NFT (Non-Fungible Tokens) - Files as crypto currency

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
I'm trying to figure out how artists who create tangible objects, and that aren't already valued, could flex it. But as with most things in the art world, your value is usually determined by who you know first and foremost. The breakout stars are the exceptions, not the rules.

Like could I exploit the collector card aspect of it, take a digital image of my painting, slice it up into sections, sell the sections invdividually as simply digital files, BUT with the added dimension that if someone purchases all the pieces of the original image of the painting, that person then owns the painting itself?

You'd have to stagger the release of the individual pieces in order to make it more like a game and create competition among collectors.

What else is attractive about this, is that the original artist can then make a percentage of every subsequent sale of the pieces.

But none of that works if you can't create interest in the first place.
 
Long story short people have discovered the Ethereum network can essentially ascribe value to anything, be it a piece of art or Jack Dorsey saying something dumb. Because of the nature of the distributed ledger, ownership of a digital item can be attributed once the blockchain confirms the transaction, and in the case of Ethereum charges the transaction fee (Gas). The transaction then exists forever on the blockchain and if for some reason a dispute arises over ownership it's right there for the courts to look at.

Ethereum is going to revolutionize the digital economy in stupendous ways. Never mind money laundering "art". If a game like destiny decides to used an NFT for it's in game economy using ether as the dollar to NFT exchange, those bullshit micro transactions are no longer bullshit. They are a fair exchange of value that has a recognized conversion rate. Even better, it can work in the opposite direction. All that grinding can be converted into the games NFTs, and then converted into dollars. All on the ethereum block chain.

It's a god damn revolution of the digital economy.
 
It would never work to have a system of real-life ownership that amounts to "Whoever has the private keys owns the property". Besides the obvious question of what happens if the keys get lost, think of all the ways property is transferred other than a willing buyer and seller coming together and transacting.
What if someone dies without heirs and the property reverts to the state?
What if a court orders property to be transferred, such in a divorce, breach of contract, eminent domain, seizing the proceeds of illegal activity, a bank repossessing a house in foreclosure, a sheriff's sale on a house with unpaid property taxes, etc?
What if someone hacks me, gets my keys, and steals my property - or if he's a real jerk, gives it away to some random address that even he doesn't know?

One could go on. In exchange for the mathematical certainty of the blockchain, you'd give up all the nuance developed by the legal system for dealing with the real world.
Definitely - maybe not real estate, not a great example, but combine the concept of proof of ownership with maybe other things like proof of ID and proof of transaction and there’s a utility there? If you can demonstrate proof of ownership, and who you are, and link that to mechanisms of transfer? Does that make sense? I’m thinking there has to be some kind of utility behind the concept (or is it just tulips all the way down..?)
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius
Definitely - maybe not real estate, not a great example, but combine the concept of proof of ownership with maybe other things like proof of ID and proof of transaction and there’s a utility there? If you can demonstrate proof of ownership, and who you are, and link that to mechanisms of transfer? Does that make sense?
There's not one form of property or ownership in the world where real life can't intervene in a way that makes a legal system the best way to deal with it, rather than a blockchain. Most of the examples I gave (apart from things like foreclosure) could apply to owning any thing.
Even in the case of currency it doesn't make that much sense, but in that specific case the advantages of blockchain might outweigh the disadvantages because it's a genuine workaround to government overreach (debanking).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 419 and Spergerella
The second time I've noticed NFTs being pushed by social media influencers is from James Hoffmann's latest video at about the 13 min mark, where he mentions catching up on the latest NFT news while shilling for a news summary email service called 'Morning Brew'
1615311558337.png

As you can imagine, it's marketed at Redditors.

The advert is incredibly scripted, so it seems obvious to me that Morning Brew specifically told him to mention their NFT article. It seems that whoever is behind NFT's creation and proliferation on the market is taking big steps to get as much hype and early investment as possible from as many gullible retards as possible. I'm definitely avoiding.
 
Recent news story on trading card NFTs:
1615415815624.png


The Whales of NBA Top Shot Made a Fortune Buying LeBron Highlights
They were early to the hottest NFT market—and their collections are not worth millions of dollars


Michael Levy was scrolling Twitter last September when he noticed someone mention something that he wanted to know more about. What is NBA Top Shot? he wondered.

This platform to buy, sell and collect officially licensed video highlights was months from becoming a market that would captivate and mystify basketball fans, cryptocurrency enthusiasts, sneakerheads, pandemic day traders and thousands of people stuck at home. But it wasn’t long before Levy texted his friends: “This could be big.”

