Visa Buys CryptoPunk #7610(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Visa Buys CryptoPunk #7610
https://twitter.com/VisaNews/status/1429745230023208969
136 comments
Thanks for the suggestion. Any tips on how or where to find these communities?
https://www.notboring.co/p/solana-summer
is a good article for this crowd.
Besides Avalanche and ethereum, look at Cardano and Solana which are both having their moment (along with Avalanche) the last couple weeks.
is a good article for this crowd.
Besides Avalanche and ethereum, look at Cardano and Solana which are both having their moment (along with Avalanche) the last couple weeks.
Any pointers to projects doing/enabling microtransactions in crypto?
Yeah, I'd like to jump on that bandwagon, if you have any leads please share them. Best.
You can go down the list of projects on https://coingecko.com/ and they always need devs. Every project in crypto is remote-OK ("decentralized").
I know one of the people doing https://dxdao.eth.link/ DXDao is a collective of devs that work to build decentralized applications ("Dapps"). The decentralized treasury (~$30million USD) funds proposals that anyone can make. They do weekly calls. You can just join their Keybase and start contributing and earning for your efforts. There is no CEO or hierarchy and you can work your own hours and your own pace.
I know one of the people doing https://dxdao.eth.link/ DXDao is a collective of devs that work to build decentralized applications ("Dapps"). The decentralized treasury (~$30million USD) funds proposals that anyone can make. They do weekly calls. You can just join their Keybase and start contributing and earning for your efforts. There is no CEO or hierarchy and you can work your own hours and your own pace.
thank you for responding with this info. i had no idea dxdao even existed and now this will be my first answer to any curious devs!
I find their explanation so strange… they are adding it to their “collection of historic commerce artifacts”? Do they run a financial network or a museum?
If I were a shareholder, I would not be happy with this move.
If I were a shareholder, I would not be happy with this move.
It's $150,000~ that is not even a error on Visa's accounting budget.
Yeah I’m just saying out of principle it seems like a ridiculous move.
It’s called brand marketing. Here we are talking about it.
Who is their target market exactly?
IME (at least in Europe) you get either Visa or Mastercard depending on what your bank uses, and I don't think there are any differences.
IME (at least in Europe) you get either Visa or Mastercard depending on what your bank uses, and I don't think there are any differences.
Two tweets down, they posted:
> Curious about NFTs and how to integrate them in your brand strategy?
And then there's a link taking you to a page called:
> NTFs: Engaging Today’s Fans in Crypto and Commerce
> Curious about NFTs and how to integrate them in your brand strategy?
And then there's a link taking you to a page called:
> NTFs: Engaging Today’s Fans in Crypto and Commerce
Yeah, it's marketing now. And later, it will be used/loaned for seemingly academic articles/exhibits about commerce and crypto sponsored by Visa.
It could be seen as legitimizing crypto as money, which represents an existential threat to VISA's entire business model.
In that case you'd be horrified to learn what some large listed companies spend on their historical museums.
It's a marketing move that cost them $150k and will get them talked about, featured in many publications, and seen as "hip".
You mean it’s an investment of 150k that will likely be worth 1M by the end of the year, AND makes them seem hip.
I think it's pretty common for major companies to have an archive of industry milestones (like the Honda Collection Hall). Plus what they paid for this NFT is probably cheap for the PR they get in return, positioning them as a hip crypto player instead of a stogy old payment processing company.
>Deutsche Bank Will Sell Off 200 Modern Works From Its Corporate Collection to Pivot Its Focus to Contemporary Art
>The bank, which says it wants to buy more "up-and-coming talents," bought several works at Frieze London.
https://news.artnet.com/market/sale-deutsche-bank-1914074
>The bank, which says it wants to buy more "up-and-coming talents," bought several works at Frieze London.
https://news.artnet.com/market/sale-deutsche-bank-1914074
Lots of companies seem to spend money on non-business related things, so there seem to be some provisions for that in the usual shareholder agreements?
Many art exhibitions seem to be sponsored by financial institutions, for example.
Many art exhibitions seem to be sponsored by financial institutions, for example.
It's a form of marketing/advertising.
If it pumps their stock, why would shareholder be not happy about it.
It's wild to me the top comments on HN are still "crypto has no actual use case," despite the literal billions of actual dollars ($) being transacted every day through projects like Uniswap, Axie Inifinity (a video game), and the plethora of DeFi apps and NFT projects out there.
Despite the massive UX problems that still exist.
It's willful ignorance at this point. Like, I get it, I was a crypto skeptic for a good while, I still think Bitcoin on its own is massively over-valued and doesn't actually accomplish it's original stated goals. But we're way past Bitcoin at this point, the evolution has been neck-breaking in speed. At this point, it's pretty obvious what problems it solves if you actually take an hour to earnestly learn about what's in the space (especially outside of finance).
If your best take on it is "it's all a scam", I highly encourage you to crack open some blog articles and actually explore some projects before writing off what I'm 100% confident at this point is the future of the internet.
Despite the massive UX problems that still exist.
It's willful ignorance at this point. Like, I get it, I was a crypto skeptic for a good while, I still think Bitcoin on its own is massively over-valued and doesn't actually accomplish it's original stated goals. But we're way past Bitcoin at this point, the evolution has been neck-breaking in speed. At this point, it's pretty obvious what problems it solves if you actually take an hour to earnestly learn about what's in the space (especially outside of finance).
If your best take on it is "it's all a scam", I highly encourage you to crack open some blog articles and actually explore some projects before writing off what I'm 100% confident at this point is the future of the internet.
Please enlighten us: provide resources
I am sure the HN community will be open to actual proof - not marketing material please
Note: The fact that this comment was downvoted says something
I am sure the HN community will be open to actual proof - not marketing material please
Note: The fact that this comment was downvoted says something
Best resources I found for understanding Decentralized Finance (Which I think is the most interesting thing in decentralization right now, from a tech perspective)
Finematics on Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/c/finematics
Bankless Podcast - http://podcast.banklesshq.com/
Modern Finance (by Kevin Rose, also covers NFT's a lot) - https://modern.finance/
Finematics on Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/c/finematics
Bankless Podcast - http://podcast.banklesshq.com/
Modern Finance (by Kevin Rose, also covers NFT's a lot) - https://modern.finance/
an example of an interesting article from today
https://www.notboring.co/p/solana-summer
the fourth picture down (the TPS Chart) probably has every current relevant name on it, from a current size and momentum perspective. binance smart chain, cardano, solana, avalanche, polkadot are all locked in a battle to dethrone ethereum. Now its a question of what wins, the incumbent, the fastest mover, the most advanced tech, the shiniest, the most colorful, the coolest name, the loudest. If/when multiple survive in the long run, which niche do they each occupy.
https://www.notboring.co/p/solana-summer
the fourth picture down (the TPS Chart) probably has every current relevant name on it, from a current size and momentum perspective. binance smart chain, cardano, solana, avalanche, polkadot are all locked in a battle to dethrone ethereum. Now its a question of what wins, the incumbent, the fastest mover, the most advanced tech, the shiniest, the most colorful, the coolest name, the loudest. If/when multiple survive in the long run, which niche do they each occupy.
