Again, my concern is for the artists who were briefly given hope, however false.
For context, this book is helpful: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Artist-Creators-Struggling-Bill...
Of course no one was going to pay $1000 for landscape_digital_painting.png which you can get a dime a million on dall-e.
This is hardly a new phenomenon. Artists today have more ways of getting paid than ever, but it is still a buyers market.
NFTs are just one more thing to sell if you have the thing a starving artist doesn't - an audience.
Dunning-Kruger has its start in a culture that cannot admit ignorance or infelicity. Brittle, ideological apologetics upvoted all the while.
And yes, I know commenting on the moderation is against HN guidelines; yet banning discussion of moderation is itself leaves us unable to point out to ourselves when we are being ridiculous, further compounding the DK.
Again, the stench of decline.
I've noticed the same. It makes discussion here pointless. It wasn't always like this. Something changed in the last 3-5 years.
It's made worse by how HN functions. Only people with >=500 karma points are permitted to downvote comments. The more active commenters influence the discussion this way. And whatever they don't like / disagree with, they downvote.
I agree with your original point. I don't care for NFTs, but there are artists selling original art via NFTs. Let them. Some made a very good living, considering their country's average wage. If their NFT doesn't sell, it doesn't sell.
Very odd how there are people insisting that artists sell art only in a way that they agree with (prints, commissions, etc). Bizarre behavior...
side-note: I often see Gigachad all over crypto-related threads picking arguments with people. They clearly have an axe to grind. It's best to just ignore them when they show up.
If DALL-E emerged before NFTs, I don't think we would have seen them gain any traction _at all_.
It literally describes an effort by Meta to put NFTs to use for artists.
Again, decay.
It's also easier than ever now for an independent artist to make money. Patreon, Fanbox, Skeb have vastly simplified the logistics of getting money for your work. Promotion through social media is free, though time-consuming.
The problem is the same as it always was: artists want to focus on creating art, and not running a business. If I told you I was going to make a software company, with the expectation of a livable salary, but spend $0 on sales, marketing, or customer support, you'd call me an idiot, because there's a lot more to a software business than churning out code. Similarly, there's a lot more to making a living as an artist than drawing pictures or creating music.
Ironically, NFTs were most successful with people who already understood all this. Unscrupulous people like Steve Aoki aggressively marketed their own NFTs using their existing brand power and made a hefty sum, while your dime-a-dozen 10k Twitter follower artist got nothing.
Very condescending and, at the same time, not true at all. Many existing artists did much better in revenue than ever in the way of getting paid for their craft during the rise of NFTs, there were many spaces where artists would brag about their success and help onboard others into the space, often paying their transaction fees.
For many of the small audience artists it's very sad the momentum faded, and the spring of generative AI doesn't help them either.
Let's ignore the simplicity of copy changing a pixel and reselling issue.
Or stealing in the first place.
Or the resell issue.
Bravo for that. Already a good sign of a well running crypto thing.
And I'm still not sure how value is created if no one has to pay?!
Right now for me it feels like a soon imploding weird microbubble of investment Tipps
In the latter, the central bank provides liquidity to the banking system. The banking system then provides financial services (working capital, managing deposits, etc) to companies within an economy. These companies can then use this capital / service to provide goods and services to the economy. The banking system is, in simplified terms, a margin business that borrows funds from the central banks and lends out further. Through this margin all costs have to be covered.
In the former this role is taken on by the Treasuries of the PoS (Eth, Cardano, etc). Stakepool operators take on the role of the banking system and Apps like finclout take on the role of a business in this ecosystem. Stakepool operators validate the chains, at a low energy overhead one might add, and thus provides services to the Central Treasury. For this service they receive a fee. This fee can be seen as being similar to the margin of the traditional banking system. Moreover, stakepool operator then can take on the role of distributing the liquidity they received from the treasury further into the economy of the block chain. Thereby providing liquidity to App Operators.
In theory this could provide an efficient means to monetize content. And this is what the finclout app is aimed to solve. Absolutely, it doesn't do that well yet.
Yet if you look into the consequences of Mandated Payments for content in Canada (https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/03/the-consequence-of-manda...) this solution could provide a better monetization mechanism.
A tertiary benefit is that there is no need for a ponzi-like investing scheme through such a method.
I literally don't understand your product.
What it does, how it works and ylhow it makes money(=how long it stays afloat and therefore is trustworthy)
It would appear that anything east of a subjunctive clause is unparseable to a good portion of the readership. Disappointing.
No one cared about any artist.
My comment pointed out how ridiculous nft was from the beginning.
Programmable NFTs enforce royalty payments for resales.
NFTs and the guys pushing them were only out to hurt artists and exploit them, and nothing else. If they weren't out to scam them, they were out there just stealing the art.
It was not "a nice idea" and the fact that people still try to tie them to "but what about the artists" narrative is a disgrace. I'm sorry, but there is no "but" here.
Yes something for artists would be nice, everyone agrees. NFTs were never that, not even a little bit. It was not "an attempt to provide artists with revenue", it was an attempt to use artists for revenue.
You make a difference between what you say, and the people cheering for NFTs, but the whole "yeah but what if it works" or "yeah but wouldn't it be nice if..." angle is exactly the type of crowbar all the cryptocurrency/NFT scammers used and still use to stay relevant.
This is dead in the water in any app, anyways. Apple charges 30% fee on all in-app NFT sales, and on top of that Apple ToS prohibits any “functional” use of NFT tech in their apps. [1]
[1] https://twitter.com/wongmjane/status/1584609845570768897?s=2...
NFTs were always daft, but the fiction, as fiction often does, spoke to a real need.