# Music nfts thread closed



## Flintpope

THREAD CLOSED


----------



## Kent




----------



## chillbot

If I pay $99.90 can I get all 10 copies? I don't like to share.


----------



## Flintpope

chillbot said:


> If I pay $99.90 can I get all 10 copies? I don't like to share.


No. It is 99.9 tezos and anyway I think you are pulling my leg LOL


----------



## Flintpope

Kent said:


>


haha


----------



## el-bo

Flintpope said:


> *2. Ok, you got past number 1? *









Putting aside the fact that I prefer my tokens to be fungible, I can't parse the gobbledygook. Quite liked the sounds and the piece, though.

Wish you success with it!


----------



## Flintpope

LOL and thanks.


----------



## Manaberry

I expected a Rick Astley video when clicking.
How disappointing.


----------



## Kent

Manaberry said:


> I expected a Rick Astley video when clicking.
> How disappointing.


'this-is-not-a-trick'-rolled


----------



## Flintpope

Manaberry said:


> I expected a Rick Astley video when clicking.
> How disappointing.


Why?


----------



## Brasart

Flintpope said:


> Why?


Because NFTs are objectively absolute trash, and are the bane of artists around the world


----------



## MartinH.

Flintpope said:


> A possible way forward to financially support artists?


No. Unless you would consider pyramid schemes and gambling a "way forward to financially support artists" as well.




Flintpope said:


> I am releasing a series of “pop video” style MP4 films with soundtracks and imagery I have created myself.


Have you created everything we see in the video? The drone footage, the landscape painting and the 3D animation?


----------



## Flintpope

MartinH. said:


> No. Unless you would consider pyramid schemes and gambling a "way forward to financially support artists" as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you created everything we see in the video? The drone footage, the landscape painting and the 3D animation?


The music is mine, the landscape and the drone footage and the 3D are all free-usage assets from Pexels and the like. Can I emphasise the phrase FREE-USAGE? The transitions and pacing are all created by me to get the flow of the piece in relation to my music. 

If a painter uses found elements in a collage they are not criticised for being un-original. Consider early 20th century work by Braques and Picasso. I know what you are saying here and disagree.

I also expected a fair amount of disagreement here, given the hot-button topic NFTs, but I guess that 's the point of conversation. Of course I don't actually think gambling and pyramid schemes are valid forms of income any more than you do and would point out I have made a reasonable side-income over the last six months from purely visual nfts and so far haven't lost any money, neither have I conned anyone out of it.


----------



## Flintpope

Brasart said:


> Because NFTs are objectively absolute trash, and are the bane of artists around the world


I wasn't asking you. However, thanks for sharing your opinion of my work. I must check yours out one day.


----------



## Brasart

Flintpope said:


> I wasn't asking you. However, thanks for sharing your opinion of my work. I must check yours out one day.


My opinion is about NFTs, not about your work


----------



## AudioLoco

NFTs are just an addtional income source to be made from fans. Fans would buy any BS usually, from pins to cups to posters etc (usually not the music though...hahahah)

With what the actual music pays (0000000000.00000002 per stream or some sh...) I don't feel like criticizing the sellers, many do it now... So no moral accusations here...

I do however question the mental state of the buyers of such "product". I feel sorry for them, unless they do it for profit, in that case I'm certainly in the wrong business.

Anyhow, good luck!


----------



## Crowe

No, I do not think NFT's are a valid source of income. I believe the creation of artificial scarcity to be an awful business practice. This leaves a bad taste.


----------



## Flintpope

Brasart said:


> My opinion is about NFTs, not about your work


Fair enough. It certainly is a hot-button topic! mainly at my end apparently...


----------



## Flintpope

AudioLoco said:


> NFTs are just an addtional income source to be made from fans. Fans would buy any BS usually, from pins to cups to posters etc (usually not the music though...hahahah)
> 
> With what the actual music pays (0000000000.00000002 per stream or some sh...) I don't feel like criticizing the sellers, many do it now... So no moral accusations here...
> 
> I do however question the mental state of the buyers of such "product". I feel sorry for them, unless they do it for profit, in that case I'm certainly in the wrong business.
> 
> Anyhow, good luck!



Thanks. A more measured reply than some here. I agree that a lot of NFTs are terribly poor product and I think the music biz is particularly adept at peddling such.

I normally produce low cost art nfts with no sound. The adding-on of my music has entered me into a new area of consideration, given that musicians and buyers of music are already saturated with overpriced and often valueless stuff to buy. I appreciate this conversation we are all having here so once again thanks.


----------



## Flintpope

Crowe said:


> No, I do not think NFT's are a valid source of income. I believe the creation of artificial scarcity to be an awful business practice. This leaves a bad taste.


I'm making a reasonable weekly side-income from art nfts already and don't feel as though I am creating scarcity. The art world naturally creates scarcity e.g. Damien Hurst produces one diamond skull for instance. Picasso makes one Guernica.

However, I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.


----------



## Crowe

Flintpope said:


> I'm making a reasonable weekly side-income from art nfts already and don't feel as though I am creating scarcity. The art world naturally creates scarcity e.g. Damien Hurst produces one diamond skull for instance. Picasso makes one Guernica.
> 
> However, I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.


Picasso making one Guernica is not artificial scarcity. It is scarcity. Data, however, can infinitely be multiplied. The digital world naturally annihilates the idea of scarcity. Turning it into an NFT is _artificial _scarcity.


----------



## Flintpope

Crowe said:


> Picasso making one Guernica is not artificial scarcity. It is scarcity. Data, however, can infinitely be multiplied. The digital world naturally annihilates the idea of scarcity. Turning it into an NFT is _artificial _scarcity.


Fair enough. The odd thing about, for example, a photo as an nft is that anyone can right-click and download it anyway. You actually don't have to pay a thing for it so it is the end-user's choice to fund that artificial scarcity for whatever reason. The hard sell is of course that they are the owner of a digital thing that they can sell on later. i have no problem with this as both a creator and buyer of nts, albeit low cost ones. And I am enjoying the conversation here so thanks!


----------



## gamma-ut

Crowe said:


> Turning it into an NFT is _artificial _scarcity.


Nothing gets turned into an NFT though, so it's not really contributing to scarcity in that way. It's just a string of a numbers on a long list of numbers. The "value" lies in whatever mental connection the buyer makes between that string of numbers and the target artwork. The strength of that connection is debatable but in the long run, probably marginal to zero.

The only real difference between an NFT and a tipjar is that, thanks to all the publicity, an NFT might collect more money in the short term.