I highly believe this space is moving to the metaverse too, and many non-believers are going to get a reality check in the future.
As someone who has spent a lot of time (15 years? Maybe more?) looking at “next gen” / mobile electronic payments, I find it amusing that the crypto crowd looks at Visa and MasterCard as the ultimate form of endorsement and embrace.
Visa has the highest profit margin of any company among the largest 100 companies in the world — 49%, which is a significant leap over #2 (which might be MasterCard, at 41% — I forget if there’s anyone between them). When these guys give you a high five and want in on the game, you’re probably making the electronic payments landscape less efficient, not more.
Visa has the highest profit margin of any company among the largest 100 companies in the world — 49%, which is a significant leap over #2 (which might be MasterCard, at 41% — I forget if there’s anyone between them). When these guys give you a high five and want in on the game, you’re probably making the electronic payments landscape less efficient, not more.
>I find it amusing that the crypto crowd looks at Visa and MasterCard as the ultimate form of endorsement
They don't. It's the non crypto crowd who do that. The crypto crowd look at them as the dinosaurs that need replacing, as the gatekeepers who can decide who can and cannot have access to online payments.
For someone who has spent a lot of time looking at next gen payment options you seem to have missed the woods for the trees.
They don't. It's the non crypto crowd who do that. The crypto crowd look at them as the dinosaurs that need replacing, as the gatekeepers who can decide who can and cannot have access to online payments.
For someone who has spent a lot of time looking at next gen payment options you seem to have missed the woods for the trees.
Somewhere, a CryptoKitties owner is crying.
Andy Warhol's Marilyn artwork isn't anything interesting for me, but it's clearly represents a point in art history. I can't value NFT's as long as they're digital only, non-fungibility does not create value all by itself IMO, but I understand the historical aspects of a CryptoPunk. So Visa is the first to do it in corporate world and that's a thing, but anyone following won't get the historical mention, Visa gets that.
Andy Warhol's Marilyn artwork isn't anything interesting for me, but it's clearly represents a point in art history. I can't value NFT's as long as they're digital only, non-fungibility does not create value all by itself IMO, but I understand the historical aspects of a CryptoPunk. So Visa is the first to do it in corporate world and that's a thing, but anyone following won't get the historical mention, Visa gets that.
It seems strange to state in one paragraph both that (a) art can have value simply because it represents a point in art history and that (b) NFTs can't hold value as long as they're digital-only. Because, there's nothing about being digital-only which makes it so that they cannot represent a point in art history.
Would you go to Louvre to see Mona Lisa if you have an atom-by-atom identical copy at home? How much would you pay for the original? What is "original" in this case? Which ship of Theseus is the original one?
I don't say, as art, some NFTs are not pretty. I just say they don't represent the same value (for me) as some people think. A CryptoPunk does not have a physical representation, so the one you and I see on our screens are both the same, the original one. I can already see the original whenever I want by just visiting Visa's tweet.
A CryptoPunk, especially the one Visa bought, clearly is history. But that does not apply to other NFTs, others are ordinary JPEGs.
I don't say, as art, some NFTs are not pretty. I just say they don't represent the same value (for me) as some people think. A CryptoPunk does not have a physical representation, so the one you and I see on our screens are both the same, the original one. I can already see the original whenever I want by just visiting Visa's tweet.
A CryptoPunk, especially the one Visa bought, clearly is history. But that does not apply to other NFTs, others are ordinary JPEGs.
Many museums are in fact showing fakes. Seems that people don't care as long as they know there's only one official version of it hanging somewhere, even if that's not the original. I think that's analogous to owning the one NFT that was officially minted by the work's creator, even when there's infinite digital copies of the work possible.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90170415/so-many-museums-are-fil...
https://www.fastcompany.com/90170415/so-many-museums-are-fil...
I wouldn't say that people don't care because they know there's only one official version of it hanging somewhere.
I think it's more so that people don't know that they're looking at a fake. I would be surprised if you told someone that the painting they're looking at is fake and they're response is "oh I don't care". I'm sure they'd be at least a bit disappointed.
I think it's more so that people don't know that they're looking at a fake. I would be surprised if you told someone that the painting they're looking at is fake and they're response is "oh I don't care". I'm sure they'd be at least a bit disappointed.
>Would you go to Louvre to see Mona Lisa if you have an atom-by-atom identical copy at home? How much would you pay for the original? What is "original" in this case? Which ship of Theseus is the original one?
I am certain that if there was a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa, the original would retain most of its value. I don't really understand why this is the case, but I do understand that it is the case.
I am certain that if there was a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa, the original would retain most of its value. I don't really understand why this is the case, but I do understand that it is the case.
I'll take a stab at this.
The value for me is in knowing that I am standing in front of the same canvas that Da Vinci stood in front of. It's similar to going to a historical site and standing where history you've heard about was made and seeing/hearing/smelling something of what the people who made it did. It builds a sense of human connection, a shared experience, and makes something you "know" to be real "feel" more real.
Da Vinci never stood in front of the "atom for atom copy" of the Mona Lisa, and generations have not come from around the world to see it. We're receiving the same visual stimulus, but the ability to participate in the human connection is reduced because we know it's a copy. (Worth noting that if we didn't know it was a copy, then this wouldn't be a problem.)
The value for me is in knowing that I am standing in front of the same canvas that Da Vinci stood in front of. It's similar to going to a historical site and standing where history you've heard about was made and seeing/hearing/smelling something of what the people who made it did. It builds a sense of human connection, a shared experience, and makes something you "know" to be real "feel" more real.
Da Vinci never stood in front of the "atom for atom copy" of the Mona Lisa, and generations have not come from around the world to see it. We're receiving the same visual stimulus, but the ability to participate in the human connection is reduced because we know it's a copy. (Worth noting that if we didn't know it was a copy, then this wouldn't be a problem.)
I agree with this - it's the human connection that does it for me. As someone else already mentioned, seeing the brush strokes on the canvas and knowing that the physical thing in front of me was crafted by the hands of the artist however many decades or centuries ago, is a special experience.
Interestingly, when paintings like the Mona Lisa are concealed in those plastic protective containers, that experience is significantly decreased for me. It's strange, but that layer between the canvas and my eyeball has a major effect on my perception.
Interestingly, when paintings like the Mona Lisa are concealed in those plastic protective containers, that experience is significantly decreased for me. It's strange, but that layer between the canvas and my eyeball has a major effect on my perception.
Should check out the currency by Damien hirst. He made a “real” piece of art and a correspondent nft. One of which has to be destroyed at a certain time. I believe most will destroy the physical version. https://www.heni.com/
> Would you go to Louvre to see Mona Lisa if you have an atom-by-atom identical copy at home?
The point is moot, as you can look at super ultra high def scans of many paintings from the comfort of your home.
And you can see more details this way and not pay any museum fees too
The point is moot, as you can look at super ultra high def scans of many paintings from the comfort of your home.
And you can see more details this way and not pay any museum fees too
> The point is moot, as you can look at super ultra high def scans of many paintings from the comfort of your home.
That's a scan, a first-generation analog copy, and thus subject to generation-loss.