He was so convinced that he decided to spend $175,000 over the next six months on digital trading cards. They are now worth $20 million.
The investment was a sizable one for Levy, a 31-year-old financial analyst who says his interests are sports, poker, markets and “trying to identify advantages and edges,” but it appears that he found the latter in Top Shot. It’s why he’s not selling.

“I continue to think it’s an asymmetric bet with fantastic upside,” he said.

Levy is one of the biggest winners of a manic new market that true believers say is the future of collecting and skeptics call a slightly absurd form of speculation. At the center of the frenzy are assets known as non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, which use the blockchain technology powering cryptocurrencies to authenticate digital art, memorable tweets and a remarkable variety of ephemera suddenly worth a mind-blowing amount of money.

The most popular and perhaps most confounding NFT market is NBA Top Shot. It has minted unlikely millionaires and left many scratching their heads as it processed more than $250 million in sales from 100,000 buyers over the last month alone.

The peculiar but lucrative subculture of Top Shot reminds others of a similar hit from the same company, Dapper Labs, in which people collected virtual cats instead of NBA highlights. CryptoKitties was a fad that was mostly forgotten after a few crazy weeks in 2017.

Now the idea is roaring back in part because Top Shot is built for a different audience: the average NBA fan. Dapper Labs cut deals to give the league and its players a slice of every transaction—the company takes a 5% fee—with the goal of reaching casual basketball consumers and not just blockchain evangelists. It’s working. Instead of swapping jerseys after games, NBA players are exchanging Top Shot moments.

“We knew this was rocket fuel,” said Roham Gharegozlou, chief executive of Dapper Labs. “The thing that surprised me is how quickly mainstream basketball influencers adopted it.”
For a generation accustomed to playing daily fantasy sports and gambling on their phones, there is nothing particularly odd about paying exorbitant sums of money for otherwise free NBA highlights.

Many of them are young. Some are now rich. The millionaires of Top Shot were the bullish investors who had the money to pour into an emerging market once they spied a profitable opportunity before the rest of the world could see it. Their luck, timing and knowledge of blockchain and basketball turned out to be worth a fortune.

They still have to explain to confused friends what they’re buying, why they’re not selling and how a glorified YouTube clip that can be viewed by the rest of the world can also trade for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“If someone tells me they don’t see the value of diamonds, art, stamps, physical cards, these intangible items that don’t have intrinsic value, it’ll be impossible to get them across the line on a digital asset,” said Levy.

It’s easier to understand through another kind of collectible. A baseball card is a few cents of ink and paper, but the most valuable ones are limited in supply, reflect an experience and come with a guarantee of authenticity. Top Shot moments have the same forces working in their favor.

“It’s the story, the scarcity, the joy you get as a collector,” Levy said. “It’s not the ability to hold it in your hand.”

But there is some value to that, too. Gharegozlou recently ordered a video frame to display his clip of Vince Carter’s last shot in the NBA. It will live on a shelf next to his Larry Bird signed basketball.

One of the Top Shot whales is a 27-year-old software developer named Andy Chorlian. Except for the size of his bank account, he is typical of the Top Shot demographic. He traded Pokémon cards as a kid. He owns so many sneakers that they no longer fit in his Brooklyn apartment. And he wasn’t surprised by what happened once he discovered Top Shot. “I just became really obsessed,” he said.

Six months later, he owns roughly 3,800 moments, and they are valued around $15 million—give or take a few million bucks depending on the day.

Top Shot’s market was deeply inefficient when he started buying, and Chorlian took advantage by concentrating on the NBA’s superstars, since he felt those premium collectibles were the safest investments. He also made value plays by pouring funds into cheap rookie moments that had the potential to grow over time. He owns 96 of the same limited-edition moment from RJ Barrett’s rookie season—there are 2,882 total—and snagged a chunk for $1 and $2. The lowest asking price for this layup is now $1,900. One went for more than $4,000 last week.

Chorlian flipped part of his collection to pay taxes—he also sold a portion of his cryptocurrency holdings to cover his student loans—but otherwise he’s staying in the market passively. “I spent more time thinking about Top Shot when every moment was $5 than I do now,” he said.

But to make a fantastic amount of money, it wasn’t enough to buy on the cheap. There were times when Levy and Chorlian had to splurge.

Levy set the record for the highest price ever paid on Top Shot when he purchased a Giannis Antetokounmpo dunk in late December. The serial number: 34. His jersey number: 34. The price: $8,034.

A few weeks later, Chorlian bought a special LeBron James tribute dunk to Kobe Bryant, a moment that felt canonical to him. His purchase was also the most expensive in Top Shot’s history. The record of $71,455 lasted for an hour.

It was around that time when Levy was offered $100,000 for a LeBron James moment. He refused. And he knows how that sounds. But the reason he said no was simple.

