The whole scheme just don't make any sense to me at all.
"SC20 + Unlockable" is selling for 0.04 ETH which is $73.78. There are a 100 copies for sale. So there will be 100 "official owners" that have provable ownership of the code behind the image/video.
The true value of the item is what someone is actually willing to pay for it. So verifiable ownership of each one could, theoretically, be $73 if someone is willing to pay for it.
By looking at the code of the site I was easily able to locate the .MP4 of that image. I was then able to hotlink to it and download a 16 second clip at 1920x1080. Which I can make a million copies of if I wished and is worth exactly nothing.
Where is the incentive to pay $74 for this? In what realm does this item actually go up in value? Where does someone rationally believe that a slightly animated interior of a starship that goes for 14 seconds is worth having the "real" copy of?
You're basically paying real money for the "privilege" of being the guy who posts "First!" on a Youtube video. Everybody can watch the video, but only one person can have that first comment.
So were just looking for rubes to buy things that are completely worthless.
The whole scheme just don't make any sense to me at all.
"SC20 + Unlockable" is selling for 0.04 ETH which is $73.78. There are a 100 copies for sale. So there will be 100 "official owners" that have provable ownership of the code behind the image/video.
The true value of the item is what someone is actually willing to pay for it. So verifiable ownership of each one could, theoretically, be $73 if someone is willing to pay for it.
By looking at the code of the site I was easily able to locate the .MP4 of that image. I was then able to hotlink to it and download a 16 second clip at 1920x1080. Which I can make a million copies of if I wished and is worth exactly nothing.
Where is the incentive to pay $74 for this? In what realm does this item actually go up in value? Where does someone rationally believe that a slightly animated interior of a starship that goes for 14 seconds is worth having the "real" copy of?
If someone counterfeits a $100 bill perfectly, using the same paper even, it would still be a counterfeit. If someone downloads the file a million times, but still doesn't own proof of that limited run, it's worthless. Look, I don't get it. I don't get bitcoin either, but there are people out there who are willing to pay $50,000 dollars for it, so who am I to argue. Just because I wouldn't pay $75 dollars for a digital asset, doesn't mean that others won't. There are a lot of people out there with a lot of money to waste.
The whole scheme just don't make any sense to me at all.
"SC20 + Unlockable" is selling for 0.04 ETH which is $73.78. There are a 100 copies for sale. So there will be 100 "official owners" that have provable ownership of the code behind the image/video.
The true value of the item is what someone is actually willing to pay for it. So verifiable ownership of each one could, theoretically, be $73 if someone is willing to pay for it.
By looking at the code of the site I was easily able to locate the .MP4 of that image. I was then able to hotlink to it and download a 16 second clip at 1920x1080. Which I can make a million copies of if I wished and is worth exactly nothing.
Where is the incentive to pay $74 for this? In what realm does this item actually go up in value? Where does someone rationally believe that a slightly animated interior of a starship that goes for 14 seconds is worth having the "real" copy of?
You're basically paying real money for the "privilege" of being the guy who posts "First!" on a Youtube video. Everybody can watch the video, but only one person can have that first comment.
So were just looking for rubes to buy things that are completely worthless.
Less rubes and more memelords who can waste money on pointless bragging rights.
The whole scheme just don't make any sense to me at all.
"SC20 + Unlockable" is selling for 0.04 ETH which is $73.78. There are a 100 copies for sale. So there will be 100 "official owners" that have provable ownership of the code behind the image/video.
The true value of the item is what someone is actually willing to pay for it. So verifiable ownership of each one could, theoretically, be $73 if someone is willing to pay for it.
By looking at the code of the site I was easily able to locate the .MP4 of that image. I was then able to hotlink to it and download a 16 second clip at 1920x1080. Which I can make a million copies of if I wished and is worth exactly nothing.
Where is the incentive to pay $74 for this? In what realm does this item actually go up in value? Where does someone rationally believe that a slightly animated interior of a starship that goes for 14 seconds is worth having the "real" copy of?