CryptoPunks, being 100% digital, can be copied exactly an infinite number of times. If I download the PNG from the URL in the NFT, I have in my possession the exact same thing as the so-called "owner."
The only thing that differentiates the NFT "owner" from anyone else is a bookkeeping entry totally divorced from the infinitely-copyable and publicly-available thing it represents.
That's a scan, a first-generation analog copy, and thus subject to generation-loss.
CryptoPunks, being 100% digital, can be copied exactly an infinite number of times. If I download the PNG from the URL in the NFT, I have in my possession the exact same thing as the so-called "owner."
The only thing that differentiates the NFT "owner" from anyone else is a bookkeeping entry totally divorced from the infinitely-copyable and publicly-available thing it represents.
Any digital scan will never be a 100% accurate re-creation of an original artwork.
Even the best digital display technology can only display a fraction of the human perception, something that pigments are not limited to. Pigments are also physical materials, which can reflect light in drastically different ways, which can only be appreciated in person. Finally, paintings are actually 3 dimensional, with the different brush strokes creating a detailed texture on the canvas (look at a Van Gogh for an extreme example), which won't be accurately depicted in a scan.
Even the best digital display technology can only display a fraction of the human perception, something that pigments are not limited to. Pigments are also physical materials, which can reflect light in drastically different ways, which can only be appreciated in person. Finally, paintings are actually 3 dimensional, with the different brush strokes creating a detailed texture on the canvas (look at a Van Gogh for an extreme example), which won't be accurately depicted in a scan.
From what I've seen though, notable works have only gained notoriety _because_ they're NFTs. Beyond that, CryptoPunks/CrytpoKitties aren't really artistically interesting at all.
You don't see this as Andy Warhol's concepts taken to their logical conclusion?
I do.
I do.
Well, congratulations to those NFT scammers, it finally paid off. They got their Whale. The entire game of pumping up NFTs to try and pass them off as a useful tool that'll see widespread adoption has finally paid out. This is a small sum of money for Visa to throw away, but this creates a fantastic permission structure for unsophisticated investors to throw away their life savings on a set of worthless e-certificates. Time for me to start minting NFTs to represent ownership of plots of land on Alpha-Centauri.
It's interesting to me, I've never bought a single crypto thing of any type but I look at the speed it's developing and popularity and it reminds me of the internet circa early 2000's when things were moving fast.
The internet nowadays is a bit stale by comparison, crypto seems to be where the action and energy is.
The internet nowadays is a bit stale by comparison, crypto seems to be where the action and energy is.
The internet was really useful back in the days though, even for skeptics. Crypto is still an idea searching for a problem (not discounting the possibility that it won't find one though).
At this point, it seems like pure promotion, marketing & propaganda fueled by social media, a negative externality of the internet itself.
Simple equation: trash in, trash out. But sure, "a man's trash can be another's treasure".
Note: Visa's strategy is a no brainer as a business move. 150k is nothing on their marketing budget to gain exposure & PR targeting generation Z and millennials (future customers). Even if it fails, this acquisition has value as a stance because their customers (young adopters and old investors) want to be "supported", at least ideologically. Ex: "Progressive", "We were on your side, remember?"
I suggest reading their marketing whitepaper: https://usa.visa.com/content/dam/VCOM/regional/na/us/Solutio...
At this point, it seems like pure promotion, marketing & propaganda fueled by social media, a negative externality of the internet itself.
Simple equation: trash in, trash out. But sure, "a man's trash can be another's treasure".
Note: Visa's strategy is a no brainer as a business move. 150k is nothing on their marketing budget to gain exposure & PR targeting generation Z and millennials (future customers). Even if it fails, this acquisition has value as a stance because their customers (young adopters and old investors) want to be "supported", at least ideologically. Ex: "Progressive", "We were on your side, remember?"
I suggest reading their marketing whitepaper: https://usa.visa.com/content/dam/VCOM/regional/na/us/Solutio...
That was the internet in the beginning as well. For the average person in 1996/98/20 computers and the internet did not offer anything.
Today cryto provides the only way to perform a money transaction outside of the censored markets. An example, onlyfans, poor hub decided to ditch a type of content to please visa/mastercard. Cryto would allow society to ignore forced morals on money transactions. If what onlyfans provide is legal visa should not be allowed to shut them down on moral terms.
It may not be useful to you. The internet wasn't useful to most in 1995. It might be more useful in a few years where the masses have joined and the network effect is in place.
I remember when computers were seen as not useful in the 80s.. a toy that could do very little. Things change quickly.
Today cryto provides the only way to perform a money transaction outside of the censored markets. An example, onlyfans, poor hub decided to ditch a type of content to please visa/mastercard. Cryto would allow society to ignore forced morals on money transactions. If what onlyfans provide is legal visa should not be allowed to shut them down on moral terms.
It may not be useful to you. The internet wasn't useful to most in 1995. It might be more useful in a few years where the masses have joined and the network effect is in place.
I remember when computers were seen as not useful in the 80s.. a toy that could do very little. Things change quickly.
Are you suggesting that it is only useful to criminals? I am surprised you did not even mention the poor on 3rd world countries - unless this is too, a marketing stunt by the crypto community.
I didn't mention criminals but I did refer to onlyfans and pornhub which are real businesses in a legal sense but get refused credit card processing because they are taboo topics.
Criminals, the third world, a certain class of the first world all users use it.
Who knows what the future holds but the next few years might be more marketing vs technology improvements in cryto. The problem with adoption is a big one to tackle next and moves like this help.
Criminals, the third world, a certain class of the first world all users use it.
Who knows what the future holds but the next few years might be more marketing vs technology improvements in cryto. The problem with adoption is a big one to tackle next and moves like this help.
prestigious(1)
Not only is this a small sum of money for Visa to throw away, this is a small sum of money for an NFT collector to throw away.
To me most criticism of NFTs is reminiscent of criticisms of modern art. Very few understand the scope of what "non fungible token" means. There are PLENTY of use-cases for a publicly verifiable token issued by a 3rd party and owned by you, other than art, if you just use a little imagination.
To me most criticism of NFTs is reminiscent of criticisms of modern art. Very few understand the scope of what "non fungible token" means. There are PLENTY of use-cases for a publicly verifiable token issued by a 3rd party and owned by you, other than art, if you just use a little imagination.
Mind sharing just one?
Money laundering.
ENS is a DNS alternative that is not controlled by ICANN, where ownership of a name is effectively an NFT.
Why might you want that? See https://www.eff.org/issues/icann
Why might you want that? See https://www.eff.org/issues/icann
Not to mention that IP address blocks are effectively the original NFT.
Concert tickets, where the artist gets a pct of fees on scalping.
Why do you need crypto for that? Just make a standard ticket ecommerce site and add some functionalities for ticket resale.
> Just make a standard ticket ecommerce site and add some functionalities for ticket resale.
A generalized system for selling and validating ownership of digital things makes implementing ticketing easier than building an entire digital ticketing ecommerce site up from scratch.
Ethereum gives you digital wallets, ownership tracking, ownership verification, resale markets via 3rd parties or p2p, and digital wallets natively.
