7 ms·

I'm no NFT cheerleader, but I do bemoan the failure of yet another attempt to provide artists with revenue. NFTs were always daft, but the fiction, as fiction

I'm no NFT cheerleader, but I do bemoan the failure of yet another attempt to provide artists with revenue. NFTs were always daft, but the fiction, as fiction often does, spoke to a real need.

jtode 4y ago
I think the Bored Ape thing was a perfect illustration of who is provided with revenue by NFTs.
- 1attice 4y ago
  You aren't wrong, and again, I am at pains to indicate that I don't support NFTs, was disappointed with NFTs, and I genuinely believe they're a standout sign of cultural decay. Again, my concern is for the artists who were briefly given hope, however false. For context, this book is helpful: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Artist-Creators-Struggling-Billionaires/dp/B083QMCJ5H/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=death+of+the+artist&qid=1678749374&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Death-Artist-Creators-Struggling-Bill...
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Artists can easily make money, they just have to produce what the market demands, like any other business. Draw furry porn comics and paywall them behind patreon and watch the cash roll in. Of course no one was going to pay $1000 for landscape_digital_painting.png which you can get a dime a million on dall-e.
    - 1attice 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - libraryatnight 4y ago
        There's lots of ways for artists to make money professionally (probably not paid enough in the corporate creative world, but nft's were never an answer to that issue, an issue plaguing a lot of industries and professions lately) and independently. I appreciate that it would be nice if everyone who painted or sang or wrote could support themselves with that passion, but if nobody is buying what you're selling NFTs weren't going to help. There's so much more than the art that goes into supporting oneself with art, and at that point it very much intersects with business. NFTs are just one more thing to sell if you have the thing a starving artist doesn't - an audience.
      - 1attice 4y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        JohnFen 4y ago
        I didn't downvote you, but I respectfully submit that it's possible that the people who did do so, and gigachad, understand the underlying issues and simply disagree with you.
        lgeorget 4y ago
        I think the reason that comment was downvoated is because "you need to read more about the issue" is not a rational argument. In the wrong context, it may even sound like an ad hominem.
        piqi 4y ago
        [flagged]
    - jandrese 4y ago
      Nope, Gigachad is exactly correct. If you want to make money as an artist you have to make stuff that other people want to buy. If you only make art that speaks to your unique soul then the market may consist of only yourself. This is hardly a new phenomenon. Artists today have more ways of getting paid than ever, but it is still a buyers market.
    - politician 4y ago
      What's really interesting is the last gasp of digital art represented by NFTs when DALL-E and Stable Diffusion were literally right around the corner, days away. If DALL-E emerged before NFTs, I don't think we would have seen them gain any traction _at all_.
  - pornel 4y ago
    In the original post you've called it an "attempt to provide artists with revenue" and let's be clear it was never that. The only attempt was to provide revenue for Facebook, and both NFT scammers and Facebook only used artists as a fig leaf for the get-rich-quick scheme of wash trades and piracy.
    - 1attice 4y ago
      At pain of downvoting, I respectfully need to ask if you read the article? It literally describes an effort by Meta to put NFTs to use for artists. Again, decay.
Semioj 4y ago
[flagged]
- jsemrau 4y ago
  One can argue that the way we implemented this on finclout it even simpler. Its as simple as receiving a share of the Stakepool revenues based on relative performance on the platform. Passive content income through real yield treasuries.
  - Semioj 4y ago
    I have spent 10 minutes on your site an still don't get it. Bravo for that. Already a good sign of a well running crypto thing. And I'm still not sure how value is created if no one has to pay?! Right now for me it feels like a soon imploding weird microbubble of investment Tipps
    - sleepybrett 4y ago
      Shhh, if he actually explains what he does in plain english people might figure out that it's huge fucking grift.
    - jsemrau 4y ago
      One could view Proof of Stake (PoS) Systems as being similar to the Federal Reserve System. In the latter, the central bank provides liquidity to the banking system. The banking system then provides financial services (working capital, managing deposits, etc) to companies within an economy. These companies can then use this capital / service to provide goods and services to the economy. The banking system is, in simplified terms, a margin business that borrows funds from the central banks and lends out further. Through this margin all costs have to be covered. In the former this role is taken on by the Treasuries of the PoS (Eth, Cardano, etc). Stakepool operators take on the role of the banking system and Apps like finclout take on the role of a business in this ecosystem. Stakepool operators validate the chains, at a low energy overhead one might add, and thus provides services to the Central Treasury. For this service they receive a fee. This fee can be seen as being similar to the margin of the traditional banking system. Moreover, stakepool