[deleted]
Comments
tehtris t1_j19aab2 wrote
NFTs can be used in a meaningful way, but no one seems to be doing it. The technology is sound, but the execution is trash so far.
If it can be defeated by right click -> save as, you do not own it.
You have more ownership of software with DRM.
But go on about your hideous ape avitar.
phishtrader t1_j19veb0 wrote
>NFTs can be used in a meaningful way, but no one seems to be doing it.
Such as?
tehtris t1_j19ze8j wrote
One thing that I never see anyone doing is making NFTs actual items in a game. Imagine if a pokemon was an nft or that rare longsword that dropped was an nft. That would make an NFT more like a physical object in the sense that "I own this and only I can use it."
UncontrolableUrge t1_j1aph3a wrote
How does that improve on asset servers that gaming companies already operate? You don't need an NFT to link an account to an asset.
ImActuallyGaryBusey t1_j19ar7m wrote
Really? I honestly haven't seen an NFT that doesn't do exactly what it promises, but to be fair i don't follow them too extensively. If some people don't like them, then that's fair, but it doesn't make them a scam. Can you please elaborate on what you think makes them "snake oil"
ctruss53 t1_j19cmld wrote
Here is the scam.
Lets say an artist puts out a song and sells it to you as an NFT. Yes, that NFT you bought is encoded, you are not supposed to be able to copy it, and share it, so you paid extra for it because of that.
Well, the artist that wrote and performed the song still owns the song, so there is nothing stopping them from performing it again and selling an NFT of the same song to someone else willing to overpay for it.
You just paid extra to own something there is supposed to be 1 or a limited number of, but the artist can create more just like it.
So people claim NFTs are just like cryptocurrency in the fact that the coding limits the number of a given NFT, when there is nothing stopping the artist from creating more, lowering the value of what you just paid for.
Scam
ImActuallyGaryBusey t1_j19edfv wrote
I am confused here. How is this any different than selling physical cd's or digital copies? If i buy i cd, that doesn't give me exclusive rights to the music on it either. Are musicans charging extra for the nft version of a song that is cheaper if you buy it normally on itunes or whatever? I thought they were selling their music exclusively via nfts at regular price.
ctruss53 t1_j19inay wrote
Because the whole selling point behind an NFT is it is supposed to be unique or limited production. They make 1 or some and that is it. Which makes them more valuable.
But the artist can just release more when they want more money, thus reducing the value of the one you already bought when they claimed that was all they would release.
ImActuallyGaryBusey t1_j19k0oh wrote
It sounds more like the artist is the scammer then, not the nft itself. Shame on any musician who abuses the trust of their fans
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j1a4vor wrote
Exactly, I don't know why they think we should be held accountable for the actions of dishonest people. I understand that most of the things that transcend to the general public are negative, but I feel bad that they point this way to all the honest people that participate in the sector.
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j199nux wrote
But why do you think it's a scam to market your songs through NFTs? It's a way that hundreds of artists are already getting paid fairly for their work. It has nothing to do with monkeys or anything like that, you buy these NFTs because you like the artist's music and want to support them. I understand that you have a bad image of NFTs, but this is something that benefits the artists.
silkalmondvanilla t1_j19ebjh wrote
If this is just about supporting artists you don't need and nft to do it. You can buy their songs on bandcamp, iTunes, etc.
2021 called and wants its article back.
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j19fct6 wrote
In this post we have not been able to get pictures, but in substack's post we have a graph showing how the money generated by digital content is distributed in a major way.
"If a customer downloads a $9.99 album, the iTunes percentage to artists would likely be a modest $.94 cents - less than a 10% cut. The record company might take $5.35 and Apple would keep the remaining $3.70" from "https://investinganswers.com/articles/who-really-profits-your-itunes-downloads" .
If this is really about helping artists, I'm sure if you do a little more research on the subject, even if you agree/disagree, you'll see the point.
TheBadgerLord t1_j19ah2l wrote
Nobody should buy NFTs. There is literally no actual value to it and it's been proved to be a con many many many times, despite the fact that environmentally anything like that is just an absolute mess. NFTs need to go the way of Betamax, and quickly.
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j19cbpw wrote
Blockchain is relatively new and there is room for improvement. The aspect of energy being wasted with NFTs is a thing of the past as 99.9% of the energy consumption needed to create NFTs has been reduced.