You're basically paying real money for the "privilege" of being the guy who posts "First!" on a Youtube video. Everybody can watch the video, but only one person can have that first comment.
So were just looking for rubes to buy things that are completely worthless.
Psssst...I have some snake oil I'd love to sell you. *twirls imaginary mustache*
The whole scheme just don't make any sense to me at all.
"SC20 + Unlockable" is selling for 0.04 ETH which is $73.78. There are a 100 copies for sale. So there will be 100 "official owners" that have provable ownership of the code behind the image/video.
The true value of the item is what someone is actually willing to pay for it. So verifiable ownership of each one could, theoretically, be $73 if someone is willing to pay for it.
By looking at the code of the site I was easily able to locate the .MP4 of that image. I was then able to hotlink to it and download a 16 second clip at 1920x1080. Which I can make a million copies of if I wished and is worth exactly nothing.
Where is the incentive to pay $74 for this? In what realm does this item actually go up in value? Where does someone rationally believe that a slightly animated interior of a starship that goes for 14 seconds is worth having the "real" copy of?
You're basically paying real money for the "privilege" of being the guy who posts "First!" on a Youtube video. Everybody can watch the video, but only one person can have that first comment.
So were just looking for rubes to buy things that are completely worthless.
Less rubes and more memelords who can waste money on pointless bragging rights.
I'd say they're still rubes tho, lol. Memelords and rubes.
Do people even buy prints from DA? What would you do with them? You can only buy some many unless you live in a mansion or want to stick them in a closet. Seems like it would be a very limited thing. I bought a digital frame for less than one NFT, and now I can see hundreds of renders.
I totally missed out on the hype and such (because I tend to steer clear from hypes because... it's all about $$$ in the end) and so I just got into contact with the whole NFT scheme, and truth be told I never laughed so hard at seeing how this is being treated seriously (by Daz mind you). It's very simple: like most crypto's the actual value depends on what people are willing to put into it. Personally I intend to avoid this like the plague because - in my opinion - this has "scamming" and "inflation" plastered all over it. People preach "blockchain" as if that's the ultimate failsave while in fact, it's anything but that. It has its uses, sure, and also applies security (no arguments there) but it's also very easy to avoid. Which in its turn leads to possible abuse again.
SO now we can pay $500 for a vague image? Yah... sure, I guess the Corona crisis is really getting taxing for some people.
Do people even buy prints from DA? What would you do with them? You can only buy some many unless you live in a mansion or want to stick them in a closet. Seems like it would be a very limited thing. I bought a digital frame for less than one NFT, and now I can see hundreds of renders.
I suppose some do? I guess it all depends on the kind of stuff you like to hang on the wall. My living room has paintings. My office has movie posters. So I dunno...I don't really see room for even my type of artwork on my walls, lol.
That is something that has been brought up in the past, I'm curious what your views are on it.
I'm not sure if it is feasible but if you could opt-in on a gallery image and allow other community users to get a print of your gallery image and have some portion of that sale show up in your store credit account, would that be interesting?
As a hobbyist, I can tell you this would bring me much more trouble than benefits. Foreign income to be admitted and counted in my yearly tax form would be just one of the troubles.
This is the reason for it being in store credit instead of actual cash, but more legal work would be done to see if that is far enough from actual cash so that tax forms, withholdings and all that don't have to be done. If the legal groundwork is there for "Daz sold a print of an image I told them they could sell prints of so I got a $5 discount on a future purchase (via store-credit)" instead of treating store credit as something equivalent to cash it could be possible. If tax forms and withholdings and all that still need to be filled out I don't think we would want to add enough extra accountants to make that happen.
I'm pretty sure Store Credit is still consider compensation. And is still taxable. The Store Credit isn't being given as a refund, it's being given as a payment.
