[strict9]

I don't understand the unfettered hatred many have for NFTs. This is the first technology to come along and offer artists an actual avenue to payment for their creative work, and for fans to directly engage with and support with artists.

For once, photographers, artists, musicians, countless others can be in control of their own distribution and the terms of it.

Yes, you can right-click and save jpegs but that is sort of the point! Similar to having a print in your living room, copies of the original serve as marketing for it. People who own or sell NFTs aren't doing it just to "own" a jpeg, it's a digital representation of something purchased, or proof of attendance.

[jjulius]

>This is the first technology to come along and offer artists an actual avenue to payment for their creative work, and for fans to directly engage with and support with artists.

Except for, ya know, Bandcamp, Patreon, PayPal, so on and so forth...

>For once... musicians... can be in control of their own distribution and the terms of it.

Bandcamp has always offered this for musicians? Artists in all mediums could always host their own website and take whatever payment/amount they want through PayPal or other processors? Am I crazy?

Edit:

>People who own or sell NFTs aren't doing it just to "own" a jpeg, it's a digital representation of something purchased, or proof of attendance.

Not to keep focusing on Bandcamp specifically, but again - Bandcamp. If I buy music there, my user thumbnail is listed under "supported by" on that track/album's page, and it's added to my public-facing-by-default collection list. Got a piece of music in physical form that you bought elsewhere? Cool, add it to your Discogs collection and keep your profile public.

[Waterluvian]

It’s an incomplete version of an idea that already exists: Patreon et al.

NFT solves none of the actual challenges: the payment processing, the community building, the comms channel.

If the goal is to fund starving artists, NFT doesn’t actually solve any problems.

[dropnerd]

the convention in the space:

- payment processing is handled by your fiat gateway like Coinbase. bonus- no chargebacks to worry about

- community building and comms are handled on Discord

[VHRanger]

Artists are marks in the NFT scam, paying large NFT minting fees with very few actual NFTs being sold to recoup costs.

It's not like artists are lacking ways to monetize apart from NFTs. If a popular artist can extract value from their art through it, more power to them, but the median artist is losing money from the enterprise.

[rvz]

Given that the majority of the NFT ecosystem is running on Ethereum which still has the gigantic fees that come with swapping tokens, purchasing tokens, staking them and minting an NFT, the artist will end up losing more money than they actually put in and will sit with their unsold NFTs forever or will sell it in frustration at a loss.

Adobe knows it is a scam. That's why they are merely selling shovels to fuel the hype and they win regardless if the would NFT market crashes.

[hydroreadsstuff]

You don't need to mint on Ethereum. I'm there are cheaper options.

[brightball]

Because any explanation of what an NFT is makes clear that it’s completely worthless in virtually every context. People are promoting NFTs by buying and selling them for high amounts to associates to create the fake appearance of value.

There’s no value to any of them. It’s literally just an attempt to sell bits that aren’t unique or are easily reproduced.

Imagine if Taylor Swift sold a limited number of mp3 NFTs of a new song of hers. The song would immediately be copied leaving the purchased NFT’s as completely useless.

There’s no legal binding with them for any physical assets, so the entire thing is essentially a Ponzi scheme.

[strict9]

>Imagine if Taylor Swift sold a limited number of mp3 NFTs of a new song of hers.

Several artists have created "limited" or 1/1 NFTs, with full knowledge that whatever media contained therein could be easily digitally replicated. It's not about legality or tangible qualities, it's a pure digital ownership model.

The most recent example is David Lynch and Interpol: https://twitter.com/DAVID_LYNCH/status/1453013551241744394

Whoever wins this auction isn't paying money for an actual object (the film), it's buying the digitally-provable representation of the film that exists in their wallet, that they got (almost) directly from David Lynch.

[jjulius]

What's the difference between that, and offering a piece of music for purchase one time on Bandcamp?

That would be a digitally-provable representation of the music in their Bandcamp profile, and they would get it almost directly from the artist.

Edit: Hell, just for fun, how's that different from EBay?

[dropnerd]

if bandcamp goes out of business, your proof that you bought from the artist disappears when the aws rds database turns off

if you mint an nft, so long as there is some business querying the ethereum blockchain, you can prove your purchase

[brightball]

Everything in that explanation only reinforces the worthlessness IMO.

Caveat emptor

[NicoJuicy]

But it's not a legal one. NFT doesn't really solve anything.

What was the actual problem in the first place? Influencers that want to earn more?

Green washing is also a big problem in the NFT market.

[overgard]

If I buy a painting though, it's irreplaceable and can't truly be replicated. Can't say the same of digital. I suppose there's "bragging rights", but if someone was like "I own the original doge image NFT" I think I'd roll my eyes and think less of them.

[rvz]

Exactly.

This is definitive proof that NFTs are still worth less than the physical version: [0]

It's really a certificate of you bragging about being a bag-holder of a photocopiable image.

[0] https://stevejobsjobapplication.com

[Waterluvian]

Can’t I mint an NFT of the painting you own an NFT for and perhaps through my (fictional) celebrity status, my NFT becomes seen as the “main” one?

[soco]

The NFT might or might not become the main one, but also the painting remains the painting - able to create as many other NFTs as they want if only for the lulz.

[rchaud]

> For once, photographers, artists, musicians, countless others can be in control of their own distribution and the terms of it.

That's strange, I have been purchasing digital comics, books and art online for years. Some use WooCommerce, some use Shopify or BigCartel. But they all work, and they get the artist paid.

How do artists have more control if they have to give a cut to a marketplace like OpenSea, and then have to use an exchange to convert useless ETH into food and rent payments?

[ausbah]

are commissions, paywalls, and just general donations avenues to supporting artists? is the "ownership" of NFT something people really care about?

I know I don't