operator then can take on the role of distributing the liquidity they received from the treasury further into the economy of the block chain. Thereby providing liquidity to App Operators. In theory this could provide an efficient means to monetize content. And this is what the finclout app is aimed to solve. Absolutely, it doesn't do that well yet. Yet if you look into the consequences of Mandated Payments for content in Canada (https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/03/the-consequence-of-mandated-payments-for-links-facebook-confirms-it-will-drop-news-sharing-in-canada-under-bill-c-18/ https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/03/the-consequence-of-manda...) this solution could provide a better monetization mechanism. A tertiary benefit is that there is no need for a ponzi-like investing scheme through such a method.
mjr00 4y ago
Artists have been poor forever. There's a reason the expression is "starving artist" and not "well-fed artist." It's also easier than ever now for an independent artist to make money. Patreon, Fanbox, Skeb have vastly simplified the logistics of getting money for your work. Promotion through social media is free, though time-consuming. The problem is the same as it always was: artists want to focus on creating art, and not running a business. If I told you I was going to make a software company, with the expectation of a livable salary, but spend $0 on sales, marketing, or customer support, you'd call me an idiot, because there's a lot more to a software business than churning out code. Similarly, there's a lot more to making a living as an artist than drawing pictures or creating music. Ironically, NFTs were most successful with people who already understood all this. Unscrupulous people like Steve Aoki aggressively marketed their own NFTs using their existing brand power and made a hefty sum, while your dime-a-dozen 10k Twitter follower artist got nothing.
- grugagag 4y ago
  In an ideal world you’d do what you are best at. If that was churning useful code then be it. If that was selling that code without needing to churn code yourself then be it. It’s unfortunate we can’t collaborate with eachother without stealing eachother’s livelyhood.
  - mjr00 4y ago
    Aren't you just describing a business? Maybe even a startup specifically, with a CTO who's great at building things and a CEO who's great at selling them? I don't really see how that's stealing each other's livelihood; neither of those people can be successful without the other.
- flockonus 4y ago
  > while your dime-a-dozen 10k Twitter follower artist got nothing Very condescending and, at the same time, not true at all. Many existing artists did much better in revenue than ever in the way of getting paid for their craft during the rise of NFTs, there were many spaces where artists would brag about their success and help onboard others into the space, often paying their transaction fees. For many of the small audience artists it's very sad the momentum faded, and the spring of generative AI doesn't help them either.
delecti 4y ago
On the contrary, I'm glad to see the death of yet another scam targeting artists. People might have been trying to convince artists it could provide revenue, but I don't believe many of those people were themselves artists. It felt very much like "here you go, use this technology, we know best", because from the very start of the scam I saw artists unambiguously asserting they wanted no part in it, but lots of art being wrapped up in NFTs without permission.
2pEXgD0fZ5cF 4y ago
As someone who still knows a number of professional Illustrators I highly suggest talking to artists about this topic then for once, both hobby and professional. Actually talk to a few artists and you will quickly find a number of them who were already hurt by NFTs via art theft or spam and scam. NFTs and the guys pushing them were only out to hurt artists and exploit them, and nothing else. If they weren't out to scam them, they were out there just stealing the art. It was not "a nice idea" and the fact that people still try to tie them to "but what about the artists" narrative is a disgrace. I'm sorry, but there is no "but" here. Yes something for artists would be nice, everyone agrees. NFTs were never that, not even a little bit. It was not "an attempt to provide artists with revenue", it was an attempt to use artists for revenue. You make a difference between what you say, and the people cheering for NFTs, but the whole "yeah but what if it works" or "yeah but wouldn't it be nice if..." angle is exactly the type of crowbar all the cryptocurrency/NFT scammers used and still use to stay relevant.
- LegitShady 4y ago
  The artists don't matter. The art on the bored ape whatever was never the value. Artists pushing crypto are just looking to grift off their fanbase and are either stupid or malicious - in both cases reason for normal people to stay away.
mattdesl 4y ago
Most artists using NFTs for revenue are not using IG, so are unaffected by this news. This is dead in the water in any app, anyways. Apple charges 30% fee on all in-app NFT sales, and on top of that Apple ToS prohibits any “functional” use of NFT tech in their apps. [1] [1] https://twitter.com/wongmjane/status/1584609845570768897?s=20 https://twitter.com/wongmjane/status/1584609845570768897?s=2...
- DonHopkins 4y ago
  Thanks, Apple! No, seriously.
  - mattdesl 4y ago
    Hooray for tech monopolies prohibiting the use of open source payment protocols and continuing to force a ridiculous rent on users and developers? Typical HN view, at least.
    - DonHopkins 4y ago
      Thanks for nipping scams in the bud, and thanks for crushing Flash, Apple!

