would warrant investment or overhead from blockchain tech. It’s hardly worth even $1 “securing” my ownership of a hat on a public ledger unless the chance of it becoming more expensive through artificial scarcity is counted as “value”.

by dpark 5y ago

alkonaut 5y ago

> Sorry, I missed something. What exactly can they not build without blockchains? They can’t build tokens that people would speculate in to the point that they are worth millions unless they use a big ledger like eth where people might believe that the tokens have a lifespan longer than the games. > Is there a mechanism that allows NFT transfers to accumulate “royalties” to the original seller? That is my understanding yes, and this would be a premise for the whole thing. So yes - the whole idea would be to set up a market for speculation and see a cut from each transaction. And the chain isn’t necessary, technically, it’s a necessity to ensure the inflated speculation only. And both studios and users have aligned interest: speculation, only. Not hats, not currency. They get shiny gear but it’s also a lottery.

dpark 5y ago
Okay, so we’re back to it’s valuable because some people are gullible. This is not particularly compelling. Yeah, from a money grabbing, no ethics wanted standpoint, that is a compelling argument that it will make money. It is not a compelling argument that it actually provides meaningful value to anyone except the ones perpetuating the scam, though. A Ponzi scheme is also profitable. It is interesting that NFT royalties are thing. I was not aware of that. Although I don’t see that this makes it valuable. Royalties are generally paid for reproduction. If you have to pay the creator to transfer the token, then it seems evident that you don’t even own the token, whatever that’s worth.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  Yeah to be absolutely clear: I believe there is value here only in the sense that there is value at the top of any Ponzi scheme (value for early investors) or at best - a lottery or volatile instrument (value only for lucky investors). And this is the reason I think that it will happen in some spaces such as gaming. I don’t think it’s something that has or adds any value from a technical viewpoint. At least not to the point where it would warrant investment or overhead from blockchain tech. It’s hardly worth even $1 “securing” my ownership of a hat on a public ledger unless the chance of it becoming more expensive through artificial scarcity is counted as “value”.