A generalized system for selling and validating ownership of digital things makes implementing ticketing easier than building an entire digital ticketing ecommerce site up from scratch.
Ethereum gives you digital wallets, ownership tracking, ownership verification, resale markets via 3rd parties or p2p, and digital wallets natively.
Can't say I'm a fan of any system that makes ticket scalping easier.
No reason all concert tickets aren't NFTs in the future.
PAXG, each token is a claim to one physical ounce of gold, held by the issuer. Issued by a fully regulated NYC based financial institution.
What happens when the token is lost or destroyed? Is that the only way to claim ownership?
Unlikely you'd be able to redeem it. The token trades on 3rd party exchanges so there's no way to prove you lost it vs sold it. You have a choice between holding the tokens in a wallet vs on their platform (which is how you'd redeem for physical), I'm sure if you're using the latter it's a different story. I don't know for sure though.
sure! think of how we currently use cookies in web2. Imagine being able to issue a unique token that does the same thing, but it's stored on the ethereum blockchain. So it can be traded, sold, bought, etc. And there's no clearing the cache. Only invalidation on the server side.
The possibilities are both horrifying and wonderful.
The possibilities are both horrifying and wonderful.
We already have (digital) ownership that can be publically verified.
And traded permissionlessly? I don't think so..
What's that actually mean in this context?
It means there's not a 3rd party that can prevent the transaction, reverse the transaction, or initiate a new transaction without the current owner's permission.
For example, Steam games can be traded user to user on the platform, but it's all at the whims of Valve. At any moment Valve could shut down, freeze your account, disable trading etc.
For example, Steam games can be traded user to user on the platform, but it's all at the whims of Valve. At any moment Valve could shut down, freeze your account, disable trading etc.
Absent a trusted third-party? Please show us.
Ownership doesn't exist in a vacuum. You need laws and rights, which requires courts to adjudicate and police/military to enforce; and that in turn requires trust in a governing state actor.
For NFTs specifically, you still have to trust whatever chain and transaction says you actually own it. And there's nothing that stops someone else from also claiming they own the original except for the centralized statement of the originating party; nevermind the fact that digital bytes have no "original" anyway.
For NFTs specifically, you still have to trust whatever chain and transaction says you actually own it. And there's nothing that stops someone else from also claiming they own the original except for the centralized statement of the originating party; nevermind the fact that digital bytes have no "original" anyway.
Just like the cloud still runs on physical computers, NFT’s require a trusted 3rd party.
For example crypto art can be uploaded that’s a direct copy of someone else’s artwork. Copyright doesn’t care about the NFT at that point you don’t own the image.
For example crypto art can be uploaded that’s a direct copy of someone else’s artwork. Copyright doesn’t care about the NFT at that point you don’t own the image.
The scammers are skilled at washtrading the prices high and getting attention on social media. Lots of standard salesman/con artist tricks to get people to fomo buy in
But that’s basically all of crypto. The trick is to get out early /s.
"all of crypto" has a soft landing as gold bugs and others diversify trillions into crypto.
NFTs have a soft landing if/as crypto whales diversify into NFTs. Traditionally, collectibles are a much smaller market than commodities and currencies because their uniqueness reduces their liquidity. The "huge" art market ($50B) is dwarfed by precious metals ($10+T).
NFTs have a soft landing if/as crypto whales diversify into NFTs. Traditionally, collectibles are a much smaller market than commodities and currencies because their uniqueness reduces their liquidity. The "huge" art market ($50B) is dwarfed by precious metals ($10+T).
When the US and China both get around to banning crypto (China already started), it's going to be a hard landing.
[deleted]
Would you mind explaining your comment a bit more? NFT "scammers" have made a lot of money recently, and this purchase doesn't at first glance seem such a great moment.
NFTs are worhtless. They don't solve a problem, in fact they create a problem. They're like any other form of verified ownership except that you can't do all the things you want to do, like allowing established 3rd parties to protect the integrity of the market. So how do you make money from NFTs? You trick other people into thinking there's value in NFTs. That is literally the only use- trick someone into paying you for something that's worthless. Now they have a new string to their bow - if Visa say NFTs are legitimate, then they must be valuable right! Better hand my savings over to that scammer for that amazing mediocre peice of digital art. Never mind the fact that $150k is nothing to Visa.
how is a NFT any more arbitrary than a hallmark card?
both are "artistic" to a certain degree, completely useless after the purchase and initial exchange.
both are "artistic" to a certain degree, completely useless after the purchase and initial exchange.
I would contend that a Hallmark card has usefulness after being exchanged.
I can’t hang an NFT in my house. And doing so with Hallmark cards has tangible benefits to my well being. (the joy of seeing a thoughtful card with personal meaning, conversation starter if company is over, etc)
Perhaps something will be invented to reproduce that experience for NFTs, but I haven’t seen it yet.
edit: Format and speeling
I can’t hang an NFT in my house. And doing so with Hallmark cards has tangible benefits to my well being. (the joy of seeing a thoughtful card with personal meaning, conversation starter if company is over, etc)
Perhaps something will be invented to reproduce that experience for NFTs, but I haven’t seen it yet.
edit: Format and speeling
I think someone ordering a print of an expensive NFT they can prove they own is quite realistic.
yeah that’s already a business actually: https://solidnft.com/
I met the founder a few weeks ago. He told me that some of his clients spend a few thousands for a 3x3 meters mural representing a NFT.
I met the founder a few weeks ago. He told me that some of his clients spend a few thousands for a 3x3 meters mural representing a NFT.
It's the digital world now. I've been purchasing and equipping hats in TF2 for a decade. I bought a $300 digital item in 2012; plenty of people called me crazy but hey I see value in exclusivity.
I wouldn't personally buy an NFT for those purposes, but tons of NFT owners buy them to be able to use them as profile pictures. Yes, you can put any arbitrary JPEG as your pfp including an NFT owned by someone else, but it'd feel the same as wearing replicas of branded clothing (and people mostly just don't).
That might not seem as meaningful as hanging them in your house, but I've watched it become that meaningful for a ton of people (as "irrational" as I think both NFTs and Hallmark cards are).
That might not seem as meaningful as hanging them in your house, but I've watched it become that meaningful for a ton of people (as "irrational" as I think both NFTs and Hallmark cards are).
The NFT is sold under the false pretence that is somehow connected with some object of art, when in fact there isn't any such connection. This is what makes NFTs a scam.
Yeah, when I realized you don't actually "own" it through any licenses it made me sour on the whole idea.
Is there a reason why people couldn't be granted a license to do whatever they wanted with an NFT? Seems kind of arbitrary to do so, but I'm sure there's a reason why it's like that.
Is there a reason why people couldn't be granted a license to do whatever they wanted with an NFT? Seems kind of arbitrary to do so, but I'm sure there's a reason why it's like that.
Because anyone can mint an NFT, whether they have a license or not, so it would require a bureaucracy to check the validity of the NFTs, and so on, in other words a central authority. And if the system relies on a central authority then it makes no sense to trade the licenses on a blockchain, as the blockchain only adds an unnecessary step. Skip the blockchain and go directly to the central authority.