I'm no NFT cheerleader, but I do bemoan the failure of yet another attempt to provide artists with revenue. NFTs were always daft, but the fiction, as fiction often does, spoke to a real need.

jtode 4y ago

I think the Bored Ape thing was a perfect illustration of who is provided with revenue by NFTs.

1attice 4y ago
You aren't wrong, and again, I am at pains to indicate that I don't support NFTs, was disappointed with NFTs, and I genuinely believe they're a standout sign of cultural decay. Again, my concern is for the artists who were briefly given hope, however false. For context, this book is helpful: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Artist-Creators-Struggling-Billionaires/dp/B083QMCJ5H/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=death+of+the+artist&qid=1678749374&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Death-Artist-Creators-Struggling-Bill...
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Artists can easily make money, they just have to produce what the market demands, like any other business. Draw furry porn comics and paywall them behind patreon and watch the cash roll in. Of course no one was going to pay $1000 for landscape_digital_painting.png which you can get a dime a million on dall-e.
  - 1attice 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - libraryatnight 4y ago
      There's lots of ways for artists to make money professionally (probably not paid enough in the corporate creative world, but nft's were never an answer to that issue, an issue plaguing a lot of industries and professions lately) and independently. I appreciate that it would be nice if everyone who painted or sang or wrote could support themselves with that passion, but if nobody is buying what you're selling NFTs weren't going to help. There's so much more than the art that goes into supporting oneself with art, and at that point it very much intersects with business. NFTs are just one more thing to sell if you have the thing a starving artist doesn't - an audience.
    - 1attice 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        I didn't downvote you, but I respectfully submit that it's possible that the people who did do so, and gigachad, understand the underlying issues and simply disagree with you.
      - lgeorget 4y ago
        I think the reason that comment was downvoated is because "you need to read more about the issue" is not a rational argument. In the wrong context, it may even sound like an ad hominem.
      - piqi 4y ago
        [flagged]
  - jandrese 4y ago
    Nope, Gigachad is exactly correct. If you want to make money as an artist you have to make stuff that other people want to buy. If you only make art that speaks to your unique soul then the market may consist of only yourself. This is hardly a new phenomenon. Artists today have more ways of getting paid than ever, but it is still a buyers market.
  - politician 4y ago
    What's really interesting is the last gasp of digital art represented by NFTs when DALL-E and Stable Diffusion were literally right around the corner, days away. If DALL-E emerged before NFTs, I don't think we would have seen them gain any traction _at all_.
- pornel 4y ago
  In the original post you've called it an "attempt to provide artists with revenue" and let's be clear it was never that. The only attempt was to provide revenue for Facebook, and both NFT scammers and Facebook only used artists as a fig leaf for the get-rich-quick scheme of wash trades and piracy.
  - 1attice 4y ago
    At pain of downvoting, I respectfully need to ask if you read the article? It literally describes an effort by Meta to put NFTs to use for artists. Again, decay.

Semioj 4y ago

[flagged]

jsemrau 4y ago
One can argue that the way we implemented this on finclout it even simpler. Its as simple as receiving a share of the Stakepool revenues based on relative performance on the platform. Passive content income through real yield treasuries.
- Semioj 4y ago
  I have spent 10 minutes on your site an still don't get it. Bravo for that. Already a good sign of a well running crypto thing. And I'm still not sure how value is created if no one has to pay?! Right now for me it feels like a soon imploding weird microbubble of investment Tipps
  - sleepybrett 4y ago
    Shhh, if he actually explains what he does in plain english people might figure out that it's huge fucking grift.
  - jsemrau 4y ago
    One could view Proof of Stake (PoS) Systems as being similar to the Federal Reserve System. In the latter, the central bank provides liquidity to the banking system. The banking system then provides financial services (working capital, managing deposits, etc) to companies within an economy. These companies can then use this capital / service to provide goods and services to the economy. The banking system is, in simplified terms, a margin business that borrows funds from the central banks and lends out further. Through this margin all costs have to be covered. In the former this role is taken on by the Treasuries of the PoS (Eth, Cardano, etc). Stakepool operators take on the role of the banking system and Apps like finclout take on the role of a business in this ecosystem. Stakepool operators validate the chains, at a low energy overhead one might add, and thus provides services to the Central Treasury. For this service they receive a fee. This fee can be seen as being similar to the margin of the traditional banking system. Moreover, stakepool operator then can take on the role of distributing the liquidity they received from the treasury further into the economy of the block chain. Thereby providing liquidity to App Operators. In theory this could provide an efficient means to monetize content. And this is what the finclout app is aimed to solve. Absolutely, it doesn't do that well yet. Yet if you look into the consequences of Mandated Payments for content in Canada (https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/03/the-consequence-of-mandated-payments-for-links-facebook-confirms-it-will-drop-news-sharing-in-canada-under-bill-c-18/ https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/03/the-consequence-of-manda...) this solution could provide a better monetization mechanism. A tertiary benefit is that there is no need for a ponzi-like investing scheme through such a method.