----------



## Flintpope

Manaberry said:


> I expected a Rick Astley video when clicking.
> How disappointing.


Funnily enough I heard this tune in a cafe today....


----------



## Zanshin

Flintpope said:


> Damien Hurst produces one diamond skull for instance.


I just read that the skull never really sold. LOL. Scam or farce, but definitely bull shit.


----------



## Flintpope

gamma-ut said:


> Nothing gets turned into an NFT though, so it's not really contributing to scarcity in that way. It's just a string of a numbers on a long list of numbers. The "value" lies in whatever mental connection the buyer makes between that string of numbers and the target artwork. The strength of that connection is debatable but in the long run, probably marginal to zero.
> 
> The only real difference between an NFT and a tipjar is that, thanks to all the publicity, an NFT might collect more money in the short term.


You make a good point here. Having been involved in this world for a few months I have realised the big money only goes to the Damien Hursts and the Banksys of the NFT world. Us also-ran artists can make a reasonable income selling lots of low cost items and drink the profit in the pub. Suits me! If this is a passing phase in the art world I am happy to go with it. Anyone here not guilty of jumping on bandwagons?


----------



## Flintpope

Zanshin said:


> I just read that the skull never really sold. LOL. Scam or farce, but definitely bull shit.


I think the man is a dick but was stuck for an example LOL


----------



## gamma-ut

Flintpope said:


> You make a good point here. Having been involved in this world for a few months I have realised the big money only goes to the Damien Hursts and the Banksys of the NFT world. Us also-ran artists can make a reasonable income selling lots of low cost items and drink the profit in the pub. Suits me! If this is a passing phase in the art world I am happy to go with it. Anyone here not guilty of jumping on bandwagons?


Hirst has actually used NFTs in a reasonably sensible way (though one which seems designed to appeal primarily to international money laundering): the butterfly print auction from last year used the NFT as a digital receipt that would let the buyer delay delivery of the physical print and trade the artwork before physical delivery. In that scheme, the NFT is legally tied to the artwork as opposed to just tacked on as a gimmick (though the auction was something of a gimmick).


----------



## gsilbers

Flintpope said:


> The music is mine, the landscape and the drone footage and the 3D are all free-usage assets from Pexels and the like. Can I emphasise the phrase FREE-USAGE? The transitions and pacing are all created by me to get the flow of the piece in relation to my music.
> 
> If a painter uses found elements in a collage they are not criticised for being un-original. Consider early 20th century work by Braques and Picasso. I know what you are saying here and disagree.
> 
> I also expected a fair amount of disagreement here, given the hot-button topic NFTs, but I guess that 's the point of conversation. Of course I don't actually think gambling and pyramid schemes are valid forms of income any more than you do and would point out I have made a reasonable side-income over the last six months from purely visual nfts and so far haven't lost any money, neither have I conned anyone out of it.




Just to figure out more about this in general. 

Lets say i buy the 10 copies. each w 10% royalties. 

Then i own those videos and if i want i can delete them from any youtube or even audio streaming? 

Or.. can i grab those 10 videos/music and upload them to youtube, spotify and earn money from them as long i give you 10% royalties? 

Im a little confused as to whats considred ownership in this case. At least outside of selling it to someone else in a nft market place.


----------



## MartinH.

Flintpope said:


> The music is mine, the landscape and the drone footage and the 3D are all free-usage assets from Pexels and the like. Can I emphasise the phrase FREE-USAGE? The transitions and pacing are all created by me to get the flow of the piece in relation to my music.
> 
> If a painter uses found elements in a collage they are not criticised for being un-original. Consider early 20th century work by Braques and Picasso. I know what you are saying here and disagree.
> 
> I also expected a fair amount of disagreement here, given the hot-button topic NFTs, but I guess that 's the point of conversation. Of course I don't actually think gambling and pyramid schemes are valid forms of income any more than you do and would point out I have made a reasonable side-income over the last six months from purely visual nfts and so far haven't lost any money, neither have I conned anyone out of it.



That's actually only half of what I was getting at. I was hoping you _did _create them yourself, in which case regular art freelancing would seem to me like a potentially more profitable side income than selling NFTs. But since you did not make this yourself and I know that sites like Pexels are shady as hell, I tracked down the source of the artwork and boy oh boy you should not be using this in my humble opinion. It's from a Studio Ghibli movie: 









Studio Ghibli's Most Powerful Film Is Its Least Whimsical


Only Yesterday may lack magical flourishes, but it makes up for it with poignant themes, making it one of Studio Ghibli's most powerful films.




www.cbr.com





If you think what you did is "fair use", remember fair use is a defense to use in court, not a right. And I don't think it applies here. Also some things are arguably art, but objectively still illegal. I think you are commiting a copyright violation in the same way it would be when someone sold an NFT of a video (the visual aspect of which they purely made themself) that uses music from a movie as a soundtrack. 



Good on you for picking a more eco friendly cryptocurrency to sell it for though! I may not be a fan of the NFT hype, but I am curious to see what you're doing in this realm. Just please be a bit more careful about using things you didn't make yourself.


----------



## d.healey

gsilbers said:


> Then i own those videos


No. You'll own a hash code to a piece of data on the blockchain, that data will contain a URL to the artwork. That URL could go dead at any time (and so could the blockchain).

https://vi-control.net/community/threads/line-goes-up-–-the-problem-with-nfts.120714


----------



## labyrinths

If you buy a Picasso and the art market later decides a Picasso is now worthless, that painting becomes a very bad _financial_ investment for you, but at the end of the day you still have the painting, and it may bring you pleasure regardless of the market resale value. You can still hang it on your wall.

NFTs have no inherent value, because you own _nothing_, and depend solely on speculation. If someone buys your NFT and the art market collectively decides your NFT is entirely worthless, not only was it a bad financial investment, the buyer doesn't even actually own the artwork at the end of the day.

It's difficult to make a living as an artist, and it's hard to fault some folks (particularly young artists) from hopping on the bandwagon, but it's also hard to see NFTs as more than a Ponzi scheme.


----------



## d.healey

labyrinths said:


> not only was it a bad financial investment, the buyer doesn't even actually own the artwork at the end of the day.


At least you can try and sell your NFTs, unlike most sample libraries


----------



## Flintpope

gsilbers said:


> Just to figure out more about this in general.
> 
> Lets say i buy the 10 copies. each w 10% royalties.
> 
> Then i own those videos and if i want i can delete them from any youtube or even audio streaming?
> 
> Or.. can i grab those 10 videos/music and upload them to youtube, spotify and earn money from them as long i give you 10% royalties?
> 
> Im a little confused as to whats considred ownership in this case. At least outside of selling it to someone else in a nft market place.