I will not deny that there are thousands of scams in the NFT sector, but the music sector is not a category where you see too many scams. If you buy music from an artist (through NFTs) you do it to support the artist and have something special from him.
There is very little speculation with the buying and selling of songs, if you are an artist I recommend that you inform yourself about how other artists are doing it to take into account all the possibilities when it comes to monetizing your work. Although this is just my opinion, I understand that it is something that is not made for everyone.
ImActuallyGaryBusey t1_j19b05c wrote
Which NFTs were proven to be cons? As a musician with limited crypto knowledge I'd like to research this a little more
urkish t1_j19chm0 wrote
Here's a good 2-hour start.
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j19crg4 wrote
In our substack we have a post in which we talk about the same topic and make a timeline of an interview that took place yesterday to two artists who distribute their songs exclusively through NFTs. I think it would be good for you to listen to the parts that interest you the most and from there you can find other artists on Twitter that are using this strategy.
TheBadgerLord t1_j19f5uf wrote
No thank you. There are a huge amount of viable and real investments available that provide a tangible ROI and don't carry the same risk.
The reason I'm continuing to reply is that wherever people push NFTs in order to profit from people holding the bag, I want there to at least be a counter point of view. I know full well that musicians struggle monetising their creativity, but this is not the way to remedy that, in the same way that highway robbery isnt.
NFTs need to be left alone to continue to die off.
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j19ge36 wrote
At no time of using the NFTs that create artist as a form of investment, you should not make this type of purchase with the intention of monetizing the money spent, it would not make sense to do something like that.
There are companies that are approaching artists to help them monetize their music in a fairer way, I do not know if it will work or not, if in 20 years it will still be used, but it is something that seems interesting to me and it is worth to continue talking about the different options that exist.
I'm not saying this to spam my substack, but in it I have published this same article accompanied by a timeline of a program in which two artists who monetize their content through NFTs have been interviewed. It tells the dynamics they do to interact with their community, the concerts they have done, how their fans are, the music drops they perform...it's quite interesting to know.
CH23 t1_j19a2t2 wrote
2 days old account only spamming cryptocrap...seems legit.
Sugondesedude t1_j19abhm wrote
Indeed
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j19agl2 wrote
You can see on Twitter how long we have been doing this, we are starting to bring the articles we do every day to communities that may be interested in discussing the topic at hand.
CH23 t1_j19aod6 wrote
>You can see on Twitter how long we have been doing this, we are starting to bring the articles we do every day to communities that may be interested in discussing the topic at hand.
translated from bullshit to normal speech:
>we will keep spamming until people fall for this crap, just as we once fell for this crap and really need others to also do it.
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j19as7o wrote
I understand that you don't like NFTs, but this is just a newsletter of mine in which I talk about DAO Nouns. I'm not selling anything to anyone, I just want to show more people my articles to keep improving, I love to write.
GrooseandGoot t1_j19dcve wrote
So you've been a scam artist for a long time is what you're saying?
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j19e5ni wrote
I'll say it again, I love writing and I'm very interested in blockchain, I love having my own substack where I write with freedom of opinion about the topics that I find interesting. I have chosen to focus my activity on Nouns DAO because there are very interesting news to talk about every day, I am part of a niche and I love it.
I don't have any Nouns DAO NFTs, I don't sell NFTs of any kind, I don't have any referral links in my post, I just want to make my articles and let those who are interested join the substack.
GrooseandGoot t1_j19djit wrote
Reporting this post for spam and link farming.
Sell your snakeoil somewhere else conman.
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j19eh60 wrote
In what way is this spam or link farming, I have passed on interesting information to the community and I have said that the content is extracted from the substack, nothing else. Giving credit to the work of others is necessary to keep creating content in an organic way.
GrooseandGoot t1_j19pwpn wrote
This is not the proper conversation to be having.
Instead of having a conversation about generating interest in NFTs and the applications of them, it is the time for conversations about the NEED for regulations in this industry and the products that it sells to consumers in order to protect them from the kinds of scams that run rampant throughout the crypto and NFT business.
Any conversation other than how to protect consumers from predatory scam artists is the wrong conversation to be having until they are in place.
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j1a17k8 wrote
I am the first to be annoyed by the amount of bullshit in the sector. I completely agree that regulation is necessary, in fact there are quite a few investigations being carried out on companies like Yuga and regulations are being made regarding the uses of NFTs and scams that have been going on over the last couple of years.
