5 ms·

That is absolutely not true, you can pay digital artists with any payment method.

mattdesl 3y ago
Like using PayPal, Patreon or Bandcamp, which take up to 10-15% cut? Why would any artist opt for crypto’s 0-3% fees when we have such attractive payment systems already in place! /s [1] https://twitter.com/mattdesl/status/1671138742172631040?s=20 https://twitter.com/mattdesl/status/1671138742172631040?s=20
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > like using PayPal, Patreon or Bandcamp, which take up to 10-15% cut Have you bought art? I paid via wire, which was free on my end and less than a basis point for the receiver. If you're paying 10+ percent, you're paying for an auctioneer to juice the price, you're small fry or you're an idiot. The only potent expansion there are the small fry, because many of those feed a whale. Here, again, I'm challenged to understand why payment in exchange for a song download or merchandise offer is inferior to a glorified sticker. There is simply no need to bundle these problems: small payments and artist compensation. Particularly with a solution that's rotten at each on its own. The Million Dollar Homepage [1] looks rational next to NFTs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Million_Dollar_Homepage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Million_Dollar_Homepage
  - mattdesl 3y ago
    Yes; I’m an artist, selling print and digital work for many years now. I also have bought and acquired art through galleries, auction houses, online platforms, artist websites, and now NFTs. I’m not sure why you have a hard time with the concept of tokenization; but artists typically lose a significant portion of revenue to more traditional systems. A trad gallery’s 30-50% fees, or Bandcamp and Patreon’s 10-15% fees are significant compared to crypto art’s 0-2.5% fees.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > 10-15% fees in Bandcamp and Patreon are significant compared to crypto art’s 0-2.5% fees These are different services. Artists don't pay galleries to process a payment, they pay them for distribution. If you're distributing your own art, why on earth are you selling through Bandcamp or Patreon? Just take payment directly. (Including via crypto.) Crypto art markets do have value in that they're a collection of buyers who place artistic value on buying NFTs. That's fine. But it's a solution for accessing those buyers. Not anything in general. It's a better gallery for a particular audience.
      - mattdesl 3y ago
        Most crypto art platforms also act as distribution platforms, akin to Bandcamp in this way. Look at fxhash[1] and Verse[2] which have a 2.5% fee. [1] https://www.fxhash.xyz https://www.fxhash.xyz [2] https://verse.works https://verse.works
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        Got it. And not arguing those marketplaces have no value. Just that the value of NFTs is not in "paying digital artists." It's in, well, being digital art. If you're making digital art, crypto art markets are your solution. It's circular, but that's fine--it's art. If you're not making digital art, tagging on an NFT doesn't help you get paid. You might find distribution advantages by doing that, but that's because you changed the thing you're making--e.g. a song into a digital art piece--in a way that appeals to a group of buyers who congregate on crypto art marketplaces. By absurd analogy, suppose there was a trend of buying art slathered in mayo. There's an eclectic group in Miami, and they just love mayo art. When asked what purpose the mayonnaise serves, one artist replies "it helps us get paid." Which is sort of true. The dry work was more difficult to sell; the dripping one isn't. But that's not quite the answer. The mayonnaised art sells because there are people who like mayo on their art. (And to induce people to buy mayonnaise art, a mayo art dealer may very well charge lower gallery fees. Particularly if there's more competition.)
        3y ago
- saint_yossarian 3y ago
  In the case of Bandcamp, that 10% includes hosting the actual music. Which you still need with NFTs anyway, as far as I understand.
  - mattdesl 3y ago
    True, but I suspect hosting is a small fraction of that 10%, and users would likely opt for lower fees if given the choice of IPFS or Arweave (how most NFT platforms distribute media).

Like using PayPal, Patreon or Bandcamp, which take up to 10-15% cut? Why would any artist opt for crypto’s 0-3% fees when we have such attractive payment systems already in place! /s [1] https://twitter.com/mattdesl/status/1671138742172631040?s=20 https://twitter.com/mattdesl/status/1671138742172631040?s=20

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> like using PayPal, Patreon or Bandcamp, which take up to 10-15% cut Have you bought art? I paid via wire, which was free on my end and less than a basis point for the receiver. If you're paying 10+ percent, you're paying for an auctioneer to juice the price, you're small fry or you're an idiot. The only potent expansion there are the small fry, because many of those feed a whale. Here, again, I'm challenged to understand why payment in exchange for a song download or merchandise offer is inferior to a glorified sticker. There is simply no need to bundle these problems: small payments and artist compensation. Particularly with a solution that's rotten at each on its own. The Million Dollar Homepage [1] looks rational next to NFTs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Million_Dollar_Homepage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Million_Dollar_Homepage
- mattdesl 3y ago
  Yes; I’m an artist, selling print and digital work for many years now. I also have bought and acquired art through galleries, auction houses, online platforms, artist websites, and now NFTs. I’m not sure why you have a hard time with the concept of tokenization; but artists typically lose a significant portion of revenue to more traditional systems. A trad gallery’s 30-50% fees, or Bandcamp and Patreon’s 10-15% fees are significant compared to crypto art’s 0-2.5% fees.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > 10-15% fees in Bandcamp and Patreon are significant compared to crypto art’s 0-2.5% fees These are different services. Artists don't pay galleries to process a payment, they pay them for distribution. If you're distributing your own art, why on earth are you selling through Bandcamp or Patreon? Just take payment directly. (Including via crypto.) Crypto art markets do have value in that they're a collection of buyers who place artistic value on buying NFTs. That's fine. But it's a solution for accessing those buyers. Not anything in general. It's a better gallery for a particular audience.
    - mattdesl 3y ago
      Most crypto art platforms also act as distribution platforms, akin to Bandcamp in this way. Look at fxhash[1] and Verse[2] which have a 2.5% fee. [1] https://www.fxhash.xyz https://www.fxhash.xyz [2] https://verse.works https://verse.works
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        Got it. And not arguing those marketplaces have no value. Just that the value of NFTs is not in "paying digital artists." It's in, well, being digital art. If you're making digital art, crypto art markets are your solution. It's circular, but that's fine--it's art. If you're not making digital art, tagging on an NFT doesn't help you get paid. You might find distribution advantages by doing that, but that's because you changed the thing you're making--e.g. a song into a digital art piece--in a way that appeals to a group of buyers who congregate on crypto art marketplaces. By absurd analogy, suppose there was a trend of buying art slathered in mayo. There's an eclectic group in Miami, and they just love mayo art. When asked what purpose the mayonnaise serves, one artist replies "it helps us get paid." Which is sort of true. The dry work was more difficult to sell; the dripping one isn't. But that's not quite the answer. The mayonnaised art sells because there are people who like mayo on their art. (And to induce people to buy mayonnaise art, a mayo art dealer may very well charge lower gallery fees. Particularly if there's more competition.)
        3y ago
saint_yossarian 3y ago
In the case of Bandcamp, that 10% includes hosting the actual music. Which you still need with NFTs anyway, as far as I understand.
- mattdesl 3y ago
  True, but I suspect hosting is a small fraction of that 10%, and users would likely opt for lower fees if given the choice of IPFS or Arweave (how most NFT platforms distribute media).