Buying a physical painting doesn’t give you any licenses to the artwork itself either. Just because you buy a modern painting at auction for $30 million doesn’t give you rights to start printing T-shirts of the art.
Yes it does. You own the art. (?)
For that price, you're getting all the rights to it in perpetuity.
For that price, you're getting all the rights to it in perpetuity.
That is incorrect. You own the physical piece of art, not the copyright to the art. if I own an original sketch by Charles Shultz of Charlie Brown, that doesn’t give me any rights to the character of Charlie Brown. If an author gives me a handwritten, first draft manuscript of a new novel, I may be able to sell that physical manuscript but it doesn’t give me any rights to the work itself.
You own your BAYC for instance. Man it's like talking to my grandma in here.
I believe all NFTs should be in public domain, in the same spirit as open-source.
recent NFT projects like Nouns[1] and many others have taken this approach!
[1] https://nouns.wtf
recent NFT projects like Nouns[1] and many others have taken this approach!
[1] https://nouns.wtf
https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html
"Legitimacy is a pattern of higher-order acceptance. An outcome in some social context is legitimate if the people in that social context broadly accept and play their part in enacting that outcome, and each individual person does so because they expect everyone else to do the same."
"Legitimacy is a pattern of higher-order acceptance. An outcome in some social context is legitimate if the people in that social context broadly accept and play their part in enacting that outcome, and each individual person does so because they expect everyone else to do the same."
Many artists would disagree.
The token is conceptually tied to the artwork. This is especially true with digital & software-driven work embedded within the blockchain, such as Deafbeef's tokens[1].
These issues are not new to crypto. Plenty of art is only 'conceptually' tied to their distributed editions. For example: an artist or photographer may own a digital master or photographic negative, and from that they may decide to produce and distribute 50 printed and signed editions. The distributed work is valued not because of the material (a piece of paper) or its contents (a rendered image), because it was distributed and signed by the artist's hand. Anybody could photocopy that print to produce the same rendered contents, or even print their own copy if they have access to a high resolution file and inkjet printer, but the copy would be worth no value, because it did not come from the artist's hand.
[1] - https://www.deafbeef.com/
The token is conceptually tied to the artwork. This is especially true with digital & software-driven work embedded within the blockchain, such as Deafbeef's tokens[1].
These issues are not new to crypto. Plenty of art is only 'conceptually' tied to their distributed editions. For example: an artist or photographer may own a digital master or photographic negative, and from that they may decide to produce and distribute 50 printed and signed editions. The distributed work is valued not because of the material (a piece of paper) or its contents (a rendered image), because it was distributed and signed by the artist's hand. Anybody could photocopy that print to produce the same rendered contents, or even print their own copy if they have access to a high resolution file and inkjet printer, but the copy would be worth no value, because it did not come from the artist's hand.
[1] - https://www.deafbeef.com/
> The distributed work is valued not because of the material (a piece of paper) or its contents (a rendered image), because it was distributed and signed by the artist's hand. Anybody could photocopy that print to produce the same rendered contents, or even print their own copy if they have access to a high resolution file and inkjet printer, but the copy would be worth no value, because it did not come from the artist's hand.
But that would require a distribution of NFT in excess of 1.
People are not minting 50 or 500 NFTs which are all the same as in your example.
People are minting 1 NFT and selling it . At that point one person (the buyer) has the original and the rest of people on the internet just screenshots it to have a 1:1 identical piece of art, which are all just the same as the original.
Plus your example also forgets one important element: the scarcity of the time and the social relationships of the artist. The 50 printed and signed editions are considered worthy because the artist had to subtract time from whatever other activity they had planned in order to sign the copies.
Once you make the process of "signing NFTs" automatized (like for example making a transaction on the blockchain via smart contract) the whole magic and scarcity of it disappears.
Maybe you could secure the scarcity by making it expensive for the artist to mint the NFT, but then they'd be the ones protesting and not adopting the tech.
But that would require a distribution of NFT in excess of 1.
People are not minting 50 or 500 NFTs which are all the same as in your example.
People are minting 1 NFT and selling it . At that point one person (the buyer) has the original and the rest of people on the internet just screenshots it to have a 1:1 identical piece of art, which are all just the same as the original.
Plus your example also forgets one important element: the scarcity of the time and the social relationships of the artist. The 50 printed and signed editions are considered worthy because the artist had to subtract time from whatever other activity they had planned in order to sign the copies.
Once you make the process of "signing NFTs" automatized (like for example making a transaction on the blockchain via smart contract) the whole magic and scarcity of it disappears.
Maybe you could secure the scarcity by making it expensive for the artist to mint the NFT, but then they'd be the ones protesting and not adopting the tech.
Some NFTs are distributed as 1/1 (like a single-edition print of a photographic negative), while others are distributed as an edition of 50 or 1000. In the case of platforms like ArtBlocks[1], each edition is itself unique and tied to the transaction hash, hence their tagline "1 of 1 of X."
The buyer holds the token (cryptographically secured to their wallet). Any person can save the JPG that is conceptually tied to the token, but that does not give them ownership over the artistic token (i.e. they cannot transfer it to another wallet).
Part of the challenge here is that it gets to the question of "art ownership" in a digital domain. If you own a JPG, do you own the artwork? According to the artist who is distributing the work as a token, and also according the social consensus of others who are collecting art in this way, the answer is no.
It does take time and fees to deploy to the blockchain, in the same way that it takes time and fees to produce a series of print artworks. My own project (Subscapes[2]) required a significant investment, to upload 17kb of generative art code onto the blockchain.
[1] - https://artblocks.wiki/
[2] - https://mattdesl.substack.com/p/subscapes-part-1-preface
The buyer holds the token (cryptographically secured to their wallet). Any person can save the JPG that is conceptually tied to the token, but that does not give them ownership over the artistic token (i.e. they cannot transfer it to another wallet).
Part of the challenge here is that it gets to the question of "art ownership" in a digital domain. If you own a JPG, do you own the artwork? According to the artist who is distributing the work as a token, and also according the social consensus of others who are collecting art in this way, the answer is no.
It does take time and fees to deploy to the blockchain, in the same way that it takes time and fees to produce a series of print artworks. My own project (Subscapes[2]) required a significant investment, to upload 17kb of generative art code onto the blockchain.
[1] - https://artblocks.wiki/
[2] - https://mattdesl.substack.com/p/subscapes-part-1-preface
> If you own a JPG, do you own the artwork? According to the artist who is distributing the work as a token, and also according the social consensus of others who are collecting art in this way, the answer is no.
But according to the rest of the world the answer is 'Yes'
The rest of the world thinks that in order for something to be considered original that thing has to be hard to replicate
Replicating an NFT is as easy as doing a screenshot or Right clic > 'Save as' . And any random internet user stumbling upon that NFT can do it.
In order to replicate a painting such as the Mona Lisa you need millions of dollars of equipment and millions of dollars to pay experts who'd do so without ruining the sole original, and still won't be the same as the original.
