4 ms·

Your analogy is indeed absurd and irrelevant. NFT and blockchain is not specific to digital artists; you'll find illustrators, photographers, sculptors, painter

Your analogy is indeed absurd and irrelevant. NFT and blockchain is not specific to digital artists; you'll find illustrators, photographers, sculptors, painters, poets, performance artists, and many others using the technology "to get paid." Simply put: one of the values of this technology is that it offers a novel, open source, and often lower fee mechanism for "paying (and supporting) artists."

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> you'll find illustrators, photographers, sculptors, painters, poets, performance artists, and many others using the technology "to get paid.” What’s an example where the point of adding NFTs wasn’t to sell to people who like buying things related to NFTs? Where not only regular money transmission doesn’t work, but crypto, too, is insufficient? The fact that the NFT is added to a physical painting or performance ticket (or the privilege of sponsoring one) is entirely separate from the work itself. That some people will pay more for the bundle is a valid market. But it’s still mayo.
- mattdesl 3y ago
  For many artists, the NFT acts as a certificate of authenticity, akin to Sol LeWitt's signed certificates[1]. It's certainly possible to manage these with mere pen and paper, but in today's digital age there are benefits to using a digital certificate. And in the context of art certificates, there are benefits to using open source standards (ERC-721, i.e. NFT) that can span across many platforms and systems, rather than centralised standards that would typically be upheld by Sotheby's, Christie's, or the artist themselves. And, there are cases where "just crypto" will suffice, like a direct wallet-to-wallet transfer of USDC on a L2 for a physical work—and this is another way of paying artists that Google Play can and should be able to support in their apps. The fees and settlement times are often superior to traditional infra (even Wise). But this transaction comes with no provenance and transfer of ownership, which is one of the selling points of NFT. [1] https://harvardartmuseums.org/collections/object/171166 https://harvardartmuseums.org/collections/object/171166

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> you'll find illustrators, photographers, sculptors, painters, poets, performance artists, and many others using the technology "to get paid.” What’s an example where the point of adding NFTs wasn’t to sell to people who like buying things related to NFTs? Where not only regular money transmission doesn’t work, but crypto, too, is insufficient? The fact that the NFT is added to a physical painting or performance ticket (or the privilege of sponsoring one) is entirely separate from the work itself. That some people will pay more for the bundle is a valid market. But it’s still mayo.

mattdesl 3y ago
For many artists, the NFT acts as a certificate of authenticity, akin to Sol LeWitt's signed certificates[1]. It's certainly possible to manage these with mere pen and paper, but in today's digital age there are benefits to using a digital certificate. And in the context of art certificates, there are benefits to using open source standards (ERC-721, i.e. NFT) that can span across many platforms and systems, rather than centralised standards that would typically be upheld by Sotheby's, Christie's, or the artist themselves. And, there are cases where "just crypto" will suffice, like a direct wallet-to-wallet transfer of USDC on a L2 for a physical work—and this is another way of paying artists that Google Play can and should be able to support in their apps. The fees and settlement times are often superior to traditional infra (even Wise). But this transaction comes with no provenance and transfer of ownership, which is one of the selling points of NFT. [1] https://harvardartmuseums.org/collections/object/171166 https://harvardartmuseums.org/collections/object/171166