"It depends what you did to receive the credit. Did they issue the credit because you returned merchandise you had purchased or received as gifts? Then no, you aren't required to report this as income to the IRS. Did you receive the store credit because you performed a service for the store? Then yes, you are generally required to report this as income to the IRS."
Whether DAZ is required to provide forms to prove this, I don't know.
When you buy stock photos, you are buying the rights to use that image, and not the image itself. I think the only way that this new scheme could have real value is if you were able to sell the full rights and ownership of the image. You sell one, charge whatever you think it's worth, and the other person takes full ownership of it, verified and recorded on the blockchain. They can do whatever they want with it, including selling it again. I would happily list a few images if I could do that.
That is something that has been brought up in the past, I'm curious what your views are on it.
I'm not sure if it is feasible but if you could opt-in on a gallery image and allow other community users to get a print of your gallery image and have some portion of that sale show up in your store credit account, would that be interesting?
As a hobbyist, I can tell you this would bring me much more trouble than benefits. Foreign income to be admitted and counted in my yearly tax form would be just one of the troubles.
This is the reason for it being in store credit instead of actual cash, but more legal work would be done to see if that is far enough from actual cash so that tax forms, withholdings and all that don't have to be done. If the legal groundwork is there for "Daz sold a print of an image I told them they could sell prints of so I got a $5 discount on a future purchase (via store-credit)" instead of treating store credit as something equivalent to cash it could be possible. If tax forms and withholdings and all that still need to be filled out I don't think we would want to add enough extra accountants to make that happen.
I'm pretty sure that would be seen as tax evasion in the EU.
When you buy stock photos, you are buying the rights to use that image, and not the image itself. I think the only way that this new scheme could have real value is if you were able to sell the full rights and ownership of the image. You sell one, charge whatever you think it's worth, and the other person takes full ownership of it, verified and recorded on the blockchain. They can do whatever they want with it, including selling it again. I would happily list a few images if I could do that.
That I get. And I've done it. It's not worth the hassle to be honest.
All the value in these NFTs seems to be locked up in who you can sell it to next. If DAZ has already glutted the market with their own products (i.e. 200 viable copies of each video) then who would be left to buy as second hand?
I lived through the variant comic book cover craze of the 90s. Watching more that one store go out of business and a few people go backrupt on items that were "supposed to be worth something" but ended up having no intrinsic value. Granted that most of those people were out to get rich quick and weren't thinking through what they were doing...
I do have a stack of "Death of Superman" comics still in their sealed black bags though.
I'd say they're still rubes tho, lol. Memelords and rubes.
While both are not smart, there's a distinction between the two kinds of not smart. Calling someone a 'rube' implies a lack of sophistication, a hick, who's too dumb to realize somebody is swindling them. Whereas the memelords who obsess over NFTs and crypto- are convinced we can transcend our frail flesh through digital Satori and join in perfect harmony with the transcendant blockchain. They're technically smart, but ideologically stupid.
I never understand Daz's obsession of throwing good money after bad. How many of these ventures has Daz tried and failed miserably on? All of them so far. The 3d assets stores, etc.
You all have enough trouble supporting what you have, why keep throwing the good money away on this new stuff that never pans out?
It reminds me of the Encrypted Daz Connect (much better described as DRM - Digital Rights Management).
Time will tell if this is as horrible as that was.
I never understand Daz's obsession of throwing good money after bad. How many of these ventures has Daz tried and failed miserably on? All of them so far. The 3d assets stores, etc.
You all have enough trouble supporting what you have, why keep throwing the good money away on this new stuff that never pans out?
It reminds me of the Encrypted Daz Connect (much better described as DRM - Digital Rights Management).
Time will tell if this is as horrible as that was.
How, other than being unpopular with at least some people? There does seem to be a belief that NFTs are in some way an opening for copy-protection but they don't do that as far as I can see.
I'm pretty sure Store Credit is still consider compensation. And is still taxable. The Store Credit isn't being given as a refund, it's being given as a payment.