Maybe subtle nuances not even discernible by the human eye, but still after millions of dollars of equipment, millions of man hours you don't have something which is 1:1 as the original Mona Lisa. With NFTs is again as easy as screenshots or Right clic > 'Save as'
But according to the rest of the world the answer is 'Yes'
The rest of the world thinks that in order for something to be considered original that thing has to be hard to replicate
Replicating an NFT is as easy as doing a screenshot or Right clic > 'Save as' . And any random internet user stumbling upon that NFT can do it.
In order to replicate a painting such as the Mona Lisa you need millions of dollars of equipment and millions of dollars to pay experts who'd do so without ruining the sole original, and still won't be the same as the original.
Maybe subtle nuances not even discernible by the human eye, but still after millions of dollars of equipment, millions of man hours you don't have something which is 1:1 as the original Mona Lisa. With NFTs is again as easy as screenshots or Right clic > 'Save as'
> But according to the rest of the world the answer is 'Yes'
It depends who you ask, and when you ask it. The understanding of 'digital ownership' may be shifting, as we can see in real-time with the OP thread, where Visa is making a claim that their ownership over the digital token is distinctly different than their ownership over the digital JPG file (and, apparently, distinct enough that they felt it worth paying a large sum to acquire).
Indeed, anybody can reproduce a JPG by right clicking and saving the image, and there are many valuable artworks in art history that can be reproduced with seemingly little effort — such as all white canvases (Malevich), splashes of paint (Pollock), and handwritten instructions on scrap paper (LeWitt).
And I do not think anybody previous to NFTs would make a claim that they "own" an artist's work because they captured it via "Right Click > Save As."
Another way to view this is: ownership of digital art is not a notion that had much social consensus around it before the advent of NFTs.
It depends who you ask, and when you ask it. The understanding of 'digital ownership' may be shifting, as we can see in real-time with the OP thread, where Visa is making a claim that their ownership over the digital token is distinctly different than their ownership over the digital JPG file (and, apparently, distinct enough that they felt it worth paying a large sum to acquire).
Indeed, anybody can reproduce a JPG by right clicking and saving the image, and there are many valuable artworks in art history that can be reproduced with seemingly little effort — such as all white canvases (Malevich), splashes of paint (Pollock), and handwritten instructions on scrap paper (LeWitt).
And I do not think anybody previous to NFTs would make a claim that they "own" an artist's work because they captured it via "Right Click > Save As."
Another way to view this is: ownership of digital art is not a notion that had much social consensus around it before the advent of NFTs.
> ownership of digital art is not a notion that had much social consensus around it before the advent of NFTs.
I don't mean to disrespect artists but when all is said and done the only question that matters is:
"Will a museum pay me, the owner of the piece of art to have it in their collection, so I can generate passive income from it?"
In the case of real pieces of art the answer is positive.
If this critical component is missing then you are left with a market where you can only sell for profit to an individual bigger fool.
2-D NFTs won't ever pass this test, 3-D NFTs are also in bad shape because museums are a social activity, something the regular person does to shield themselves from the summer heat while at the park with their SO.
Nobody dreams of logging into a 3-D museum , alone in their living while wearing an Oculus.
Art is a real world, social activity. The process of distributing art is a real world, social activity. Blockchain won't change this.
I don't mean to disrespect artists but when all is said and done the only question that matters is:
"Will a museum pay me, the owner of the piece of art to have it in their collection, so I can generate passive income from it?"
In the case of real pieces of art the answer is positive.
If this critical component is missing then you are left with a market where you can only sell for profit to an individual bigger fool.
2-D NFTs won't ever pass this test, 3-D NFTs are also in bad shape because museums are a social activity, something the regular person does to shield themselves from the summer heat while at the park with their SO.
Nobody dreams of logging into a 3-D museum , alone in their living while wearing an Oculus.
Art is a real world, social activity. The process of distributing art is a real world, social activity. Blockchain won't change this.
It sounds like you have decided what you think the future will look like based on your own narrow experience of technology, and are not open to alternative viewpoints.
And to answer your question: museums and institutions have been collecting 2D and 3D digital art, VR, code based art, etc for years. The NFT space provides new technologies that can be used here, and an alternative distribution channel & market for this type of work.
And to answer your question: museums and institutions have been collecting 2D and 3D digital art, VR, code based art, etc for years. The NFT space provides new technologies that can be used here, and an alternative distribution channel & market for this type of work.
> People are not minting 50 or 500 NFTs which are all the same as in your example.
Of course they are. Same as with prints: singular pieces, editions of X, editions of "only available for 48 hours, everyone who buys in that time gets one", ... all are options artists use.
Of course they are. Same as with prints: singular pieces, editions of X, editions of "only available for 48 hours, everyone who buys in that time gets one", ... all are options artists use.
How do these 'conceptual ties' work? For example, suppose I create an NFT of the Eiffel Tower. When and how does that particular NFT become conceptually tied to the Eiffel Tower exactly? I don't understand.
It comes through a combination of the artist's intent ("I am distributing this artwork in the form of a limited series of tokens") and social consensus ("We recognize that the artefact is an artwork, created by the artist").
What you are asking is similar to Found Art. A signed toilet is not "Art" until social consensus decides that it is. An blockchain-signed Eiffel Tower is also not art, unless society says it to be so. Perhaps that will happen at some point in the future (an artist's digital reinterpretation of Found Art) but at present the crypto artworks we are mostly regarding tend to have a more direct relationship with what the artist/creator is producing by hand (or via digital code/software).
It is not much different than a print series, where the artist says the prints signed in pencil are "the artwork", and social consensus decides that only those pieces of paper with the artist's own pencil signature are valuable, instead of a reproduction by a machine or by a forger, even though the reproduction may have the same or similar material qualities.
What you are asking is similar to Found Art. A signed toilet is not "Art" until social consensus decides that it is. An blockchain-signed Eiffel Tower is also not art, unless society says it to be so. Perhaps that will happen at some point in the future (an artist's digital reinterpretation of Found Art) but at present the crypto artworks we are mostly regarding tend to have a more direct relationship with what the artist/creator is producing by hand (or via digital code/software).
It is not much different than a print series, where the artist says the prints signed in pencil are "the artwork", and social consensus decides that only those pieces of paper with the artist's own pencil signature are valuable, instead of a reproduction by a machine or by a forger, even though the reproduction may have the same or similar material qualities.
Thanks for taking the time. My question was about the supposed connection between the NFT and the object of art. You're arguing about what constitutes art, but that wasn't the question. In fact, the object doesn't have to be artistic at all, it can be anything. At any rate, I'm not disputing that the object is "art". I'm questioning that there's a connection between the NFT and the object.
The connection at a technical level depends on the art project and token. For example ArtBlocks tokens are tied to a unique pseudorandom hash that is generated at the time of purchase, and that hash is used as input to the JavaScript software that is embedded within the smart contract in order to produce a matching visual. Autoglyphs does something like that directly in a smart contract without JS. Many 1/1 NFTs act more like hyperlinks to an IPFS hash with the media file for reference. Other art projects on the blockchain may use tokens and smart contracts in different ways.
At a conceptual level, I think the connection is more to do with “this NFT was minted by the artist’s hand (wallet), the same hand that created the artwork it points to.”
At a conceptual level, I think the connection is more to do with “this NFT was minted by the artist’s hand (wallet), the same hand that created the artwork it points to.”