Yes. Confusing I agree.

If you bought all the copies (which no-one will TBH) I would as a courtesy delete the YouTube version to stop anyone downloading it for free. This is possible with any digital media as we all know.

If you wanted to then sell them on you can, as far as I understand it, sell them only in the specific marketplace you bought them. In this case it would be the tezos marketplace of H=N. I would get a royalty of 10% per sale.

I am not aware of the option to actually sell copies of any video on YouTube but maybe you could hypothetically look into it.

I guess the ownership only exists in the specific marketplace. And in our heads of course.

An interesting point!


----------



## Flintpope

MartinH. said:


> That's actually only half of what I was getting at. I was hoping you _did _create them yourself, in which case regular art freelancing would seem to me like a potentially more profitable side income than selling NFTs. But since you did not make this yourself and I know that sites like Pexels are shady as hell, I tracked down the source of the artwork and boy oh boy you should not be using this in my humble opinion. It's from a Studio Ghibli movie:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Studio Ghibli's Most Powerful Film Is Its Least Whimsical
> 
> 
> Only Yesterday may lack magical flourishes, but it makes up for it with poignant themes, making it one of Studio Ghibli's most powerful films.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbr.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think what you did is "fair use", remember fair use is a defense to use in court, not a right. And I don't think it applies here. Also some things are arguably art, but objectively still illegal. I think you are commiting a copyright violation in the same way it would be when someone sold an NFT of a video (the visual aspect of which they purely made themself) that uses music from a movie as a soundtrack.
> 
> 
> 
> Good on you for picking a more eco friendly cryptocurrency to sell it for though! I may not be a fan of the NFT hype, but I am curious to see what you're doing in this realm. Just please be a bit more careful about using things you didn't make yourself.


Thanks for policing this for me! I don't think Pexels is inherently shady but would appreciate more info to go on.

However I am shocked to think I abused a Studio Ghibli source and await their law-suit in due course. TBH after this debate loses traction I will probably delete the offending article as no way do I want to abuse that lovely studio. I found the pic somewhere or other masquerading as free use.


----------



## Kent

Flintpope said:


> I guess the ownership only exists[...]in our heads of course.


this is true of any concept.


----------



## Kent

d.healey said:


> No. You'll own a hash code to a piece of data on the blockchain, that data will contain a URL to the artwork. That URL could go dead at any time (and so code the blockchain).
> 
> https://vi-control.net/community/threads/line-goes-up-–-the-problem-with-nfts.120714


Yes, this!

This is really the same mental error that happens when people buy a CD album or a sample library and think they 'own' it—no, you own access to the property and are given certain legal rights associated with that ownership (so, having an album on CD does not allow one to use that music in synchronization with a film, or having a film on a BluRay does not allow one to show the film to the public for money). The complicating factor _here_ is, of course, the extreme volatility of the 'access'.

Who here bought a star in the '90s?


----------



## MartinH.

Flintpope said:


> Thanks for policing this for me! I don't think Pexels is inherently shady but would appreciate more info to go on.
> 
> However I am shocked to think I abused a Studio Ghibli source and await their law-suit in due course. TBH after this debate loses traction I will probably delete the offending article as no way do I want to abuse that lovely studio. I found the pic somewhere or other masquerading as free use.



Glad I could help! I would say every site like pexels that allows just anybody without oversight to post whatever is shady. Doesn't matter if it's free or paid resources either. The paid sites like cgtrader, turbosquid, unity assetstore etc. all have content that is stolen from somewhere else. Not exclusively of course, but way too much to just blindly rely on it being fine without doing thorough research on your own. E.g. look for people selling under their real name or an established company name, that sell the same set of assets accross different stores and show the work in their online portfolios. Usually legit sellers also have a fairly consistent set of assets on sale. Also look for discrepancies between quality and price. That painting that you used for example is way too good to even be released into the public domain. If an artist ever did that, they'd be an idiot. 
The only sites that I would consider reasonably safe are sites like for example photobash.org, textures.com and quixel.com/megascans, because as far as I know they exclusively use their own content creation teams and don't allow user submissions from unvetted sources.


----------



## MusiquedeReve

Flintpope said:


> *A possible way forward to financially support artists? *
> 
> I am releasing a series of “pop video” style MP4 films with soundtracks and imagery I have created myself. You can buy a copy of each limited edition video as an NFT which you can keep in your collection or sell on for profit (if the market is right AND the value of Flintpope artifacts increases) in the crazy world of cryptoassets.
> 
> NFT is short for a non-fungible token, a unique digital asset whose ownership is bought and sold online through a blockchain, a kind of online computerised storage-safe gizmo.
> 
> To buy one of my NFTs you will need –
> 
> *1. Trust* in the whole system of cryptocurrency and digital assets, and a basic belief that it is not a fly-by-night scam. To get past this first requirement you are probably under 30 years old, open-minded, and don’t work for a bank or the government.
> 
> *2. Ok, you got past number 1? *Then you will need an online cryptocurrency “wallet” to buy and sell your assets with, and of course to convert back to your own currency when you wish. I use *KUKAI *because I sell all my work in *TEZOS*, which is the cryptocurrency used by *https://hicetnunc.xyz/ (hicetnunc)* where I list my work. Another popular tezos wallet is *TEMPLE.
> 
> 3*. *Tezos? Hicetwhat? *Hicetnunc, known colloquially as H=N, has been set up as a green alternative to the big crypto platforms BITCOIN and ETHERIUM. Hic Et Nunc is based on the *TEZOS *blockchain, and consumes over *two million times less* energy than the BIG TWO. Therefore, *TEZOS* is considered a clean cryptocurrency – making it a guilt-free and more reasonable option. See this graph…
> 
> View attachment 70338
> 
> 
> 4.* Buy* some tezos. If you have set up your wallet you need to put in some seed money. A good place to buy some *TEZOS *is *HERE
> 
> My first music NFT is this one called PETROL PIZZICATO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PETROL PIZZICATO* is an exploration of image and music by Flintpope.
> 
> “Experimental music doesn’t need to take twenty minutes to explore the fine details of tape hiss in granular detail…”
> 
> This NFT is a *1m17sec (960 x540 px) 68.4Meg H.264 AAC HD MP4* music video.
> OWN a copy of this (from a limited edition of 10) for 9.99 tezos by clicking here.​



You are giving it away for free on YouTube and selling it?