But all this does not detract from the fact that there is a serious sector that seeks to provide a safe and secure service to musicians to help them position themselves in the best possible way to expand their art.
What I see interacting with Reddit is that NFTs have a very bad reputation with the general public. I understand that everything the general public has seen of NFTs is rubbish, but I don't think the existence of people with dishonest intentions should cover up all the possibilities it opens up for different professions.
Anyway, after seeing the revulsion towards this kind of content, I will not post anything more about NFTs in the community.
I'm sorry to have disturbed some members, but my intention was simply to start a debate on a topic that I think is interesting for Music.
Lakstoties t1_j19lmya wrote
Simply... No.
NFTs are a sham. People are trying to literally sell a digital receipt to an entry in a transaction log for a string of characters. Seriously... That's it. NFT scammers never mention to true technical side of things, because you'd be able to pick out how ridiculous of a scam it is in seconds.
Again... NFTs = Arbitrary digital receipt for a string of characters that can form a link to something. That's it. NFTs are NEVER the actual item. That has to be hosted somewhere, otherwise you can't access it.
All this these cryptographic curios have been forcibly mutated into something they were NEVER meant for by scam artists and grifters using the lack of understanding to obfuscate the latest variation of a pyramid scheme. Blockchain, Crypto-"currency", and NFTs are solutions to problems NO ONE had, and there have been far better and more useful systems in place for eons. The only thing that has attracted these scam artists is because these systems operate without a centralized management system, which allows these grifters to scheme without any oversight and regulation to prevent them from taking advantage of people.
Environmental_Fly691 t1_j1a49pa wrote
Your comment shows that you really do not speak with knowledge of the subject you have discussed. Blockchain has made it possible to attriubute ownership to digital items, it allows for example the creation of digital state currencies (in the process of creation). The consensus of a network allows to secure data in an immutable way, with how interesting it is that you can verify data digitally with the certainty that they are not manipulated in any way.
The entities that are investing the most in blockchain are not the native companies of the sector, they are Alphabet, Samsung, Black Rock, Goldman Sachs...while you sentence to death this "insignificant" technology, those who understand the advantages of blockchain are contracting what you will use in the future.
This is not a debate about whether blockchain will be widely used, it is already being used and its use will continue to expand in the future.
I didn't come here to debate blockchain, I respect that you have your vision, but the only thing I came here to show is that there is a NFT music sector and that it is a way for artists to monetize their work.
There is no more, using NFTs to unlock music, events, holding dynamics...it is a simple application of technology that can help the industry. There is no scams, no money stealing, no false promises, just your work distributed through NFTs that your fans want to buy to support you in the most direct way possible.
Lakstoties t1_j1a9q9c wrote
> Blockchain has made it possible to attriubute ownership to digital items
That existed before. Companies have been track ownership of digital items for years now without the blockchain, (Steam, GOG, Company Licensing, etc) and they're doing right now through non-crypto means.
> it allows for example the creation of digital state currencies (in the process of creation)
Incorrect. It allows for the creation of commodities. The run of crypto-"currencies" have shown the attributes of limited-quantity commodities and next to none of the characteristics needed to be a viable currency. EVE Online's ISK is a more viable digital currency than anything crpyto currencies have accomplished. And it's FAR more well maintained and run.
> The consensus of a network allows to secure data in an immutable way,
with how interesting it is that you can verify data digitally with the
certainty that they are not manipulated in any way.
That is a major vulnerability in the design of the system. Any entities with a major share of the transaction processing capabilities can manipulate the blockchain to their whims. It has almost happened a few times.
> The entities that are investing the most in blockchain are not the
native companies of the sector, they are Alphabet, Samsung, Black Rock,
Goldman Sachs
Those are companies that have made significant mistakes in the past when trying to jump in on the "latest and greatest". Just because big companies are interested... doesn't mean they'll back it in the long run once it doesn't make sense for them. Most big business people are scammers at heart that are looking for the next thing to ride until it hit a peak and ditch before it crashes.
> while you sentence to death this "insignificant" technology, those who
understand the advantages of blockchain are contracting what you will
use in the future.
I never said it was insignificant. It's just that people like you have ultimately very little technical understanding of how the system operates, but cling onto whimsical ideals of what could it be misused for. The idea of the blockchain's distributed transaction log is useful... But can be easily accomplished without the blockchain. The current wave of "crypto" tech is just solutions looking for "problems", "problems" that people have invented to sell them.