So the alleged connection is a hyperlink (or something to the same effect). And in the case of a physical object, it could be GPS coordinates. Right... therefore the only tie between the NFT and the object it's allegedly tied to is that the NFT contains directions to find the object... but these directions can also be found elsewhere for free. I think it's clear that the only way NFTs can be sold for money is by misrepresenting what NFTs are. Selling NFTs under the pretence that they're more than just directions is dishonest at the very least, if not downright fraud.
A token could be boiled down to a secured record in a distributed ledger ("X wallet owns Y token"). Most artists & collectors in the space understand this; but the mainstream media often mischaracterizes it as "buying JPGs."
Nobody who purchases a CryptoPunk today would expect to receive a JPG or media file of a pixelated avatar in return for their purchase. Rather, they would expect to receive ownership over the token (i.e. record in a distributed ledger). In the case of CryptoPunks, there is not even any "hyperlink" in the NFT – it is just an integer from 0 to 9999, stored within the state of the CryptoPunks contract.[1]
Do they hold ownership over the media file, or pixel artwork? No. Do they hold ownership over a digital token that (according to the project's creator, and according to social consensus) represents part of the CryptoPunks art project? Yes.
[1] - https://etherscan.io/token/0xb47e3cd837ddf8e4c57f05d70ab865d...
Nobody who purchases a CryptoPunk today would expect to receive a JPG or media file of a pixelated avatar in return for their purchase. Rather, they would expect to receive ownership over the token (i.e. record in a distributed ledger). In the case of CryptoPunks, there is not even any "hyperlink" in the NFT – it is just an integer from 0 to 9999, stored within the state of the CryptoPunks contract.[1]
Do they hold ownership over the media file, or pixel artwork? No. Do they hold ownership over a digital token that (according to the project's creator, and according to social consensus) represents part of the CryptoPunks art project? Yes.
[1] - https://etherscan.io/token/0xb47e3cd837ddf8e4c57f05d70ab865d...
> Do they hold ownership over a digital token that (according to the project's creator, and according to social consensus) represents part of the CryptoPunks art project? Yes.
The social consensus says what? Obviously the NFT promoters want the public to believe that the NFT is part of an art collection, and this is why they use this ambiguous language that is intended to create the false impression that the NFT and the piece of art are the same thing or at least are closely connected with one another, and indeed the uneducated public will tend to believe that, but this a belief that is founded upon a lie. Anyone who actually knows what an NFT is is very unlikely to agree that these NFTs are part of an art project or have an artistic intent.
The social consensus says what? Obviously the NFT promoters want the public to believe that the NFT is part of an art collection, and this is why they use this ambiguous language that is intended to create the false impression that the NFT and the piece of art are the same thing or at least are closely connected with one another, and indeed the uneducated public will tend to believe that, but this a belief that is founded upon a lie. Anyone who actually knows what an NFT is is very unlikely to agree that these NFTs are part of an art project or have an artistic intent.
I'm not sure how my language is ambiguous. It's very clear to those participating that buying an NFT does not give you ownership over the intellectual property of the artwork, or even ownership over the image itself, hence the many "Right click Save As" memes[1].
> Anyone who actually knows what an NFT is is very unlikely to agree that these NFTs are part of an art project or have an artistic intent.
This is pretty presumptuous, and also wrong. One such counter-example is ZKM, which began acquiring NFTs in 2018.[2]
[1] - https://superrare.com/artwork/right-click-and-save-as-guy-11...
[2] - https://zkm.de/en/exhibition/2021/04/cryptoart
> Anyone who actually knows what an NFT is is very unlikely to agree that these NFTs are part of an art project or have an artistic intent.
This is pretty presumptuous, and also wrong. One such counter-example is ZKM, which began acquiring NFTs in 2018.[2]
[1] - https://superrare.com/artwork/right-click-and-save-as-guy-11...
[2] - https://zkm.de/en/exhibition/2021/04/cryptoart
Bitcoin crossed 50k (again), US senators are debating cryptocurrency regulation as part of historical legislation, and major global companies like Visa are making moves in the space. Is it possible the HN decade-long dismissal of crypto and blockchain has been totally wrong? Or is HN just a tiny minority of people who are simply smarter and wiser than the US government, Fortune 100 corporations, and hundreds of millions of people who own crypto?
I’m genuinely agnostic on your question, either of those possibilities strike me as roughly equally plausible.
Also, many of those debating and getting their toes wet in crypto are not necessarily predicting it will work, they’re just hedging their bets in case it does. For example I’ve got about 3% of my Investible wealth in crypto. If it tanks to zero I wouldn’t consider myself “wrong”.
Crypto skepticism is still a fairly mainstream position, it’s not unique to HN.
Crypto skepticism is still a fairly mainstream position, it’s not unique to HN.
I’m convinced that crypto will crash and burn, yet I put some money on it because I’m also skeptical of market efficiency and do believe there’s a lot of money to be made in “bad” ideas. I don’t know how mainstream my position is, but I do know a few people who share it.
Does this question presuppose that the US govt, fortune 100 etc, are institutions that can reach a level of intelligence and insight that roaming individuals can't? That's some faith in collective action, if so.
Or the Fortune 100 corporations want to profit of the millions of people who own crypto and want to own crypto.
Might as well mint that comment and call it Old Man Yelling At Clouds #840544564.
This comment applies if you think that art itself is a scam, or that art needs to have "use" outside of perceived financial, social & aesthetic value.
HN does tend to be especially bitter towards Crypto, something that I think will fade with time as it blends into culture without seeming like some "charlatan intruder from elsewhere".
I tend to think the rise of NFT markets represents an inflection point that will only be obvious when we connect the dots looking backwards. Plenty of people reviled Duchamp.
P.s. Please let me know where I can purchase an Alpha-Centauri real-estate NFT
HN does tend to be especially bitter towards Crypto, something that I think will fade with time as it blends into culture without seeming like some "charlatan intruder from elsewhere".
I tend to think the rise of NFT markets represents an inflection point that will only be obvious when we connect the dots looking backwards. Plenty of people reviled Duchamp.
P.s. Please let me know where I can purchase an Alpha-Centauri real-estate NFT
Very disappointing to see a supposedly serious corporation giving legitimacy to such a blatant scam.
> Very disappointing to see a supposedly serious corporation giving legitimacy to such a blatant scam.
This is marketing, and marketing can be one of the less legitimate corporate endeavours (being in most cases literal manipulative propaganda). Serious corporations don't really care what negative externalities they cause, just as long as they don't have to pay for them.
They've bought a little cred with whoever they wanted to impress (be that the crypto kids, or olds painfully trying to be hip).
This is marketing, and marketing can be one of the less legitimate corporate endeavours (being in most cases literal manipulative propaganda). Serious corporations don't really care what negative externalities they cause, just as long as they don't have to pay for them.
They've bought a little cred with whoever they wanted to impress (be that the crypto kids, or olds painfully trying to be hip).
There's a point for me, difficult to define but obvious when seen, where a scam/project becomes SO obviously a scam that I no long feel bad about it. Like "nigerian princes" always felt this way to me.
If some idiot wants to blow their money on this sort of thing (and IDK why brands are exempt from being run by idiots) that's their problem, and not something I'm going to waste mental energy on beyond a post like this.
If some idiot wants to blow their money on this sort of thing (and IDK why brands are exempt from being run by idiots) that's their problem, and not something I'm going to waste mental energy on beyond a post like this.
The grand picture here is what many fail to see. The Starbucks proven payments model staging "unearned income" is what will continue to transpire as the payments world continues the devest control from the larger entities which will have no choice but to interface and interact with the changing tide. For those in the know we are seeing an explosion in demand of companies wanting to own and control the payments process as with so many middlemen in the fray everyone is being "fee'd to death". The card brands are becoming more and more like toll road operators which dictate who can use the roads all the while cutting off their own noses and therefore pushing adoption to the very thing that will challenge their superiority, the OnlyFans Mastercard impact on crypto for example. Exciting times in FinTech for sure as this window in time resonates with me just as the build up to the dotcom bubble was a blast too!
Here another link explaining more:
https://usa.visa.com/visa-everywhere/blog/bdp/2021/08/18/nft...
I feel like I'm living in the joke timeline looking at that price.. here I am still fretting over csgo gun skins.. and this sprite with literally nothing interesting about it is trading for over 100000 bucks...
Remember, Visa are the jerks that stop your girlfriend from selling pictures of her butthole on OnlyFans. NFTs are worthless ephemeralia.
not even kidding going to dump all my visa stock. was heavily invested in it too. sad
I think the NFT skepticism is understandable. All attention seems be going out to a very low amount of questionable art going around for a few 100K or even millions.
Browse actual NFT sites and you'll notice there's zero bids on the typical NFT. Clearly, it's not really working as a new market model. Yet.
Further, not really securing copyrights to the art itself I consider a design flaw. Without it, your ownership is make-belief.
All of that said, I'd still advocate to zoom out a little and keep an open mind to the idea. The way I see it, these are some of the first experiments in applying digital scarcity to the creative space. This first version being admittedly terrible.
Fast forward a few years and it may very well have evolved into something more sustainable and normalized. The reason I would hope for that to happen is that it may slash some very powerful gatekeepers.
When you're a photographer, right now you may need to license your work to Getty images, for pennies, them fully dictating the terms. When you're a small musician, you need to get on Spotify, them fully dictating the terms.
In theory, and hopefully in practice, next-gen NFTs can provide an alternative, a more fair market-based approach not depending on middlemen. Or at least less so.
The other advantage comes from digital property being programmable. For example, when minting an NFT, you can indicate there to be 5 copies, and you want 10% of any future resale of the piece.
You can't do that in any practical way using old school copyrights. Digital property is superior in that sense.
And there's the potential of cross pollination. Say a popular game commits to supporting NFTs. And in this war game your tank has a unique skin, that nobody else has. Instead of the game maker deciding on all skins, anybody can make them and sell them.
That would be another gate keeper slashed, and power returned to the community. Just this silly idea alone could create an enormous new market. There would be many more such new markets if/when NFTs become interoperable, instead of isolated.
We really need to leave behind this thought that when it's digital, it's worthless. Our lives are digital now. In the future, you have a digital wallet on your phone containing lots of items. Your money. Digital creative works. Maybe tokens from your favorite football club. Who knows?
Last, I find it really ironic how on an article like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28274026
...consensus is that it's a very bad thing that 5 companies own all of the digital landscape. Uniform agreement. Whilst at the same time, rejecting anything "crypto".
Crypto is the only technology and movement that I can think of to have a chance at breaking down oversized gate keepers. Half of hackernews is complaining about big tech: tracking, lack of free speech, milking users, oversized power, creators that can't monetize, killing competition by acquiring small players, hording patents, the list goes on.
Can or will crypto fix all of this? No. Probably not even close. But it's the best chance we got.
I'd like my downvotes now, please, am going to mint it.
Browse actual NFT sites and you'll notice there's zero bids on the typical NFT. Clearly, it's not really working as a new market model. Yet.
Further, not really securing copyrights to the art itself I consider a design flaw. Without it, your ownership is make-belief.
All of that said, I'd still advocate to zoom out a little and keep an open mind to the idea. The way I see it, these are some of the first experiments in applying digital scarcity to the creative space. This first version being admittedly terrible.
Fast forward a few years and it may very well have evolved into something more sustainable and normalized. The reason I would hope for that to happen is that it may slash some very powerful gatekeepers.
When you're a photographer, right now you may need to license your work to Getty images, for pennies, them fully dictating the terms. When you're a small musician, you need to get on Spotify, them fully dictating the terms.
In theory, and hopefully in practice, next-gen NFTs can provide an alternative, a more fair market-based approach not depending on middlemen. Or at least less so.
The other advantage comes from digital property being programmable. For example, when minting an NFT, you can indicate there to be 5 copies, and you want 10% of any future resale of the piece.
You can't do that in any practical way using old school copyrights. Digital property is superior in that sense.
And there's the potential of cross pollination. Say a popular game commits to supporting NFTs. And in this war game your tank has a unique skin, that nobody else has. Instead of the game maker deciding on all skins, anybody can make them and sell them.
That would be another gate keeper slashed, and power returned to the community. Just this silly idea alone could create an enormous new market. There would be many more such new markets if/when NFTs become interoperable, instead of isolated.
We really need to leave behind this thought that when it's digital, it's worthless. Our lives are digital now. In the future, you have a digital wallet on your phone containing lots of items. Your money. Digital creative works. Maybe tokens from your favorite football club. Who knows?
Last, I find it really ironic how on an article like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28274026
...consensus is that it's a very bad thing that 5 companies own all of the digital landscape. Uniform agreement. Whilst at the same time, rejecting anything "crypto".
Crypto is the only technology and movement that I can think of to have a chance at breaking down oversized gate keepers. Half of hackernews is complaining about big tech: tracking, lack of free speech, milking users, oversized power, creators that can't monetize, killing competition by acquiring small players, hording patents, the list goes on.
Can or will crypto fix all of this? No. Probably not even close. But it's the best chance we got.
I'd like my downvotes now, please, am going to mint it.
To the software devs on HN that might scroll past this, before you close this tab because of all the crypto stuff when you want to read about coding, hang on a sec!
There are some really really cool new user experiences being unlocked with so-called "web3" tech. Micro transactions, wallets embedded in your browser, these technologies offer so much potential for things far beyond a punk NFT or cryptokitty.
Any front-end dev I talk to in person I urge to get in contact with some of these communities and try out a consulting project or two, so I'll urge the same here. The pay rates right now are outrageous and you will get to try out some tech that might end up being useless or might end up being the next major comms layer, exciting times!
edit, adding some links here:
https://ethereum.org/en/developers/learning-tools/
https://ethereum.org/en/community/
https://ethereum.org/en/learn/
https://api3.org/
https://forum.w3f.community/
some of the above are ethereum specific, but there are always new communities popping up and out of ethereum. for example, Avalanche is ramping up their dev community funding right now with over $170m committed to the ecosystem.
https://www.avax.network/developers
https://www.avax-projects.com/