----------



## Flintpope

Kent said:


> Yes, this!
> 
> This is really the same mental error that happens when people buy a CD album or a sample library and think they 'own' it—no, you own access to the property and are given certain legal rights associated with that ownership (so, having an album on CD does not allow one to use that music in synchronization with a film, or having a film on a BluRay does not allow one to show the film to the public for money). The complicating factor _here_ is, of course, the extreme volatility of the 'access'.
> 
> Who here bought a star in the '90s?


My father in law bought a square centimetre of China in the 80s! My father bought a lordship (ok a piece of paper) in the 90s. To this day (he passed a long while back) I am still NOT a lord.


----------



## Flintpope

MartinH. said:


> Glad I could help! I would say every site like pexels that allows just anybody without oversight to post whatever is shady. Doesn't matter if it's free or paid resources either. The paid sites like cgtrader, turbosquid, unity assetstore etc. all have content that is stolen from somewhere else. Not exclusively of course, but way too much to just blindly rely on it being fine without doing thorough research on your own. E.g. look for people selling under their real name or an established company name, that sell the same set of assets accross different stores and show the work in their online portfolios. Usually legit sellers also have a fairly consistent set of assets on sale. Also look for discrepancies between quality and price. That painting that you used for example is way too good to even be released into the public domain. If an artist ever did that, they'd be an idiot.
> The only sites that I would consider reasonably safe are sites like for example photobash.org, textures.com and quixel.com/megascans, because as far as I know they exclusively use their own content creation teams and don't allow user submissions from unvetted sources.


Yes thanks again. I was actually astonished on the click thorough to the Ghibli pic.


MorphineNoir said:


> You are giving it away for free on YouTube and selling it?


Well, there, in a nutshell is the weirdness about NFTs. I already chatted earlier about the fact that anyone can download anything off a computer without having to buy it. Some people prefer to pay for something with a view to possibly selling it later maybe.


----------



## d.healey

Flintpope said:


> I would as a courtesy delete the YouTube version to stop anyone downloading it for free.


But they could still download it from the URL on the blockchain, which is public.


----------



## Flintpope

d.healey said:


> But they could still download it from the URL on the blockchain, which is public.


Yes. Same as any NFT. It IS inherently flawed but I happily buy low cost items from fellow artists and vice versa. I am coming to realise I stepped on a mine with this particular release and while the principle of NFTs is something I approve of I am deleting this work asap from YouTube and H=N due to a stupid copyright infringement of mine regarding Studio Ghibli.


----------



## d.healey

MorphineNoir said:


> You are giving it away for free on YouTube and selling it?


The NFT and the thing the NFT links to are two different things. He is not selling a video he is selling a link to a video.


----------



## Flintpope

All deleted


----------



## Flintpope

d.healey said:


> The NFT and the thing the NFT links to are two different things. He is not selling a video he is selling a link to a video.


Actually I burnt the whole lot just now! No vid, no nfts of this piece. Lots more here bit.ly/FlintPope


----------



## MartinH.

d.healey said:


> The NFT and the thing the NFT links to are two different things. He is not selling a video he is selling a link to a video.


Is there any precedent about the legal distinctions here? Like if I mint and sell an NFT that points to something illegal, am I liable, since technically it is just a link? What if someone buys it, are they then liable? What if someone buys a harmless NFT, but the data the NFT links to is later changed into something illegal? Does that create liability, and for whom?
What if I sell an NFT and then change the data to something different but legal? Does the new owner of the NFT have a legal claim for me since I basically changed the product that they bought, or at least they'll feel that way, even if the NFT link itself remains the same?




Flintpope said:


> Lots more here bit.ly/FlintPope


Just FYI, for a long while I've been getting a security warning for all bit.ly links. Might want to use Linktree or something else instead. 

Bitly always gives me this text: 
"Your connection is not secure

The owner of bit.ly has configured their website improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Waterfox has not connected to this website."


----------



## Chamberfield

Yep, we're all going to get rich with NFTs! I'm already saving up to buy a virtual mansion and a yacht in the metaverse.


----------



## Flintpope

MartinH. said:


> Is there any precedent about the legal distinctions here? Like if I mint and sell an NFT that points to something illegal, am I liable, since technically it is just a link? What if someone buys it, are they then liable? What if someone buys a harmless NFT, but the data the NFT links to is later changed into something illegal? Does that create liability, and for whom?
> What if I sell an NFT and then change the data to something different but legal? Does the new owner of the NFT have a legal claim for me since I basically changed the product that they bought, or at least they'll feel that way, even if the NFT link itself remains the same?
> 
> 
> 
> Just FYI, for a long while I've been getting a security warning for all bit.ly links. Might want to use Linktree or something else instead.
> 
> Bitly always gives me this text:
> "Your connection is not secure
> 
> The owner of bit.ly has configured their website improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Waterfox has not connected to this website."


I think you need a lawyer to answer this!

The unshortened site link is this

https://www.henext.xyz/tz1Yq6uCkMiAbk3DuWmEmEtEL4c5sCnwx2Ec


----------



## AlexRuger

Soapbox moment because I'm feeling inspired this morning:

NFTs as "goods" are -- sorry -- an absolutely moronic system. The only reason they're selling is because those holding large quantities of cryptocurrencies needed another incentive for people to buy in and drive the price of their otherwise-useless "store of value" to new heights, and because smart contracts needed to find a use-case. There is no utility here, nothing novel, nothing original (and that's without even judging the supposed "art" that is usually sold as NFTs; not judging your art, OP, I'm talking the vast majority of bored apes and other bullshit). It's just bag-holders selling to newer, even more unfortunate bag-holders, until the day in which everyone wakes up and realizes that absolutely none of this matters or has any effect on anything, and the whole thing comes crashing down; everyone just wants to pass the bag on before that happens. All hype, zero substance.

It's like digital Beanie Babies -- they have no utility beyond super-niche collectability, stupidly high prices, and one day they will crash. As will cryptocurrencies at large, unless they can actually start being used as, you know, _currencies, _purchasing not just literally useless falsely-scarce _links_ (not even the rights!) to otherwise infinitely fungible, abundant copies of digital assets, but actual _goods -- _food, housing, transportation, whatever.

I have zero faith in cryptocurrencies at large, as well as anything that runs on/with them, until that happens; and even then, by the time they get to that point, it'll just be a story of "new boss same as the old boss," as whatever benefits cryptocurrencies might have over fiat currency will disappear by the time they're adopted at scale, and perhaps will give those who hold vast quantities of capital even more draconian tools to hold onto that wealth. After all, fiat currency effectively _is _digital "cryptocurrency," in that, well, the whole financial system is digital and heavily encrypted.