> This is not a debate about whether blockchain will be widely used, it is
already being used and its use will continue to expand in the future.
Given recent failures and bankruptcies of crypto-exchanges and pull rug NFT scams... I think the blockchain will see a dramatic reduction of use in the future. The whole gambit only worked when everyone believed the bullshit, now that that faith in it is being lost... It'll fade away with only desperate folks clinging to get rich schemes to exploit others trying to shill it to its last dying breath.
> I didn't come here to debate blockchain, I respect that you have your
vision, but the only thing I came here to show is that there is a NFT
music sector and that it is a way for artists to monetize their work.
I understand you didn't come here to debate... You came here to shill and con. You can't debate it, because you don't understand it past the talking points some other crypto-scammer told you to hype. Ultimately, you are trying to get the buzz going for the next pump and dump scheme.
As for music artists monetizing their work with NFTs: Yeah, if they are like all the other dishonest and greedy NFT scam artists, they can monetize their work using this method. Once. After they are found out, get sued, and investigated... (Like all the others that have done similar before.) They won't be able to do it again and will effectively kill their career.
Again... There's already existing solutions that solve the issue of artist wanting to monetize their work: Selling their music via CDs, LPs, digital downloads, and releasing limited edition packages. Effective, honest enough, and simple.
> There is no scams, no money stealing, no false promises, just
your work distributed through NFTs that your fans want to buy to support
yon the most direct way possible.
This right here indicts you. Either you are completely ignorant of how all other NFTs and Crypto ventures have gone, or you are purposely projecting lies and deceit to cover up the obvious grift in the making. Again... If someone's fans want to support them directly: Patreon, Paypal, Kofi, and other services exist. It's been done for years, even before crowd funding was a popular thing.
> Your comment shows that you really do not speak with knowledge of the subject you have discussed.
Here's your own words back at you. If you truly understood the technology, read a few peer-reviewed white papers, and had the academic knowledge to see how the system functions at the code level... You'd drop this whole scheme and run far away from crypto.
hendocks t1_j1ah9i9 wrote
To be honest, I don't know what an NFT is at this point. I keep seeing people call it snake oil, but I'm not sure what the scam is or who the target audience is.
I think I understand that it secures products that may normally be obtained or shared easily (again, I have no idea how) which is always going to be a controversial take seeing how much of the creative world functions under unspoken rules often enforced by Creative Commons licensing where a lot of what we make is free and can be shared liberally.
Personally, while I don't mind how artists choose to monetize (or not monetize) their work, I'm not a big fan of the expectations of free media content that consumers seem to have as a baseline expectation (can I use the phrase "these days"? Oh God). This isn't true for everyone, but there are already a few comments in this very thread where people are acting as such (most insultingly being the "we should get the first album that the artist worked hard on for free so that I can dictate their worth" person).
This is all to say, if an NFT is truly just a security thing, then I'm not sure why so many people seem to have their britches in a bunch about it. Companies can already do something similar and it sounds like this lets individuals do the same so it's weirdly exclusive.
If an NFT is something else as well and I just don't get how it's so bad, I'd love to hear an explanation, but am not interested in people just yelling "it just is" at me.
BlackEyedAngel01 t1_j19cvaz wrote
The ship in this post photo is actually sinking.
JustBoredIsAll t1_j19orhu wrote
Sorry OP. Couldn't help myself.😂
UncontrolableUrge t1_j1ap6qz wrote
There is a reason that online platforms did away with DRM. It only led to piracy. If you have a DRM system that relies on an NFT then it has to go online to see if the file is legit. That is a pain in the ass. Plus it can allow tracking as you have to let your device shae information. And let's hope the NFT never goes offline as has already happened to projects including very expensive lifetime Cochella tickets.
Add to that many consumers prefer streaming. Ownership mechanisms are irrelevant if most people rent their music.
dj_chai_wallah t1_j1aqcng wrote
I don't know, but I have 10 videos by Andre Oshea who's making a living off NFTs that I want to sell as NFTs with my beats over them, so I will post this to come back to
Infinite420Question t1_j1a9nsr wrote
Every artist should give their first cd away for free. If we like them and want more music, then we pay for them to create future music. If we don't pay, then they weren't good enough. Try again but do it better until you get noticed. The way music is currently, an artist can put out one good cd then ride the sales never having to try again.
ctruss53 t1_j19908u wrote
NFT's are the 21st century version of snake oil.