“I think it’s worth more,” he said.

Top Shot had its GameStop moment another few weeks later. A single day in late February brought a spike of $46 million in sales—including the current marketplace of $208,000 for a LeBron James dunk.

A small group pooled their funds together to buy that clip, including Peter Jennings, who was busier than any of his partners that day. As it turned out, Jennings was in the hospital: His wife was 16 hours into labor. He was about to become the father of a baby daughter.

The action has been so dizzying that Levy and Chorlian do their best to ignore it altogether. The market has dipped since then, but Levy says he tries not to focus on short-term noise, and Chorlian says he’s comfortable with volatility as 95% of his net worth is held in cryptocurrencies. In the worst-case scenario of a Top Shot crash, he figures he would still have a job that pays well. “I’d be in the same position as a lot of 27-year-olds in the United States,” said Chorlian, who described himself as “a bit of a degenerate gambler.”

But he wouldn’t be able to cash out right now even if he wanted to.

Top Shot users have to wait 30 days before they can withdraw money, and there are limits for certain users because of the company’s safeguards against money laundering, Gharegozlou said. The more than 10,000 approved to withdraw money became a minority as demand exploded, which remains a source of frustration for Top Shot’s many new users. Gharegozlou cautions that Top Shot is still in beta testing and says he’s confident that marketplace outages, technical difficulties and other challenges of scaling a business will be worked out.

Levy made an investment in Dapper Labs in February as his Top Shot collection was growing in value, a stake that increased his exposure to the risks of an unpredictable industry. He doesn’t have to be told he should be diversifying. “Any traditional portfolio theory would say this is too outsized an asset,” he said.

Every time he looks at his account and sees a previously unimaginable amount of money is a reminder that he must decide what to do with his millions of dollars. His plan for now is to do nothing. He is holding.

“I don’t know where this is heading,” Levy said. “I just know that it has enormous potential that no other investment I have access to can mimic.”
 
People have already used those Twitter
NFT bots on Disney art, so I guess that'll fix the whole art theft drama soon. The legal system spreads its ass wide open for Disney (or so I've heard), so once they catch wind and start suing I'd assume Twitter will take some sort of action, like they supposedly did with the T-Shirt bots. I wonder how many lawsuits they'll rack up before the year's over...
 
People have already used those Twitter
NFT bots on Disney art, so I guess that'll fix the whole art theft drama soon. The legal system spreads its ass wide open for Disney (or so I've heard), so once they catch wind and start suing I'd assume Twitter will take some sort of action
NFTs don't actually confer any sort of legal ownership, so I doubt the legal system would care. It has no more legitimacy than a piece of paper from me saying "The holder of this paper owns Mickey Mouse".
 
Oh god there are Waifu’s as NFTs being traded...of course there is.
I'm plugged into the online horny art scene. I've already seen people debate the idea of tokenizing "adoptables"; for the uninitiated, an adoptable is basically an OC donut steel that the artist doesn't do anything with, instead just auctioning off the rights to.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Aaa0aaa0
I’ve tried talking to my companies president about what’s going on (small business, deals partially in buying and selling fine art in auction houses like Christie’s) and she was completely disinterested. Not sure if it’s generational, like she simply doesn’t understand and doesn’t want to try, or if it’s because she doesn’t see it having a lasting impact.
 
I’ve tried talking to my companies president about what’s going on (small business, deals partially in buying and selling fine art in auction houses like Christie’s) and she was completely disinterested.
Why would she be interested? This really has nothing to do with art. Unless she also dabbles in the money-laundering side of the art market, none of her expertise would apply here.
 
Why would she be interested? This really has nothing to do with art. Unless she also dabbles in the money-laundering side of the art market, none of her expertise would apply here.
It does apply if it becomes more prevalent in the art market, not talking about animated gifs though.

if it ends up effecting the valuation of tangible assets, what they sell for, or creates any kind of art market nosedive, it then can change appraisal values, which would have diverse outcomes. Values always change of course. I’m just wondering how the format could cause changes.

Im not doom spiraling or anything. I don’t think anything like a Kandinsky has sold as an NFT,
 
What if someone hacks me, gets my keys, and steals my property - or if he's a real jerk, gives it away to some random address that even he doesn't know?

I guess it would be like any other bearer instrument such as cash. If you have physical possession over the instrument (in this case, the keys) you are presumptively the owner and you don't need to confirm your identity outside of confirming that you have control over the keys. The original owner still can bring a civil action though, either for money damages or for replevin (a court order directing the offender to return the property.) Probably would be impractical in this scenario, but that's the downside to blockchain stuff. Some would argue that it's a good thing.
 
Back