What makes it a shit way of supporting artists? I have seen some fraud like you describe, but I think it makes a lot of sense for digital only artists.
The fraud I describe makes it a shit way of supporting artist. As for digital only artist, there are plenty of non-NFT ways to support them. Commissions, Patreon, and merch to name a few.
If you were certain an NFT you were buying was not fraudulent and was created by the artist would you still think it's a shit way of supporting them? Is it bad that they have an additional way to make money on top of commissions, Patreon, and merch?
> If you were certain an NFT you were buying was not fraudulent and was created by the artist would you still think it's a shit way of supporting them?
Yes.
> Is it bad that they have an additional way to make money on top of commissions, Patreon, and merch?
The only reason NFTs sell for more is because of the hype and the likelihood of there being some bigger sucker to resell it to at an inflated price. This won't last forever and then you'll end up with the same same 30$ t-shirt-like prices but in NFT land. The "art" and "artist" involved is irrelevant here - what matters is that you have something that the current market has a lot of demand for.
fwiw I’m interested to explore the $30 NFT price point with a broader project (not pfp or 1/1 or jpeg stuff) and am a lot more optimistic for it than trying to deliver as much value or as little ecological impact with tshirt merch. I think you’re focused on the speculative peaks of what’s going on now, or only what’s happening within eth
I mean NFTs currently are an environmental nightmare. The common response to this is "but that will change with Proof of Stake" and I'll believe it when it happens.
It's already happened, maybe you're talking about when PoS is dominant / happening in eth, which is not all of crypto and not settled that it will remain dominant