The only actual "difference" I can see persisting by the time cryptocurrencies become adopted as real currencies at large is that they won't necessarily be tied to a country of origin or be centralized, but only in the _de jure _sense -- cryptocurrencies are and always will be _de facto _tied to countries of origin/centralized due to the high barriers of entry to being a real player in the system, i.e. both systems support rich, predominantly white, predominantly men, being in control of the majority of the currency, the rules and infrastructure, etc. Because what does it take to buy cryptocurrency? _Real money. _Cryptocurrency is little more than _abstraction layer _of real money, minus laws and regulation. It's very similar to money-laundering in that sense (not to mention the fact that of course cryptocurrency is often used to _literally _engage in money-laundering, but I digress).

And once it's all said and done, assuming we ever get there, I imagine that even which _specific _rich predominantly white predominantly men we're talking about won't have changed all that much. Sociopaths gonna...'path society.

And even beyond all of _that, _whatever Libertarian pipe-dream utopia cryptobros think they're building is completely ignoring that, you know, the _hardware _(that they're completely inflating the prices of) is purchased in fiat currency, supports and maintains the dominance of one or two near-monopolies, which utilize closed CPU architecture, strip-mining of the Earth for rare minerals, fucked up working conditions, etc. Of course everyone who deals with tech in any way directly or indirectly supports this paradigm, but I'm at least not kidding myself that just because I'm pushing open source software or a "free currency" or whatever other for-better-or-worse-ideologically-driven-software-movement (IMO the former being "better" and the latter being "worse"), that that actually has any effect downwards on the stack that the software in question runs on. Without free and open hardware, the biggest players of our economy will be preserved, capitalism will persist, and thus currency ("capital" -- it's in the name, after all) will be bent by those who benefit from that system, who write the rules _of _that system in their favor, no matter whether the currency is fiat or crypto.

The fact that cryptocurrency is less regulated than fiat currency is not a _good thing. _It just allows otherwise criminal behavior to go unpunished. And by the time crypto becomes truly mainstream, those with the most will have the most power, regardless of how they got that power. We are effectively pre-legitimizing current unlawful behavior. We're saying "commit fraud now and we'll grandfather you in." That isn't to say that all cryptocurrency/NFT business is fraud -- tons of it isn't -- but the fact is that you literally can't tell what's legit and what's not until _after _the hammer drops. There's no rules in place, it's the wild west.

Hence, I think that rather than trying to disrupt the entire financial system "just because" ("They were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should"), perhaps we should fix the root, foundational issues. Which unfortunately is boring, and not something that one can hype up and capitalize on as easily as, say, a pump and dump scheme. And so, well, here we are.

This is doubly annoying because the _technology _of NFTs is actually quite beautiful, and has a massive potential for (I've said this elsewhere on the forum but it bears repeating) completely changing the way that compositions' performances are tracked. A _composition, _from a standpoint of copyright, _is _"non-fungible," and tracking exploitation of that non-fungible asset (i.e. how many times a cue is broadcast, whether it be via Netflix, CBS, YouTube, Twitch, whatever) digitally via the blockchain could be a game-changer for composers, making tracking who is owed what royalties a completely painless, automatic process. PROs could effectively become just a few servers, and I for one think that would be a huge win, as they are completely self-serving, composer-hostile middlemen that deserve to be disrupted and displaced.

Anyways. Glad you're making cool videos/music, but the NFT aspect is cringey. Perhaps consider stepping off the hype train and just putting it out there like normal. Sell it, give it away for free, whatever, but stop kidding yourself that you can sell a link to a digital asset and somehow make it scarce. It's not and it never will be. Hence the importance of copyright, and laws governing exploitation of copyrighted material, etc etc etc, rather than somehow doing enough mental gymnastics so that you can convince yourself and others than an mp3 (or a link to it, or a representation of it, or whatever) is a one of a kind. This problem is solved already, and it's called intellectual property.


----------



## jononotbono

Chamberfield said:


> Yep, we're all going to get rich with NFTs! I'm already saving up to buy a virtual mansion and a yacht in the metaverse.


The Metaverse? Pfft. You wanna start aiming a little higher. In fact, you wanna be getting setup with your new life and crypto swag here man...


----------



## CT

Chamberfield said:


> Yep, we're all going to get rich with NFTs! I'm already saving up to buy a virtual mansion and a yacht in the metaverse.


Damn, what's your secret? I'm struggling to afford my virtual studio apartment in virtual Los Angeles.


----------



## chillbot

Kent said:


> Who here bought a star in the '90s?


Don't mock Chillstar™ you will not be welcome there. And it was in the '00s.


----------



## d.healey

MartinH. said:


> Like if I mint and sell an NFT that points to something illegal


It's interesting because you wouldn't own the thing that was being pointed to and technically you don't "own" in any real sense the packet of data on the blockchain that points to the thing. I think the responsibility for the illegal content falls to the person who owns the server that contains the content. This is pretty much the same rule that applies if you have a link on your site that points to something illegal, your site isn't liable for the remote content (although in some countries you might be told to remove the link). And all of this will vary depending on where you live.


----------



## MusiquedeReve

Kent said:


> Who here bought a star in the '90s?


My family did for my grandfather after my grandmother passed away - we gave it to him and explained what it was then took him into the backyard and found the star in a telescope -- he cried tears of joy and we all shared stories about my grandmother - it was truly one of the sweetest moments of my life

I am actually now tearing up


----------



## Flintpope

Well. This was a can of worms eh?


----------



## Flintpope

AlexRuger said:


> Soapbox moment because I'm feeling inspired this morning:
> 
> NFTs as "goods" are -- sorry -- an absolutely moronic system. The only reason they're selling is because those holding large quantities of cryptocurrencies needed another incentive for people to buy in and drive the price of their otherwise-useless "store of value" to new heights, and because smart contracts needed to find a use-case. There is no utility here, nothing novel, nothing original (and that's without even judging the supposed "art" that is usually sold as NFTs; not judging your art, OP, I'm talking the vast majority of bored apes and other bullshit). It's just bag-holders selling to newer, even more unfortunate bag-holders, until the day in which everyone wakes up and realizes that absolutely none of this matters or has any effect on anything, and the whole thing comes crashing down; everyone just wants to pass the bag on before that happens. All hype, zero substance.
> 
> It's like digital Beanie Babies -- they have no utility beyond super-niche collectability, stupidly high prices, and one day they will crash. As will cryptocurrencies at large, unless they can actually start being used as, you know, _currencies, _purchasing not just literally useless falsely-scarce _links_ (not even the rights!) to otherwise infinitely fungible, abundant copies of digital assets, but actual _goods -- _food, housing, transportation, whatever.
> 
> I have zero faith in cryptocurrencies at large, as well as anything that runs on/with them, until that happens; and even then, by the time they get to that point, it'll just be a story of "new boss same as the old boss," as whatever benefits cryptocurrencies might have over fiat currency will disappear by the time they're adopted at scale, and perhaps will give those who hold vast quantities of capital even more draconian tools to hold onto that wealth. After all, fiat currency effectively _is _digital "cryptocurrency," in that, well, the whole financial system is digital and heavily encrypted.
> 
> The only actual "difference" I can see persisting by the time cryptocurrencies become adopted as real currencies at large is that they won't necessarily be tied to a country of origin or be centralized, but only in the _de jure _sense -- cryptocurrencies are and always will be _de facto _tied to countries of origin/centralized due to the high barriers of entry to being a real player in the system, i.e. both systems support rich, predominantly white, predominantly men, being in control of the majority of the currency, the rules and infrastructure, etc. Because what does it take to buy cryptocurrency? _Real money. _Cryptocurrency is little more than _abstraction layer _of real money, minus laws and regulation. It's very similar to money-laundering in that sense (not to mention the fact that of course cryptocurrency is often used to _literally _engage in money-laundering, but I digress).
> 
> And once it's all said and done, assuming we ever get there, I imagine that even which _specific _rich predominantly white predominantly men we're talking about won't have changed all that much. Sociopaths gonna...'path society.
> 
> And even beyond all of _that, _whatever Libertarian pipe-dream utopia cryptobros think they're building is completely ignoring that, you know, the _hardware _(that they're completely inflating the prices of) is purchased in fiat currency, supports and maintains the dominance of one or two near-monopolies, which utilize closed CPU architecture, strip-mining of the Earth for rare minerals, fucked up working conditions, etc. Of course everyone who deals with tech in any way directly or indirectly supports this paradigm, but I'm at least not kidding myself that just because I'm pushing open source software or a "free currency" or whatever other for-better-or-worse-ideologically-driven-software-movement (IMO the former being "better" and the latter being "worse"), that that actually has any effect downwards on the stack that the software in question runs on. Without free and open hardware, the biggest players of our economy will be preserved, capitalism will persist, and thus currency ("capital" -- it's in the name, after all) will be bent by those who benefit from that system, who write the rules _of _that system in their favor, no matter whether the currency is fiat or crypto.
> 
> The fact that cryptocurrency is less regulated than fiat currency is not a _good thing. _It just allows otherwise criminal behavior to go unpunished. And by the time crypto becomes truly mainstream, those with the most will have the most power, regardless of how they got that power. We are effectively pre-legitimizing current unlawful behavior. We're saying "commit fraud now and we'll grandfather you in." That isn't to say that all cryptocurrency/NFT business is fraud -- tons of it isn't -- but the fact is that you literally can't tell what's legit and what's not until _after _the hammer drops. There's no rules in place, it's the wild west.
> 
> Hence, I think that rather than trying to disrupt the entire financial system "just because" ("They were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should"), perhaps we should fix the root, foundational issues. Which unfortunately is boring, and not something that one can hype up and capitalize on as easily as, say, a pump and dump scheme. And so, well, here we are.
> 
> This is doubly annoying because the _technology _of NFTs is actually quite beautiful, and has a massive potential for (I've said this elsewhere on the forum but it bears repeating) completely changing the way that compositions' performances are tracked. A _composition, _from a standpoint of copyright, _is _"non-fungible," and tracking exploitation of that non-fungible asset (i.e. how many times a cue is broadcast, whether it be via Netflix, CBS, YouTube, Twitch, whatever) digitally via the blockchain could be a game-changer for composers, making tracking who is owed what royalties a completely painless, automatic process. PROs could effectively become just a few servers, and I for one think that would be a huge win, as they are completely self-serving, composer-hostile middlemen that deserve to be disrupted and displaced.
> 
> Anyways. Glad you're making cool videos/music, but the NFT aspect is cringey. Perhaps consider stepping off the hype train and just putting it out there like normal. Sell it, give it away for free, whatever, but stop kidding yourself that you can sell a link to a digital asset and somehow make it scarce. It's not and it never will be. Hence the importance of copyright, and laws governing exploitation of copyrighted material, etc etc etc, rather than somehow doing enough mental gymnastics so that you can convince yourself and others than an mp3 (or a link to it, or a representation of it, or whatever) is a one of a kind. This problem is solved already, and it's called intellectual property.


Big WOW. You are a detailed thinker and thanks for going through all this. Thanks for the advice in the last paragraph but I already give everything I make away for free here https://flintpope.net It's a music software site.

So it's been nice to make a small £800 making small art pieces since September 1st for people who believe in the system. I didn't make this system but I think it works for now and why not use it while it lasts?

I can imagine people having these kind of discussions millennia ago about this new thing called "money". What's that all about? It represents gold? What's the point of that? I swap this paper stuff for real stuff and people trust in its value? No way!

Ok. The point the next reader will jump on is "real stuff". How is an NFT real? How is ownership of anything real?

I look forward to the next comment!

This is proving to be an interesting conversation.


----------



## Hadrondrift

Adam creates a NFT named HOTSTUFF and offers it at objkt.
Adam has a friend. His name is Billy.
Adam and Billy both have some Tezo Tokens.
Billy buys the NFT from his friend Adam for 10.
Adam buys the NFT back for 20.
Billy buys the NFT for 40.
Adam buys it for 80.
Billy for 90.

Let's welcome Susi. She is new to NFTs. She discovers HOTSTUFF with its ever-increasing price. The FOMO gets strong in her.
»HOTSTUFF is constantly rising! What if I buy HOTSTUFF now and sell later?«, she thinks hesitantly.

Adam buys the NFT from Billy for 98.
Susi quickly buys the NFT for 100 from Adam. She is happy.

Adam gives 50 to Billy.

For some strange reason, no one wants to buy Susi's NFT from that point on. After a while, Susi is unhappy.

Adam made 50. His friend Billy made 50. Susi lost 100.


Pricing in the NFT area is very often done via wash trading. In general, prices here and in the crypto sector are not created by natural supply and demand, but by a few extremely financially strong market makers who manipulate the market and can set the price almost at will. Especially with the help of stablecoins, the crypto space has gotten into a very fragile situation. Presumably, a considerable part of the liquidity is only apparently available.

NFTs are completely unsuitable as a reliable source of income. Almost exclusively, they are based on hype and the hope that you can find someone to throw the hot potato to. This can go well for a long time, but at some point "peak fool" is reached.

I can somewhat understand that. Some examples where NFTs went over the table for millions have a magical appeal. Even well-known composers can't always escape this.


----------



## MartinH.

Hadrondrift said:


> Adam creates a NFT named HOTSTUFF and offers it at objkt.
> Adam has a friend. His name is Billy.
> Adam and Billy both have some Tezo Tokens.
> Billy buys the NFT from his friend Adam for 10.
> Adam buys the NFT back for 20.
> Billy buys the NFT for 40.
> Adam buys it for 80.
> Billy for 90.
> 
> Let's welcome Susi. She is new to NFTs. She discovers HOTSTUFF with its ever-increasing price. The FOMO gets strong in her.
> »HOTSTUFF is constantly rising! What if I buy HOTSTUFF now and sell later?«, she thinks hesitantly.
> 
> Adam buys the NFT from Billy for 98.
> Susi quickly buys the NFT for 100 from Adam. She is happy.
> 
> Adam gives 50 to Billy.
> 
> For some strange reason, no one wants to buy Susi's NFT from that point on. After a while, Susi is unhappy.
> 
> Adam made 50. His friend Billy made 50. Susi lost 100.
> 
> 
> Pricing in the NFT area is very often done via wash trading. In general, prices here and in the crypto sector are not created by natural supply and demand, but by a few extremely financially strong market makers who manipulate the market and can set the price almost at will. Especially with the help of stablecoins, the crypto space has gotten into a very fragile situation. Presumably, a considerable part of the liquidity is only apparently available.
> 
> NFTs are completely unsuitable as a reliable source of income. Almost exclusively, they are based on hype and the hope that you can find someone to throw the hot potato to. This can go well for a long time, but at some point "peak fool" is reached.
> 
> I can somewhat understand that. Some examples where NFTs went over the table for millions have a magical appeal. Even well-known composers can't always escape this.



So what I'm reading into this is NFTs are really democratizing the market manipulation schemes that used to only be accessible to the rich, and now everyone can create their own little pseudo markets by issuing their own NFTs and trading them back and forth with their friends to inflate the value? So if you're minting your own NFTs you have a minimal investment and downside risk compared to buying other NFTs or cryptocoins and trading them? 
How about tax evasion schemes, can NFTs be used for those as well, like real art can?


----------



## gamma-ut

MartinH. said:


> How about tax evasion schemes, can NFTs be used for those as well, like real art can?


NFTs went straight for the hard stuff: a lot of the early market for art NFTs seems to have been driven by money laundering activity. It saves you the bother of having someone rock up to a warehouse in a freeport like the one at Luxembourg Airport and move physical objects from one locker to another. You can just trade the tokens using crypto.



I thought I had another link knocking around about the first wave of money into NFTs and how it seemed to be likely to be mostly laundering activity but I can't find it for the moment.


----------



## creativeforge

jononotbono said:


> The Metaverse? Pfft. You wanna start aiming a little higher. In fact, you wanna be getting setup with your new life and crypto swag here man...



This is utterly mental...


----------



## jcrosby

creativeforge said:


> This is utterly mental...


Smells a lot like the Fyre Festival  Any chance Ja Rule is flogging this as an influencer?


----------



## jononotbono

creativeforge said:


> This is utterly mental...


I’m glad someone else hear appreciates this. They haven’t even bought an island yet. It’s basically the next Fyre Festival 😂


----------



## jononotbono

jcrosby said:


> Smells a lot like the Fyre Festival


This is so amazing isn’t it! Let’s all move to the Blockchain Hills where we can have Parties and show each other our NFTS of Ozzy biting a Bat. “Wait! I thought I was the only one with this NFT? You are. My one is a different link to the same thing” Oh cool bro.


----------



## Gabriel S.

jcrosby said:


> Smells a lot like the Fyre Festival  Any chance Ja Rule is flogging this as an influencer?











Ja Rule sells $122,000 Fyre Festival NFT artwork – with real painting thrown in


Musician joins vogue for unique electronic identifiers and is happy to be rid of art: ‘I just wanted that energy out’




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Hadrondrift

_Sold to an anonymous buyer..._ I don't want to imply anything, but of course it could have been his uncle.

Maybe the gentleman just wants to market his new NFT auction platform, FlipKick. After all, NFT sales announcements with prices at astonishing levels always generate a lot of attention.

What I find really problematic about all this NFT stuff is that nearly always it's not about the artistic content, but about something that is expected to make a profit. The actual work of art, the song, the picture, becomes a minor matter, is aesthetically devalued in its own right, may as well just consist of a few randomly generated pixels. The real thing is the hope of profit. The hope of finding the next greater fool, so to say, to sell the token to, for a higher price.

You don't spend money because being touched by content. The actual content becomes unimportant. It becomes just a vehicle around which artificial hype is built. For me, that devalues art, even if its price goes up.

On Ja Rule's FlipKick auction platform, the very first paragraph of the explanation "What is an NFT" says: _Creators can ... sell these as one-of-a-kind works of art ... The buyers can then resell them for profit, ..._


----------



## gamma-ut

Hadrondrift said:


> _Sold to an anonymous buyer..._ I don't want to imply anything, but of course it could have been his uncle.


Or maybe someone called Ra Jule or Elur Aj.

He's jumped on the rest of the bandwagon, so I can't see why wash trading shouldn't be on the list.


----------



## Cideboy

Well Im coin operated so Ive got my eye on NFT and made quite a bit on Doge this week. As artists I think we have to consider multiple streams of income. IMO, the NFT market for music will not be the full compositions but the individual sounds, samples, and patches. I havent had time to look into this much but its seems like a way for sound designers, patch designers, session musicians, etc could track and get paid for their work. Seems like a great way to split the bill for collaborative efforts if you will.

I could see ASCAP or BMI embracing something like this to improve and automate royalty tracking. That should improve returns.


----------



## gamma-ut

Cideboy said:


> its seems like a way for sound designers, patch designers, session musicians, etc could track and get paid for their work.


How would such a system work in practice?


----------



## Cideboy

no idea lol bit it feels like it could be a potential future market. whoever figures that out will be wealthy!


----------



## Blackster

IMO, NFTs in their nature are interesting. Actually, not for making an additional income directly from buying or selling them (royalties) but to identify a specific person! 

Imagine you go to a concert and the VIP-ticket you bought includes an NFT. Since YOU bought it, the blockchain knows that it's only YOU who can get access to other things, maybe more content, maybe access to another area, whatever. 

Or take memberships, as another example. Giving out NFTs to VIP people identifies them as an elite group of people who might enjoy more status than regular members! The same thing can be true for graduations. Because it's all visible in the blockchain, you become part of a specific group.

NFTs will help form culture, groups and also help people connect to others because of the information they reveal about somebody. Now, none of these things will make direct money from NFTs, but indirectly, it can create money and wealth for sure. 

One of the most common misunderstandings is the perception of the property. If somebody bought a gif picture as an NFT, you usually don't own any rights to that, meaning, you are not allowed to print it on t-shirts or use it as your logo and so on ...

That naturally raises the question of what the worth of buying an NFT really is, if it's outside of pure collectibles.

I believe the market needs to offer better use-cases to NFTs, especially in combination with music. There are endless ways how to provide more value to customers using NFTs but it's properly not just by selling musical tracks as NFTs, at least, that's what I assume.


----------



## Bullersten

Well that was an interesting thread to read through. Thanks for that. 

My conclusion is that no scarcity is technically being created since any digital file can be duplicated by the buyer or seller. It is not even working from a game theory perspective, because say if someone pays 10 mil USD for a digital creation, the buyer is clearly incentivised not to duplicate it to keep it rare and expensive. Unfortunately the seller's interest is to do the opposite in order to make more money out of it. In the real world, you would sign a legal agreement to avoid this problem. Hence why i am very suspicious about the legitimacy of the large transactions happening in this space.


----------



## gsilbers

Seems it’s always about the potential.
But currently it’s about the scams. Or pyramid scheme.

If big companies are able to figure out a way to make it work then maybe there is potential. 
I’m sure it’ll be like the current platforms where just a handful dominate everything but hopefully we can get something out it.

Tracking art through the share economy world might be cool. Getting ad revenue for nft owners and artists.
Somehow any art would be traceable to the creator who is a verified nft creator and orignal copyright owner.
Si no matter how a jpg or mp3 is shared or viewed or even edited, etc there can be royalties collected across platforms.

I doubt that can happen or even technically possible..


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh

gsilbers said:


> I doubt that can happen or even technically possible..


Depends a LOT on treaties and legislation. There are groups/politicians trying to prevent the dispersion/democratization of IP power/tracking, so it really matters who in the anglosphere is elected over the next 10 years if musicians are to enjoy pre-2000s-piracy remuneration... maybe even a _bellè epoch_-level promulgation of the arts.


----------



## doctoremmet

alizakasuba said:


> I don't know about MUSIC NFTs, but I am taking advantage of the opportunity this company has provided https://wealthofgeeks.com/apps-that-pay-you-to-play-games/. I found out about it when people I know started paying a lot of attention to games and answering unfamiliar surveys. In conversation, I realized that they were making money from it. After a while, I started earning by sitting on the couch and spending minimal time doing basic tasks like downloading an app, reaching a level in a game, answering a question, etc. Very cool opportunity to get not only money, but gift cards, coupons for purchases and so on.


One message on this forum, and you make it an endorsement for some “make money easy” scam. I think I’ma put a lot of trust in this one!


----------



## Cheezus

Interest In NFTs And The Metaverse Is Falling Fast


If Google is any indicator, public interest appears to be falling fast in the concepts of NFTs and the metaverse.




www.forbes.com


----------



## gamma-ut

Cheezus said:


> Interest In NFTs And The Metaverse Is Falling Fast
> 
> 
> If Google is any indicator, public interest appears to be falling fast in the concepts of NFTs and the metaverse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com


If only. I thought they were done after the first wave of art NFTs last spring and it looked as though the market was imploding. 

Maybe this time around. I think the backlash in the gaming sector has probably nobbled them there. Spotify is probably about to feel the heat so that could knock it on the head for music NFTs.


----------



## kro

jononotbono said:


>





Actual photo of my parcel: 🌎
I spend summers at my Minecraft home.

The parcel is on an island located where the blue is. The company only sent me the first half of the coordinates: 3J*🍆

They'll send the remaining location when I provide my credit card, bank account, routing number, social security, parents names / addresses and gmail password. I know it seems excessive, however they assured me the gmail password is just to send exclusive deals via google chat.


----------



## jononotbono

So its been a while. What's happening with NFTs. 

Anyone selling? Anyone dealing? Hate to miss out on opportunity!


----------



## patrick76

jononotbono said:


> So its been a while. What's happening with NFTs.
> 
> Anyone selling? Anyone dealing? Hate to miss out on opportunity!


NFTs are dead. The whole crypto-meta world is so 2021. My new company is offering an incredible opportunity for composers where you give me all of your intellectual property for the remainder of your life and we give you $0.0000000013 per 100 hours of music, IF we make money off of it and IF you filled out the necessary paperwork correctly, and IF we feel like it, which we won’t. It’s the best opportunity in years! Don’t miss out! Act now!


----------



## kro

I don't have much time currently so it's cool to just post my credit card number yea?


----------



## Gaffable

Cheezus said:


> Interest In NFTs And The Metaverse Is Falling Fast
> 
> 
> If Google is any indicator, public interest appears to be falling fast in the concepts of NFTs and the metaverse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com



Earlier this week, Darren Hemmings in the Motive Unknown newsletter, commented on the recent backlash to the launch of an NFT by Icelandic rock band Sigur Rós.

In regards to the NFT, Darren wrote that, "on the whole it feels like one of the more well-executed fan club/community initiatives that I’ve seen… none of which stopped the fan response on platforms like Reddit being absolutely brutal. You can read the Reddit comments here. Bottom line: it felt to me like it didn’t matter what the band did, because to the fans, NFTs are bad. End of story."

Darren's conclusion is that, "this is further proof that Web3 is now becoming so painfully overrun with bad press - largely thanks to naked money grabs left, right and centre - that those attempting something genuinely interesting might still find themselves pilloried for it. That’s a shame, as it might wind up stifling innovation to some extent. I hope not, because whilst I still feel 99.9% of the NFT space is basically BS, there _are _great things out there."


----------



## gamma-ut

If even NFTs organised by the bands are getting the backlash, it looks like it's game over for NFTs - at least as they exist today. 

However, I don't think Sigur Ros did themselves any favours with the straight-from-Powerpoint description of what they were doing: "We are now able to bring the fan conversation back into our own ecosystem..." 

Wut?

It's a fan club guys. Call it a fan club and run it like a fan club. Nobody will mind and it saves the aggro of trying to go and buy some crypto simply to join the fan club.


----------