mjr00 4y ago

Artists have been poor forever. There's a reason the expression is "starving artist" and not "well-fed artist." It's also easier than ever now for an independent artist to make money. Patreon, Fanbox, Skeb have vastly simplified the logistics of getting money for your work. Promotion through social media is free, though time-consuming. The problem is the same as it always was: artists want to focus on creating art, and not running a business. If I told you I was going to make a software company, with the expectation of a livable salary, but spend $0 on sales, marketing, or customer support, you'd call me an idiot, because there's a lot more to a software business than churning out code. Similarly, there's a lot more to making a living as an artist than drawing pictures or creating music. Ironically, NFTs were most successful with people who already understood all this. Unscrupulous people like Steve Aoki aggressively marketed their own NFTs using their existing brand power and made a hefty sum, while your dime-a-dozen 10k Twitter follower artist got nothing.

grugagag 4y ago
In an ideal world you’d do what you are best at. If that was churning useful code then be it. If that was selling that code without needing to churn code yourself then be it. It’s unfortunate we can’t collaborate with eachother without stealing eachother’s livelyhood.
- mjr00 4y ago
  Aren't you just describing a business? Maybe even a startup specifically, with a CTO who's great at building things and a CEO who's great at selling them? I don't really see how that's stealing each other's livelihood; neither of those people can be successful without the other.
flockonus 4y ago
> while your dime-a-dozen 10k Twitter follower artist got nothing Very condescending and, at the same time, not true at all. Many existing artists did much better in revenue than ever in the way of getting paid for their craft during the rise of NFTs, there were many spaces where artists would brag about their success and help onboard others into the space, often paying their transaction fees. For many of the small audience artists it's very sad the momentum faded, and the spring of generative AI doesn't help them either.

delecti 4y ago

On the contrary, I'm glad to see the death of yet another scam targeting artists. People might have been trying to convince artists it could provide revenue, but I don't believe many of those people were themselves artists. It felt very much like "here you go, use this technology, we know best", because from the very start of the scam I saw artists unambiguously asserting they wanted no part in it, but lots of art being wrapped up in NFTs without permission.

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 4y ago

As someone who still knows a number of professional Illustrators I highly suggest talking to artists about this topic then for once, both hobby and professional. Actually talk to a few artists and you will quickly find a number of them who were already hurt by NFTs via art theft or spam and scam. NFTs and the guys pushing them were only out to hurt artists and exploit them, and nothing else. If they weren't out to scam them, they were out there just stealing the art. It was not "a nice idea" and the fact that people still try to tie them to "but what about the artists" narrative is a disgrace. I'm sorry, but there is no "but" here. Yes something for artists would be nice, everyone agrees. NFTs were never that, not even a little bit. It was not "an attempt to provide artists with revenue", it was an attempt to use artists for revenue. You make a difference between what you say, and the people cheering for NFTs, but the whole "yeah but what if it works" or "yeah but wouldn't it be nice if..." angle is exactly the type of crowbar all the cryptocurrency/NFT scammers used and still use to stay relevant.

LegitShady 4y ago
The artists don't matter. The art on the bored ape whatever was never the value. Artists pushing crypto are just looking to grift off their fanbase and are either stupid or malicious - in both cases reason for normal people to stay away.

mattdesl 4y ago

Most artists using NFTs for revenue are not using IG, so are unaffected by this news. This is dead in the water in any app, anyways. Apple charges 30% fee on all in-app NFT sales, and on top of that Apple ToS prohibits any “functional” use of NFT tech in their apps. [1] [1] https://twitter.com/wongmjane/status/1584609845570768897?s=20 https://twitter.com/wongmjane/status/1584609845570768897?s=2...

DonHopkins 4y ago
Thanks, Apple! No, seriously.
- mattdesl 4y ago
  Hooray for tech monopolies prohibiting the use of open source payment protocols and continuing to force a ridiculous rent on users and developers? Typical HN view, at least.
  - DonHopkins 4y ago
    Thanks for nipping scams in the bud, and thanks for crushing Flash, Apple!