People are betting on the fact that we'll spend more and more of our time in digital spaces, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad bet.
It's a bunch of unnecessary synthetic scarcity. What the fuck is good about that? Why do you want to sign on to a model where you're going to be nickel and dimed for everything you see?
As a consumer why do you want to pay for things that have zero marginal cost? What value do you get for buying an NFT to an image or virtual item that costs nothing to reproduce? You're not buying the copyright or any exclusive license to the things.
Why would anyone ever buy an "experience" NFT for something they didn't experience? So they can be known to be a poser and a sucker so long as the blockchain exists?
NFTs are just a way to enforce a class system in a virtual environment where there's no inherent system of haves and have-nots. Not only that but it's a system where an infinitude of intermediaries can extract payment out of any secondary market. It's sad that you're excited to participate in such needless rent seeking.
I think it's more an economic incentive for digital creators who have historically been nickel and dimed every step of the way trying to monetize their work.
> As a consumer why do you want to pay for things that have zero marginal cost?
The value for a consumer is less about paying and more about earning (which sounds dystopic to some, but is very exciting imo). And beyond that, layered experiences mean you could get an item / art / skin / etc and carry it through disparate digital worlds. One could imagine a world where no longer are you playing one game with one set of items, but are instead able to carry your stuff into multiple experiences.
Another point here: NFTs don't have to come into existance through some payment. E.g. playing an MMO and boss drops are NFTs, or by watching some sports game you're given an NFT (or in that case more correctly referred to as a POAP (Proof of Attendance Protocol)). This likely has no monetary value, but is more a social signalling device to show you care about something / did something in the past.
> Why would anyone ever buy an "experience" NFT for something they didn't experience?
Here I'm referring to digital experiences like concerts, parties, tours, AMAs, etc. where there is some set of rules to obtain the entry pass (in NFT form).
> NFTs are just a way to enforce a class system in a virtual environment where there's no inherent system of haves and have-nots
If people could altruistically create high-quality content and earn a living that way I'd agree with you. But, as we've seen with microtransactions, the model is changing as the world spends more and more time in digital 'spaces.' There is value in paying creators, and you're welcome to not participate if this isn't your cup of tea
Overall I think we're coming into this with different images of the future- agree to disagree and I hope it's less dystopic than it could be.
I don't understand. NFTs are not hooked up to the legal system of copyright, so how is it ensured that the "digital creators" are the ones that are rewarded? If you create an amazing image, what is to stop me getting the original NFT (by doing something like mining it? sorry I'm not familiar with the terminology) before you do and selling that on without rewarding you? Or, even if you did make the NFT first, what's to stop me altering one pixel or some irrelevant metadata of the image to allow a district NFT being created and selling that instead?
Another commenter said that NFTs are (sometimes? usually? always?) not even derived from the work itself but simply some URL that points at it. That crazy! What's to stop me making another URL for the same work (either hosting it separately or just redirecting to your URL) and making an NFT for that? What if my hosted version outlives yours? The whole idea is so totally ludicrous that I don't see how it's gotten this far.
Unless there's something huge I'm missing (which I'll admit is possible), it's obvious that NFTs are totally useless for this goal of rewarding digital creators. Traditional copyright, while flawed, at least makes an attempt at rewarding the creator of the actual work.
This comes up all the time and is laughably naïve. What possible reason would Epic have to let you transfer a skin or player model to their game if you didn't pay them for it? Game DLC is already broken and consumer hostile. Assuming blockchains and NFTs will do anything to improve it is absurd.
> Here I'm referring to digital experiences like concerts, parties, tours, AMAs, etc. where there is some set of rules to obtain the entry pass (in NFT form).
An NFT has no utility here. Where's the secondary market of suckers wanting to buy an NFT for a thing they didn't experience? If there's no suckers further down the pyramid there's no point in an NFT. It's just an event ticket.
> If people could altruistically create high-quality content and earn a living that way I'd agree with you.
This is the core problem. You're positing a world where every system for some reason cares about things on some blockchain. You're trying to treat an entry on a blockchain like real physical ownership. All this does is port inequality and inequity to a virtual space where it does not naturally exist. Scarcity is not a sine qua non of virtual spaces.
That's just a recipe for a hypercapitalist exploitive hellscape. Join the metaverse! You'll be just as poor as in real life! Join the fun!
It is incredibly sad that anyone is working towards a future where a post-scarcity space is fully subdued by artificial scarcity.
Having a JPEG as your own isn't valuable, because JPEGs can be infinitely copied at zero cost. The title for the artwork doesn't mean anything when anyone can duplicate it.
If you want to spend money on art, why not commission some artwork from your favorite artist instead of throwing away money on procedurally generated garbage with a zillion transaction fees tacked on? At least that way the artwork might be something unique to you with a personal significance which makes it have more intrinsic value to you than it would to someone else.