ctruss53 t1_j19908u wrote
NFT's are the 21st century version of snake oil.
tehtris t1_j19aab2 wrote
NFTs can be used in a meaningful way, but no one seems to be doing it. The technology is sound, but the execution is trash so far.
If it can be defeated by right click -> save as, you do not own it.
You have more ownership of software with DRM.
But go on about your hideous ape avitar.
phishtrader t1_j19veb0 wrote
>NFTs can be used in a meaningful way, but no one seems to be doing it.
Such as?
tehtris t1_j19ze8j wrote
One thing that I never see anyone doing is making NFTs actual items in a game. Imagine if a pokemon was an nft or that rare longsword that dropped was an nft. That would make an NFT more like a physical object in the sense that "I own this and only I can use it."
UncontrolableUrge t1_j1aph3a wrote
How does that improve on asset servers that gaming companies already operate? You don't need an NFT to link an account to an asset.
ImActuallyGaryBusey t1_j19ar7m wrote
Really? I honestly haven't seen an NFT that doesn't do exactly what it promises, but to be fair i don't follow them too extensively. If some people don't like them, then that's fair, but it doesn't make them a scam. Can you please elaborate on what you think makes them "snake oil"
ctruss53 t1_j19cmld wrote
Here is the scam.
Lets say an artist puts out a song and sells it to you as an NFT. Yes, that NFT you bought is encoded, you are not supposed to be able to copy it, and share it, so you paid extra for it because of that.
Well, the artist that wrote and performed the song still owns the song, so there is nothing stopping them from performing it again and selling an NFT of the same song to someone else willing to overpay for it.
You just paid extra to own something there is supposed to be 1 or a limited number of, but the artist can create more just like it.
So people claim NFTs are just like cryptocurrency in the fact that the coding limits the number of a given NFT, when there is nothing stopping the artist from creating more, lowering the value of what you just paid for.
Scam
ImActuallyGaryBusey t1_j19edfv wrote
I am confused here. How is this any different than selling physical cd's or digital copies? If i buy i cd, that doesn't give me exclusive rights to the music on it either. Are musicans charging extra for the nft version of a song that is cheaper if you buy it normally on itunes or whatever? I thought they were selling their music exclusively via nfts at regular price.
ctruss53 t1_j19inay wrote
Because the whole selling point behind an NFT is it is supposed to be unique or limited production. They make 1 or some and that is it. Which makes them more valuable.
But the artist can just release more when they want more money, thus reducing the value of the one you already bought when they claimed that was all they would release.
ImActuallyGaryBusey t1_j19k0oh wrote
It sounds more like the artist is the scammer then, not the nft itself. Shame on any musician who abuses the trust of their fans
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j1a4vor wrote
Exactly, I don't know why they think we should be held accountable for the actions of dishonest people. I understand that most of the things that transcend to the general public are negative, but I feel bad that they point this way to all the honest people that participate in the sector.
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j199nux wrote
But why do you think it's a scam to market your songs through NFTs? It's a way that hundreds of artists are already getting paid fairly for their work. It has nothing to do with monkeys or anything like that, you buy these NFTs because you like the artist's music and want to support them. I understand that you have a bad image of NFTs, but this is something that benefits the artists.
silkalmondvanilla t1_j19ebjh wrote
If this is just about supporting artists you don't need and nft to do it. You can buy their songs on bandcamp, iTunes, etc.
2021 called and wants its article back.
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j19fct6 wrote
In this post we have not been able to get pictures, but in substack's post we have a graph showing how the money generated by digital content is distributed in a major way.
"If a customer downloads a $9.99 album, the iTunes percentage to artists would likely be a modest $.94 cents - less than a 10% cut. The record company might take $5.35 and Apple would keep the remaining $3.70" from "https://investinganswers.com/articles/who-really-profits-your-itunes-downloads" .
If this is really about helping artists, I'm sure if you do a little more research on the subject, even if you agree/disagree, you'll see the point.
TheBadgerLord t1_j19ah2l wrote
Nobody should buy NFTs. There is literally no actual value to it and it's been proved to be a con many many many times, despite the fact that environmentally anything like that is just an absolute mess. NFTs need to go the way of Betamax, and quickly.
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j19cbpw wrote
Blockchain is relatively new and there is room for improvement. The aspect of energy being wasted with NFTs is a thing of the past as 99.9% of the energy consumption needed to create NFTs has been reduced.
I will not deny that there are thousands of scams in the NFT sector, but the music sector is not a category where you see too many scams. If you buy music from an artist (through NFTs) you do it to support the artist and have something special from him.
There is very little speculation with the buying and selling of songs, if you are an artist I recommend that you inform yourself about how other artists are doing it to take into account all the possibilities when it comes to monetizing your work. Although this is just my opinion, I understand that it is something that is not made for everyone.
ImActuallyGaryBusey t1_j19b05c wrote
Which NFTs were proven to be cons? As a musician with limited crypto knowledge I'd like to research this a little more
urkish t1_j19chm0 wrote
Here's a good 2-hour start.
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j19crg4 wrote
In our substack we have a post in which we talk about the same topic and make a timeline of an interview that took place yesterday to two artists who distribute their songs exclusively through NFTs. I think it would be good for you to listen to the parts that interest you the most and from there you can find other artists on Twitter that are using this strategy.
TheBadgerLord t1_j19f5uf wrote
No thank you. There are a huge amount of viable and real investments available that provide a tangible ROI and don't carry the same risk.
The reason I'm continuing to reply is that wherever people push NFTs in order to profit from people holding the bag, I want there to at least be a counter point of view. I know full well that musicians struggle monetising their creativity, but this is not the way to remedy that, in the same way that highway robbery isnt.
NFTs need to be left alone to continue to die off.
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j19ge36 wrote
At no time of using the NFTs that create artist as a form of investment, you should not make this type of purchase with the intention of monetizing the money spent, it would not make sense to do something like that.
There are companies that are approaching artists to help them monetize their music in a fairer way, I do not know if it will work or not, if in 20 years it will still be used, but it is something that seems interesting to me and it is worth to continue talking about the different options that exist.
I'm not saying this to spam my substack, but in it I have published this same article accompanied by a timeline of a program in which two artists who monetize their content through NFTs have been interviewed. It tells the dynamics they do to interact with their community, the concerts they have done, how their fans are, the music drops they perform...it's quite interesting to know.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments