Beeple Mania(esquire.com)
esquire.com
Beeple Mania
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a35500985/who-is-beeple-mike-winkelmann-nft-interview/
75 comments
>Right now it's owned/stored by the artist and someone buying the piece from me would be able to get it delivered directly from Beeple. That's a new level of unboxed where the piece of art is basically unseen at this point in time and can easily be guaranteed original.
But doesn't this defeat the goal of NFT? If you are the owner, then if it's stored by the creator or not it's irrelevant, right?
It's just like buying anything from an artist, save the receipt and ask him to store it from you, the difference is that storage of a, let's say painting, requires more space and controlled humidity/temp.
But doesn't this defeat the goal of NFT? If you are the owner, then if it's stored by the creator or not it's irrelevant, right?
It's just like buying anything from an artist, save the receipt and ask him to store it from you, the difference is that storage of a, let's say painting, requires more space and controlled humidity/temp.
> But doesn't this defeat the goal of NFT? If you are the owner, then if it's stored by the creator or not it's irrelevant, right?
Assuming the creator is trustworthy, then I don't think so. Isn't this common in the art world? I thought lots of expensive art is stored in expensive secured vaults. Or maybe I'm thinking of the film Tenet (I don't actually know anything about the art world).
Assuming the creator is trustworthy, then I don't think so. Isn't this common in the art world? I thought lots of expensive art is stored in expensive secured vaults. Or maybe I'm thinking of the film Tenet (I don't actually know anything about the art world).
>lots of expensive art is stored in expensive secured vaults
in tariff/tax free zones between jurisdictions, in a kind of customs limbo - exported from one jurisdiction, yet not imported into another (and thus no need to pay taxes/tariffs). The bill of sale is basically your NFT.
in tariff/tax free zones between jurisdictions, in a kind of customs limbo - exported from one jurisdiction, yet not imported into another (and thus no need to pay taxes/tariffs). The bill of sale is basically your NFT.
What “physical” art? Doesn’t he do digital art? Anyone can just make more prints.
If you read the article it says that Beeple is sending winners of auction items with a physical titanium framed lcd screen, complete with a serial number and QR code linking to the ownership registrar, showcasing the artwork they now own.
Is the value of the art in the titanium lcd or in the pixels themselves?
It depends - what number edition are you holding - or if you don't want to be specific what 10 digit range?
Yesterday I was talking with a friend of mine to try to wrap our heads around what's happening, and we can't help but feel that a lot of this NFT hype is based on FOMO and the craving for having something unique with high perceived value: like, everyone wants a Black Lotus, without having to wait 30 years to find out that there's actually people that have also some emotional investment into these items, and are willing to pay some big money to have a piece of that...
... yet apparently there are "Black Lotuses" everywhere, because people are making them left and right (not literal black lotus ofc).
And we left it here:
- are people mistaking something "unique" with something that's "rare"?
- is money really that much inflated?
- is crypto that much inflated?
- are these transactions being done among the same "kind of people", and it will reach a cap eventually with no one to dump these NFTs to?
It's like people want collectibles but seem to have decided to cut off a big part of what makes a collectible valuable. Everyone want's to get rich with the next big rare item, without having to go through years of cultural shifts.
For example, some MTG cards/sets represent a time and a place for many people, they were part of a culture. The rareness comes from the fact that a lot of these items had limited (some were literally alpha and beta versions of the game), and few endured the weight of time and life.
It's not because they have a unique id.
Cryptopunks represent the early move of the NFT... but is that such a noteworthy valuable thing? Maybe it is.
I'm not saying that Beeple isn't a good digital artist, he is. Neither I'm saying his art isn't worth what people paid for, probably it's worth it.
Yet, some how, can't help but feeling that something is off. Or it's just me that I'm just not getting "the thing"?
... yet apparently there are "Black Lotuses" everywhere, because people are making them left and right (not literal black lotus ofc).
And we left it here:
- are people mistaking something "unique" with something that's "rare"?
- is money really that much inflated?
- is crypto that much inflated?
- are these transactions being done among the same "kind of people", and it will reach a cap eventually with no one to dump these NFTs to?
It's like people want collectibles but seem to have decided to cut off a big part of what makes a collectible valuable. Everyone want's to get rich with the next big rare item, without having to go through years of cultural shifts.
For example, some MTG cards/sets represent a time and a place for many people, they were part of a culture. The rareness comes from the fact that a lot of these items had limited (some were literally alpha and beta versions of the game), and few endured the weight of time and life.
It's not because they have a unique id.
Cryptopunks represent the early move of the NFT... but is that such a noteworthy valuable thing? Maybe it is.
I'm not saying that Beeple isn't a good digital artist, he is. Neither I'm saying his art isn't worth what people paid for, probably it's worth it.
Yet, some how, can't help but feeling that something is off. Or it's just me that I'm just not getting "the thing"?
> It's like people want collectibles but seem to have decided to cut off a big part of what makes a collectible valuable.
What makes a collectible valuable? I think it's just scarcity plus a group choice to value that scarcity.
I don't think this is new or unique to non-physical collectibles, other collectibles also follow a pattern of increased demand for scarcity.
Take baseball cards. We know that better players have more expensive cards, and the more scarce the card the higher the value, along with other characteristics of the card. Makes some intuitive sense.
But that's not enough for collectors who want some cards to have a very high value. So then there's this collective agreement that rookie cards are going to be worth a lot more, not just based on print run, but based on the ability of the whole group to point at it and say that's a thing we value.
Then we have condition of the card, mint or near mint or worn, those are all different values. Again it makes intuitive sense because it's based on quality in some way. But it's not enough, so ever more sophisticated grading mechanisms are invented, well beyond any actual value to someone observing the card. It's a difference the naked eye can't perceive, only experts with sophisticated tools. But once they inspect it and give their mark of approval, it's a new point of scarcity that everyone can value.
It's all just invented value for the sake of value, the main thing is that the group can collectively point at something scarce and call it valuable. Misprints are another example, where the value is obvious not coming from quality and only from scarcity.
What makes a collectible valuable? I think it's just scarcity plus a group choice to value that scarcity.
I don't think this is new or unique to non-physical collectibles, other collectibles also follow a pattern of increased demand for scarcity.
Take baseball cards. We know that better players have more expensive cards, and the more scarce the card the higher the value, along with other characteristics of the card. Makes some intuitive sense.
But that's not enough for collectors who want some cards to have a very high value. So then there's this collective agreement that rookie cards are going to be worth a lot more, not just based on print run, but based on the ability of the whole group to point at it and say that's a thing we value.
Then we have condition of the card, mint or near mint or worn, those are all different values. Again it makes intuitive sense because it's based on quality in some way. But it's not enough, so ever more sophisticated grading mechanisms are invented, well beyond any actual value to someone observing the card. It's a difference the naked eye can't perceive, only experts with sophisticated tools. But once they inspect it and give their mark of approval, it's a new point of scarcity that everyone can value.
It's all just invented value for the sake of value, the main thing is that the group can collectively point at something scarce and call it valuable. Misprints are another example, where the value is obvious not coming from quality and only from scarcity.
I understand that in the great scheme of things is just a group of people that values scarcity, but you don't need to go deeper to see it's more then that.
People don't just value baseball cards because there's a designed scarcity for particular players and there's a consensus that a specific card is valuable.
You're missing the history of a game that took many years to establish themselves and grew a base of followers and fans over decades. It's a competitive game, with different leagues, with teams that have fans.
This is why the cards have value, and there's no consensual agreement that X and Y card is valuable, it's something so simple and intuitive that even children understand this. Even if it's just by the transactions in their playground among colleagues and friends (not because many people have some card, and everyone seems to want it, but because it's represents a popular player and it's a rare card - that's why they want it).
Then there's plenty of sub sections of this, like you said: misprints, particular years, etc.
But it all revolves around a cultural event.
What you're seeing with NFTs are assets created for the sake of being unique - it's not consequential of anything. It's designed to be that way.
It's like they turned the baseball card analogy upside down - they created NFTs for the sake of being NFTs, it's not serving any purpose and scarcity has no logic behind it. I think the closest analogy would be the Beanie Babies, that were trying to hack this mechanic with nothing else to support it no other then "they are scarce".
There's no emotional bond to it, it doesn't serve the purpose of a game (like balance wise), it's not even merchandising to promote something that's eventually going to become popular and that's popular to a specific niche.
People don't just value baseball cards because there's a designed scarcity for particular players and there's a consensus that a specific card is valuable.
You're missing the history of a game that took many years to establish themselves and grew a base of followers and fans over decades. It's a competitive game, with different leagues, with teams that have fans.
This is why the cards have value, and there's no consensual agreement that X and Y card is valuable, it's something so simple and intuitive that even children understand this. Even if it's just by the transactions in their playground among colleagues and friends (not because many people have some card, and everyone seems to want it, but because it's represents a popular player and it's a rare card - that's why they want it).
Then there's plenty of sub sections of this, like you said: misprints, particular years, etc.
But it all revolves around a cultural event.
What you're seeing with NFTs are assets created for the sake of being unique - it's not consequential of anything. It's designed to be that way.
It's like they turned the baseball card analogy upside down - they created NFTs for the sake of being NFTs, it's not serving any purpose and scarcity has no logic behind it. I think the closest analogy would be the Beanie Babies, that were trying to hack this mechanic with nothing else to support it no other then "they are scarce".
There's no emotional bond to it, it doesn't serve the purpose of a game (like balance wise), it's not even merchandising to promote something that's eventually going to become popular and that's popular to a specific niche.
I think another way to think about it is to think about poker.
You've got the blinds or the antes, and fundamentally, every pot is about fighting for that money. Without the ante, nobody should put any money into the pot.
But once you have a penny ante, the pot size can grow exponentially, and you can find yourself fighting over a many-thousand dollar pot, even if the truth is the fight started over a fight for a penny, and the game is about fighting for a penny every hand.
What I'm saying is, sure, with baseball cards the ante might be an emotional bond to the subject matter. But it quickly spirals and becomes about the collectible, primarily. I can go look at amazing pictures of famous baseball players I love all day, I don't need to own the cards.
I don't think NFTs are really skipping a step, Top Shots is selling you an MP4 of a basketball player you love sinking a shot. It's just the absurdity of it is more apparent when the ante is something you could press Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V to copy.
You've got the blinds or the antes, and fundamentally, every pot is about fighting for that money. Without the ante, nobody should put any money into the pot.
But once you have a penny ante, the pot size can grow exponentially, and you can find yourself fighting over a many-thousand dollar pot, even if the truth is the fight started over a fight for a penny, and the game is about fighting for a penny every hand.
What I'm saying is, sure, with baseball cards the ante might be an emotional bond to the subject matter. But it quickly spirals and becomes about the collectible, primarily. I can go look at amazing pictures of famous baseball players I love all day, I don't need to own the cards.
I don't think NFTs are really skipping a step, Top Shots is selling you an MP4 of a basketball player you love sinking a shot. It's just the absurdity of it is more apparent when the ante is something you could press Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V to copy.
I think that, just like the first NFT craze (Cryptokitties), a lot of it is conscious money down the drain from people who already got dirty rich and now care less about $100k than about stimulating the market and promoting the growth of cryptocurrencies in general. They'll throw money at anything they perceive as aligning with their vision of what should come.
Consider the case that this truly is here to stay. Kind of cool to be able to flair one of the first really pricey NFTs, which also happens to be an art piece you think is kind of rad.
Consider the case that this truly is here to stay. Kind of cool to be able to flair one of the first really pricey NFTs, which also happens to be an art piece you think is kind of rad.
I understand that, but those are the wrong motivations in my point of view. That's just overbloated hyped, I don't see it stick.
>Kind of cool to be able to flair one of the first really pricey NFTs, which also happens to be an art piece you think is kind of rad.
Which you nailed here, it's like they are pricey for the sake of being pricey. Or they're unique for the sake of being unique, not being unique because there were restrains that make it rare.
If some of these pieces are going to millions of USD, then we might be at a point where any Picasso painting reached the billion dollar mark, that circles back to one of my questions: is there so much money in circulation? Or this is just fake money being thrown around?
>Kind of cool to be able to flair one of the first really pricey NFTs, which also happens to be an art piece you think is kind of rad.
Which you nailed here, it's like they are pricey for the sake of being pricey. Or they're unique for the sake of being unique, not being unique because there were restrains that make it rare.
If some of these pieces are going to millions of USD, then we might be at a point where any Picasso painting reached the billion dollar mark, that circles back to one of my questions: is there so much money in circulation? Or this is just fake money being thrown around?
If we use the Dow Jones index with dividends reinvested as a proxy for inflation, instead of the phony official stats, then we can see that Picasso's self portrait, which was sold in May 1989 for 98.7m usd, would be worth 1.2 billion in today's dollars.
> Yet, some how, can't help but feeling that something is off. Or it's just me that I'm just not getting "the thing"?
This is (or will be) one of "the next big things" in this century; I'm fairly confident about that. What's off is that it's very new and so people don't know how to talk about it yet.
Witness this article, which seems to deliberately confuse the predictable weirdness of the art style (it's not that weird... it's just neo-Dadaism for our times) with the unpredictable emergence of NFTs.
I think NFTs are yet another interesting (perhaps local) maxima of the search space, which is "ways to get back some of that old-fashioned tangible value from digital goods". Looked at this way, it's not really surprising that something like NFTs would become a thing.
What's silly (and cynical, in my opinion) is when tech writers bury the lede by associating the technology with the avant garde uses of it. This is similar to the bizarre obsession by many legacy mainstream car manufacturers for making their electric cars look like hippie pretentious toys. The tech is obviously useful. The fashion is the trojan horse for the tech. But it gets old when people realize the almost banal usefulness of the tech itself. Then you don't need the silly-looking horse anymore.
This is (or will be) one of "the next big things" in this century; I'm fairly confident about that. What's off is that it's very new and so people don't know how to talk about it yet.
Witness this article, which seems to deliberately confuse the predictable weirdness of the art style (it's not that weird... it's just neo-Dadaism for our times) with the unpredictable emergence of NFTs.
I think NFTs are yet another interesting (perhaps local) maxima of the search space, which is "ways to get back some of that old-fashioned tangible value from digital goods". Looked at this way, it's not really surprising that something like NFTs would become a thing.
What's silly (and cynical, in my opinion) is when tech writers bury the lede by associating the technology with the avant garde uses of it. This is similar to the bizarre obsession by many legacy mainstream car manufacturers for making their electric cars look like hippie pretentious toys. The tech is obviously useful. The fashion is the trojan horse for the tech. But it gets old when people realize the almost banal usefulness of the tech itself. Then you don't need the silly-looking horse anymore.
It reminds me of the beanie baby craze of the 90s. Same thing, different tech. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest this may happen again with some yet unimagined tech in the future.
Funny enough I just used the Beanie Baby example in a reply to other user: it's the closest analogy I found in modern history.
Something that was designed to be scarce, for the sake of being scarce. Serves no other goal: it's not a balancing mechanism to game (overpowered cards are rare), it's not promoting something that people love and want to be a part of (like baseball cards), hell it's not even a celebration of some success with the fans, nothing that holds people emotionally attached to any of it other then those that want to hope on something to resell later - this is completely the wrong motivation.
Something that was designed to be scarce, for the sake of being scarce. Serves no other goal: it's not a balancing mechanism to game (overpowered cards are rare), it's not promoting something that people love and want to be a part of (like baseball cards), hell it's not even a celebration of some success with the fans, nothing that holds people emotionally attached to any of it other then those that want to hope on something to resell later - this is completely the wrong motivation.
I am completely on board with normal cryptocurrencies, smart contracts and what have you. With NFT art I just get the feeling that people are trying too hard to find "the next big thing" in the space, and they have latched onto this for some strange reason. Might be nothing more than that it makes for a good story. I guess now I know how nocoiners feel about any kind of cryptocurrency..
But it does make sense, in a way, to explore the complete opposite of the (almost) perfect fungibility of normal cryptocurrency, even if only in a "what if we flip one of our basic assumptions on its head" kind of way.
But it does make sense, in a way, to explore the complete opposite of the (almost) perfect fungibility of normal cryptocurrency, even if only in a "what if we flip one of our basic assumptions on its head" kind of way.
i agree. i have the same feeling of not getting it.. but they are skipping a step
look at what happened to baseball sports cards in the late 90s and still continue today
holograms, refractors, patch cards, "printing plates" cards. these cards are "valuable" because of the perceived scarcity but the issue is trying to get one is completely random and based on luck whereas the original value of baseball cards was people didn't keep them in mint condition and kids put them on their bikes to make cool sounds.
same thing with comic books. the comic book makers produced the scarcity or collectible, and then produced too much of that scarcity and the whole comic book market imploded.
this guy's art is cool, and good for him for making tons of money off it. but it does feel like partly FOMO and also some people have too much money during the pandemic that they don't know where to park so they dump it into stuff like this.
i think the biggest issue with this stuff is it's already skyrocketed well outside the range of even relatively well off individuals. i certainly don't have the money to outbid someone who put in nearly $800K for basically a blockchain entry. like how are you going to get normal people to care about this other than, "it sold for a lot of money" which is basically the only reason this stuff got an article in esquire.
look at what happened to baseball sports cards in the late 90s and still continue today
holograms, refractors, patch cards, "printing plates" cards. these cards are "valuable" because of the perceived scarcity but the issue is trying to get one is completely random and based on luck whereas the original value of baseball cards was people didn't keep them in mint condition and kids put them on their bikes to make cool sounds.
same thing with comic books. the comic book makers produced the scarcity or collectible, and then produced too much of that scarcity and the whole comic book market imploded.
this guy's art is cool, and good for him for making tons of money off it. but it does feel like partly FOMO and also some people have too much money during the pandemic that they don't know where to park so they dump it into stuff like this.
i think the biggest issue with this stuff is it's already skyrocketed well outside the range of even relatively well off individuals. i certainly don't have the money to outbid someone who put in nearly $800K for basically a blockchain entry. like how are you going to get normal people to care about this other than, "it sold for a lot of money" which is basically the only reason this stuff got an article in esquire.
I have stories :-)
We held a Digital Art Conference down here in Brazil and we brought Beeple in for a keynote, and it was an amazing experience, he's super bright.
But yeah the guy is always dressed to kill, impeccably, almost too serious -- so it's quite contrasting when you see the real artist and his likeness compared to how wild his art is.
He also was quite curious about Renoise (a tracker software I was using to play live music at one point), and asked "What software is that?!". That was a fun moment.
We held a Digital Art Conference down here in Brazil and we brought Beeple in for a keynote, and it was an amazing experience, he's super bright.
But yeah the guy is always dressed to kill, impeccably, almost too serious -- so it's quite contrasting when you see the real artist and his likeness compared to how wild his art is.
He also was quite curious about Renoise (a tracker software I was using to play live music at one point), and asked "What software is that?!". That was a fun moment.
I submitted this a few days ago without any traction: https://joanielemercier.com/the-problem-of-cryptoart/
Honestly I can’t do anything but shake my head in disapproval about crypto-art (and crypto currency in general) when it involves wasting so much energy.
Honestly I can’t do anything but shake my head in disapproval about crypto-art (and crypto currency in general) when it involves wasting so much energy.
PoS blockchain like Cardano network now only consumes an energy as big as a household. They already have NFT implemented.
I always see people point to 'just round the corner' future Proof of Stake systems when the energy waste topic comes up, but it seems like there are still a lot of big unsolved challenges with that, as well as new problems introduced by it.
As long as there's no actual widespread fully working currency using only PoS, it's a bit like justifying the emissions from flying by pointing to experimental solar powered aircraft, and saying all flights will be solar powered any day now.
As long as there's no actual widespread fully working currency using only PoS, it's a bit like justifying the emissions from flying by pointing to experimental solar powered aircraft, and saying all flights will be solar powered any day now.
Not sure what you mean, there are already blockchains out there using only PoS...
Cardano already uses PoS
Cardano already uses PoS
[deleted]
[deleted]
Cardano doesnt even have smart contracts yet, how have they implemented nfts?
otherwise yes, energy usage will be dropping massively on most networks with pos upgrades.
otherwise yes, energy usage will be dropping massively on most networks with pos upgrades.
Algorand does, and also has fungible and non-fungible assets in its layer-1 protocol.
Cardano has a different approach of smart contract than Ethereum. For example, in Cardano, any tokens will be treated as native assets (except with the ability to vote in Cardano network, which you need ADA), so no need smart contract.
This is all coming this month/next, but at the time of posting this it is not live.
Sorry I guess I have to clarify, it is implemented on test net.
Celo is the EVM and uses proof-of-stake, has actual ERC721 and ERC1155 capabilities, but the market hasn't built the frontends to it (opensea, rarible, zora, foundation, etc.) and is still entirely on top of Ethereum.
You can mint NFT's on Kusama for pennies, a Proof of Stake network by the original CTO and co-founder of Ethereum Dr. Gavin Wood http://kodadot.xyz/
Watching TV at home "wastes energy." Going out to dinner "wastes energy." Doing anything except working on a cure for cancer "wastes energy." In fact, even people working on a cure for cancer or a covid vaccine will only see the fruits of their righteous labor used to enable millions to....waste energy.
This is literally the worst argument against crypto.
This is literally the worst argument against crypto.
“Why would you spend $5,000 on an MP4?"
That's the $64k question. Who, exactly, is buying rare digital art? It doesn't seem to be traditional collectors, dealers or major institutions. But the same contingent of crypto "whales" speculating in alt-coin assets. A simple bot could even be employed to track auction prices and automate trades. In a sense its not dissimilar to inter-market dealing among art galleries. Without the actual physical objects.
Beeple's Opus
https://www.christies.com/features/Monumental-collage-by-Bee...
That's the $64k question. Who, exactly, is buying rare digital art? It doesn't seem to be traditional collectors, dealers or major institutions. But the same contingent of crypto "whales" speculating in alt-coin assets. A simple bot could even be employed to track auction prices and automate trades. In a sense its not dissimilar to inter-market dealing among art galleries. Without the actual physical objects.
Beeple's Opus
https://www.christies.com/features/Monumental-collage-by-Bee...
Would you spend $5k for the streaming rights to an mp4? Thats generally where people see NFTs going.
Mark Cuban was talking about this yesterday on bankless podcast, how an NFT can contain all the royalty payments for e.g. a film or tv show, director/producer/actors/editors, and when someone wants to show it they rent it for a period of time (or buy it to rent to others), their rent payment instantly divided across everyone involved. That utility saves a lot of time and money. His comparison is to how he still receives physical checks for $1 from some episode of a tv show he did that are barely worth cashing, saving time/money in that process is potentially big business.
Mark Cuban was talking about this yesterday on bankless podcast, how an NFT can contain all the royalty payments for e.g. a film or tv show, director/producer/actors/editors, and when someone wants to show it they rent it for a period of time (or buy it to rent to others), their rent payment instantly divided across everyone involved. That utility saves a lot of time and money. His comparison is to how he still receives physical checks for $1 from some episode of a tv show he did that are barely worth cashing, saving time/money in that process is potentially big business.
What rights do you own with an NFT? Say I bought a digital piece, can I print it on a million t-shirts and sell them? Or does the artist still retain the copyright etc.?
I've seen people minting tweets as NFTs - again, how does the copyright work here.
Genuine question - seen NFTs come up a lot over the last fortnight - don't really understand it at all (which makes me feel old!).
I've seen people minting tweets as NFTs - again, how does the copyright work here.
Genuine question - seen NFTs come up a lot over the last fortnight - don't really understand it at all (which makes me feel old!).
These largely remain open questions.
Or rather, as far as I can tell the default off-chain answers apply in the absence of explicit directions otherwise.
Physical fine art has come up with answers (you don't get the copyright just because you bought the original), though, and I'm sure NFTs will eventually.
There's also the possibility of putting code into the smart contracts to explicitly give you the royalties earned on-chain. Not really a thing yet, but it's obviously possible to do.
Or rather, as far as I can tell the default off-chain answers apply in the absence of explicit directions otherwise.
Physical fine art has come up with answers (you don't get the copyright just because you bought the original), though, and I'm sure NFTs will eventually.
There's also the possibility of putting code into the smart contracts to explicitly give you the royalties earned on-chain. Not really a thing yet, but it's obviously possible to do.
Thanks!
So assuming this followed the physical art model, and in the absence of any kind of 'on chain' royalties, you're literally just buying to say "I own this"? Except you don't own the copyright, and, being a digital file, thousands of other people could have an identical copy?
Am I correct in thinking this is kind of 'digital bragging rights'? Like - without a physical copy, short of us all living in a 'Ready Player One' style virtual world that someone made it explicit that "XYZ owns this art by ABC" - there's not actually much you can do other than own it (and maybe sell it later)?
So assuming this followed the physical art model, and in the absence of any kind of 'on chain' royalties, you're literally just buying to say "I own this"? Except you don't own the copyright, and, being a digital file, thousands of other people could have an identical copy?
Am I correct in thinking this is kind of 'digital bragging rights'? Like - without a physical copy, short of us all living in a 'Ready Player One' style virtual world that someone made it explicit that "XYZ owns this art by ABC" - there's not actually much you can do other than own it (and maybe sell it later)?
Hashmasks for example gave everyone copyright to their specific piece. And they're quite visually appealing too.
Huh. I did not see this coming but I think this actually kind of makes sense. I think many people see being a "patron of the arts" as something very high status, and having your ownership encoded publicly seems much more status-enhancing than just having something hanging in your home. Sure, you could brag that you just bought a piece of physical art on Facebook or Instagram, but that seems a bit like showing off - maybe a difference here is that there is no escaping from the public element, so no-one can judge you for it.
If a piece takes off in popularity, I can imagine that there is also extra status to being the first to own that particular piece, which will forever be visible on the blockchain. [Edit - it does seem kind of strange to be the second or later owner though, I wonder if that could actually hurt resale value.]
Very curious to see how this develops. If it opens up new possibilities for artists to get their work funded and it can lead to a flourishing of the arts I'm all for it.
If a piece takes off in popularity, I can imagine that there is also extra status to being the first to own that particular piece, which will forever be visible on the blockchain. [Edit - it does seem kind of strange to be the second or later owner though, I wonder if that could actually hurt resale value.]
Very curious to see how this develops. If it opens up new possibilities for artists to get their work funded and it can lead to a flourishing of the arts I'm all for it.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but doesn't this then only apply to the blockchain, and not necessarily the art? Therefore this status symbol can be applied to anything (supposedly) sacred: books, movies, sexual partners, etc.
To me it may devalue art, seeing how I feel it's the NFT and not the art that people value.
To me it may devalue art, seeing how I feel it's the NFT and not the art that people value.
I'm not sure I see the same point as others. But the way I imagine it would work is that you buy art from the artist and the artist confirms (on the blockchain) that you bought it from them, thereby supporting them. So (a) you "own" it, (b) you signal being a patron of the arts and (c) the thing you paid for can be enjoyed right next to this confirmation.
Yes I guess it can apply to other things as well. I would indeed expect books and movies to possibly fit the same pattern. And I guess you could set up a public sexual partners log as well where both participants can use their private key to sign a statement that they did indeed engage in intercourse but I'm not sure that that would take off :)
I think the point is still being discovered and it also seems totally possible that this is just a fad. It's the first practical application of cryptocurrency that I can somehow see making sense (if I squint).
Yes I guess it can apply to other things as well. I would indeed expect books and movies to possibly fit the same pattern. And I guess you could set up a public sexual partners log as well where both participants can use their private key to sign a statement that they did indeed engage in intercourse but I'm not sure that that would take off :)
I think the point is still being discovered and it also seems totally possible that this is just a fad. It's the first practical application of cryptocurrency that I can somehow see making sense (if I squint).
The "manuscript" of a novel these days is probably a computer file. NFTs would allow you to trade the original manuscript as an item, even though the bits of that manuscript could be reproduced with 100% fidelity.
For me, that doesn't carry a lot of value, but, then again, aside from things like margin notes and what not, a paper manuscript that was merely a handwritten copy of what later became a published book wouldn't carry a lot of value either. Yet, if I owned it, there may be people who would want to look at it out of curiosity, or who wanted to know the story of how I came by it, etc.
For me, that doesn't carry a lot of value, but, then again, aside from things like margin notes and what not, a paper manuscript that was merely a handwritten copy of what later became a published book wouldn't carry a lot of value either. Yet, if I owned it, there may be people who would want to look at it out of curiosity, or who wanted to know the story of how I came by it, etc.
Was just looking at NFTs last week, and what I do know about the art market is it provides a high volatility, potentially high value, portable asset with an opaque market that is great for moving money around, and worst case acts as a volatility hedge.
Are NFT's effectively cryptocurrency mixers? If I've got $100k in bitcoin it doesn't matter where I move it from an audit perspective because it's going to be on the blockchain, whereas if I buy an NFT, I have an asset of that notional value assigned to an arbitrary anonymous wallet of my choice after paying the art owner.
Are NFT's effectively cryptocurrency mixers? If I've got $100k in bitcoin it doesn't matter where I move it from an audit perspective because it's going to be on the blockchain, whereas if I buy an NFT, I have an asset of that notional value assigned to an arbitrary anonymous wallet of my choice after paying the art owner.
Seems like they took a page from non-digital money laundering... art auctions have always been a vessel for hiding cash, and only recently have been targeted by AML laws that seem to be ill-fitting for the industry, seemingly by design: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/art-and-money-launderin...
Been a fan of his work for a few years now. He let me use a couple of his pieces as album art. Seems like a cool guy and it’s great to see his continued success.
I don’t know anything about NFTs but Beeple is an absolutely amazing artist who’s been working hard at it for years, and I’m glad to see his success.
NBA Top Shot is major sports' entry into NFTs and is already dominating by market cap while it's still in beta. I've only been following it for a few weeks, but collectors are going nuts, but not quite to the point of some other NFTs yet. It still seems to be a fairly small crowd doing most of the buying and selling compared to the NBA's broad reach.
I follow NFTs closely and it seems like of the present crop of projects, Top Shot has the most obvious path to a sustainable future. Sports collectibles are already a thing, and official league-sanctioned digital collectibles are a natural growth. MLB dipped a toe in with virtual bobbleheads, but collecting video clips of plays makes more sense.
I don't know that the 5 figure prices will last forever, but the market probably will.
Cryptopunks is the only "native" NFT I feel will likely keep a market. Again, maybe not at present levels, but it's got enough of a cool factor to last.
And Beeple as the artist with the brightest future, obviously.
I don't know that the 5 figure prices will last forever, but the market probably will.
Cryptopunks is the only "native" NFT I feel will likely keep a market. Again, maybe not at present levels, but it's got enough of a cool factor to last.
And Beeple as the artist with the brightest future, obviously.
I remember reading about Crytpo Kitties in the NYT in 2018. How much are Crypto kitties worth today?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/cryptokitty-auction...
More Beeple art: https://www.instagram.com/beeple_crap/
One of the interesting things I got out of this article is that Beeple and his wife actually ended up creating physical artifacts to send out to the people who bought their art. In a way that feels like the more salient (and obvious) innovation: it gives buyers of digital art a way to show lay-people that they actually own the piece itself and not just a print.
It's also interesting that these nfts are rarely presented as solutions to prove the ownership of non-digital art. There are millions of people who own (very convincing) prints of Mondrians, and yet when we enter the home of someone rich enough to buy an actual Mondrian we usually just assume all the art hanging on their walls are originals.
That's what seems counterintuitive about all this: In a sense this is the most successfull instance of NFTs being used to sell digital art yet, but also the most unnecessary. If you are a crypto millionaire from Singapore you don't need NFTs to convince anyone you actually own the Beeple piece you say you own.
(Although an obvious use of all this is that it turns digital art into a store of value that buyers can potentially sell at a higher price.)
It's also interesting that these nfts are rarely presented as solutions to prove the ownership of non-digital art. There are millions of people who own (very convincing) prints of Mondrians, and yet when we enter the home of someone rich enough to buy an actual Mondrian we usually just assume all the art hanging on their walls are originals.
That's what seems counterintuitive about all this: In a sense this is the most successfull instance of NFTs being used to sell digital art yet, but also the most unnecessary. If you are a crypto millionaire from Singapore you don't need NFTs to convince anyone you actually own the Beeple piece you say you own.
(Although an obvious use of all this is that it turns digital art into a store of value that buyers can potentially sell at a higher price.)
I really enjoy his work. It's digital art that's meant to look digital in every way without trying being nostalgic to some era of computer art.
The way I think about this stuff (maybe my mental model will prove useful to you): imagine a parallel economy that only a small subset of people are plugged into. These people happen to belong to the top 5% of the "real world" economy. The lowest ranking member of this economy is your average software engineer.
So if you imagine a FAANG salary as being just slightly above minimum wage in this alternate universe you can derive all the consequences of what happens in crypto markets from there, including the new top 5% who can casually pay these sums for art.
So if you imagine a FAANG salary as being just slightly above minimum wage in this alternate universe you can derive all the consequences of what happens in crypto markets from there, including the new top 5% who can casually pay these sums for art.
I don't agree. A lot of NFT artists come from humble roots, poverty even and these are their first sales. If you look beyond hyped artists like beeple, it looks a lot more like patreon for digital art
This morning I had a dream where someone named "Beepliani" was trying to talk to a lady who was tired of being hit on while she was just trying to make a train journey. And then I wake up and write that down in my dream journal and pick up the tablet next to my bed, and here's... this.
Well okay, fuck it, I got rent to pay and I got a bunch of art lying around that's had a lot more love put into it than what I'm seeing on the front page of Nifty. I'm hitting that signup button despite my general misgivings about the huge energy cost of crypto.
Well okay, fuck it, I got rent to pay and I got a bunch of art lying around that's had a lot more love put into it than what I'm seeing on the front page of Nifty. I'm hitting that signup button despite my general misgivings about the huge energy cost of crypto.
> despite my general misgivings about the huge energy cost of crypto.
Are you really concerned about people utilizing electricity, or are you actually concerned about carbon footprint? If the carbon thing, look where crypto-mining happens. It's almost exclusively with overflow power from areas that get their energy from hydro, wind, geothermal etc, so the additional carbon produced by mining is negligible.
Second, Ethereum, on which all serious NFT activity is based, is midway through a transition from PoW to PoS (proof-of-work to proof-of-stake) where people demonstrate their commitment to validating transactions by locking up their funds rather than burning electricity. There are over 3 million ETH locked, which is over 6 billion dollars at the moment, and growing, all to validate transactions on this new PoS network.
https://www.duneanalytics.com/hagaetc/eth2-0-deposits
Are you really concerned about people utilizing electricity, or are you actually concerned about carbon footprint? If the carbon thing, look where crypto-mining happens. It's almost exclusively with overflow power from areas that get their energy from hydro, wind, geothermal etc, so the additional carbon produced by mining is negligible.
Second, Ethereum, on which all serious NFT activity is based, is midway through a transition from PoW to PoS (proof-of-work to proof-of-stake) where people demonstrate their commitment to validating transactions by locking up their funds rather than burning electricity. There are over 3 million ETH locked, which is over 6 billion dollars at the moment, and growing, all to validate transactions on this new PoS network.
https://www.duneanalytics.com/hagaetc/eth2-0-deposits
More the carbon footprint, yeah. But also general concerns about how much the crypto industry is about "converting energy into value and an asston of waste heat".
Using blockchain to identify ownership of digital art is imo the first use case that makes sense. Who would want to own a coin number when you can own a masterpiece.
How do you "own" something that everyone else can consume and replicate? Owning a physical item implies a degree of control over it. Owning a public digital item doesn't seem to grant any kind of control.
I feel like this is a classic case of "tree falls in a forest, does anyone hear it?" where the confusion relies on the word "hear" being used in two ways (objective sound waves travelling through air, vs subjective perception). Is the word "own" being used in two ways here?
I feel like this is a classic case of "tree falls in a forest, does anyone hear it?" where the confusion relies on the word "hear" being used in two ways (objective sound waves travelling through air, vs subjective perception). Is the word "own" being used in two ways here?
I think the point is that NFTs are a way to verifiably prove ownership of a digital asset - i.e. the most recent position on a verified chain of purchases.
It's like, imagine if you bought an original Picasso, but a device existed where someone walking past your house could magic a copy of your painting right into their hands, down to the molecule. Sure, you'd still have the original, but the only way to prove it is by referencing the paper trail from the auction house that you're the last person who purchased it through "official" channels. Same for these NFTs - the blockchain is the irrefutable source of who "officially" owns the art.
Personally, I think this is only a thing because people generally want to show off the fact that they "own" something rather than "just" having it in their house. Like, why bother spending $XX millions on an original painting when you could just pay a talented artist to copy it for you with real paints for a fraction of the cost? As long as you're not trying to pass it off as an original for sale, no one would care if you cloned a famous painting.
It's because being able to show off your name on the "who owns this" line is more important than the actual thing.
It's like, imagine if you bought an original Picasso, but a device existed where someone walking past your house could magic a copy of your painting right into their hands, down to the molecule. Sure, you'd still have the original, but the only way to prove it is by referencing the paper trail from the auction house that you're the last person who purchased it through "official" channels. Same for these NFTs - the blockchain is the irrefutable source of who "officially" owns the art.
Personally, I think this is only a thing because people generally want to show off the fact that they "own" something rather than "just" having it in their house. Like, why bother spending $XX millions on an original painting when you could just pay a talented artist to copy it for you with real paints for a fraction of the cost? As long as you're not trying to pass it off as an original for sale, no one would care if you cloned a famous painting.
It's because being able to show off your name on the "who owns this" line is more important than the actual thing.
>Is the word "own" being used in two ways here?
I think the folks in the crypto world are using it one way and you're introducing a second meaning. They just mean "own" in the legal-rights way. Like one might "own" a company if they buy all the stock, even if they've never seen it.
> Owning a public digital item doesn't seem to grant any kind of control.
Owning a digital item is basically just buying the copyright. It's not everything, but it's real.
Ownership is, in all cases, a limited right. You can imagine two identical cars parked on the street - you own the first, the second has been abandoned by its owner. It would be equally hard for someone to take either car. Ownership 'just' means you can request the help of civic society in retrieving it.
I think the folks in the crypto world are using it one way and you're introducing a second meaning. They just mean "own" in the legal-rights way. Like one might "own" a company if they buy all the stock, even if they've never seen it.
> Owning a public digital item doesn't seem to grant any kind of control.
Owning a digital item is basically just buying the copyright. It's not everything, but it's real.
Ownership is, in all cases, a limited right. You can imagine two identical cars parked on the street - you own the first, the second has been abandoned by its owner. It would be equally hard for someone to take either car. Ownership 'just' means you can request the help of civic society in retrieving it.
[deleted]
> Hal Finney calling the NFT/CryptoArt movement in 1993.
https://twitter.com/justintrimble/status/1357098395110952964
There's getting to be a whole industry of this stuff. There's "virtual land on a blockchain". That's Decentraland, Sominium Space, and Upland. Decentraland and Sominium Space have 3D worlds you can visit on line, and you can build stuff on your virtual land. Upland didn't bother. They just have trading cards.
Non-fungible tokens look a lot like initial coin offerings 2.0. There are going to be a lot of sucker bets.
"If you've been in the game for half an hour and you don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy."
Non-fungible tokens look a lot like initial coin offerings 2.0. There are going to be a lot of sucker bets.
"If you've been in the game for half an hour and you don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy."
It gets pretty specialized, there's a few virtual construction companies already that build content on blockchain land. For the land owners, building cool stuff on the land can increase the value of the real estate which they can choose to resell later on the secondary market. Voxelarchitects are one example doing such in cryptovoxels.
I'm interested when the things you own in one place can be used in other places. Cryptoart has been at the spear tip for interoperability since every world wants to support artists in having a gallery on their platform.
I'm interested when the things you own in one place can be used in other places. Cryptoart has been at the spear tip for interoperability since every world wants to support artists in having a gallery on their platform.
He appeared in a Corridor Digital video if I recall correctly.
How important is having the physical component of the Nifty?
Are there specialized frames that display these as digital works?
Are there specialized frames that display these as digital works?
I don't understand NFT. Why would I care that there's an entry in a blockchain that says "$USER owns the thing at $TOKEN_URI, here's its $HASH"
I could say "I have dibs on Lake Louise" and make a blockchain entry that echoes this claim via some token... and so what? That's supposed to be worth something?
I'm not grokking this. If anyone can explain how NFTs are a thing at all or worth anything? Heads up: if you use the word "fiat" I'll know you're a hustler.
I could say "I have dibs on Lake Louise" and make a blockchain entry that echoes this claim via some token... and so what? That's supposed to be worth something?
I'm not grokking this. If anyone can explain how NFTs are a thing at all or worth anything? Heads up: if you use the word "fiat" I'll know you're a hustler.
Right now it's owned/stored by the artist and someone buying the piece from me would be able to get it delivered directly from Beeple. That's a new level of unboxed where the piece of art is basically unseen at this point in time and can easily be guaranteed original.
[1] https://niftygateway.com/itemdetail/primary/0xd92e44ac213b9e...