"It depends what you did to receive the credit. Did they issue the credit because you returned merchandise you had purchased or received as gifts? Then no, you aren't required to report this as income to the IRS. Did you receive the store credit because you performed a service for the store? Then yes, you are generally required to report this as income to the IRS."
Whether DAZ is required to provide forms to prove this, I don't know.
The use to provide 1099 income info back in the day for American PAs at least when I was one years ago (Dan Farr era).
If NFT's aren't your thing, this changes nothing in how the site or content works for you.
Now, there have been a couple of good explanations of what NFT's are, but I'm going to really boil them down to the essence with one thing: What do you think the going price would be for a very old can of soup, so old that the expiration date of that soup passed years and years ago? Now, what do you think the going value of that same can of soup would be if it was proven to have been owned by Andy Warhol?
Yeah but what does daz make out of all of this? You aren't doing it for free.
II have a basic question one NFT I looked at was 0.15 (mystery blockchain valuation, hmmmm) on the DAZ site. That translated to about $276 and some odd cents USD (not a mystery as to why that valution is at all - that's a lot of money! LOL). So if I were to buy said NFT for $276 & some odd cents USD would that take the NFT and the associated art work off the market from other buyers? Yes, I know people can screen shot & such and skilled 3D artists can easiliy enough replicate these 3D DAZ 3D style scenes, this is a technical business question about NFTs. So, if that same art can be sold again associated with another NFT there is no way on earth that treats the customer fairly.
I'm pretty sure Store Credit is still consider compensation. And is still taxable. The Store Credit isn't being given as a refund, it's being given as a payment.
"It depends what you did to receive the credit. Did they issue the credit because you returned merchandise you had purchased or received as gifts? Then no, you aren't required to report this as income to the IRS. Did you receive the store credit because you performed a service for the store? Then yes, you are generally required to report this as income to the IRS."
Whether DAZ is required to provide forms to prove this, I don't know.
Thanks for that link. I wonder how airlines for example handle this, because if you give up your seat on an overbooked flight and they give you a $800 voucher I don't think they send you a 1099 at the end of the year and make you claim that as income.
If there isn't a way for the user to get something out of letting other people order prints of their art I don't think we would spend the web developers time because I suspect we wouldn't have many users opting in so they could just see a little ticker next to their images of how many people have ordered prints. Unless I'm wrong, and please let me know if I am.
Comments
So were just looking for rubes to buy things that are completely worthless.
If someone counterfeits a $100 bill perfectly, using the same paper even, it would still be a counterfeit. If someone downloads the file a million times, but still doesn't own proof of that limited run, it's worthless. Look, I don't get it. I don't get bitcoin either, but there are people out there who are willing to pay $50,000 dollars for it, so who am I to argue. Just because I wouldn't pay $75 dollars for a digital asset, doesn't mean that others won't. There are a lot of people out there with a lot of money to waste.
Less rubes and more memelords who can waste money on pointless bragging rights.
Psssst...I have some snake oil I'd love to sell you. *twirls imaginary mustache*
I'd say they're still rubes tho, lol. Memelords and rubes.
Do people even buy prints from DA? What would you do with them? You can only buy some many unless you live in a mansion or want to stick them in a closet. Seems like it would be a very limited thing. I bought a digital frame for less than one NFT, and now I can see hundreds of renders.
I totally missed out on the hype and such (because I tend to steer clear from hypes because... it's all about $$$ in the end) and so I just got into contact with the whole NFT scheme, and truth be told I never laughed so hard at seeing how this is being treated seriously (by Daz mind you). It's very simple: like most crypto's the actual value depends on what people are willing to put into it. Personally I intend to avoid this like the plague because - in my opinion - this has "scamming" and "inflation" plastered all over it. People preach "blockchain" as if that's the ultimate failsave while in fact, it's anything but that. It has its uses, sure, and also applies security (no arguments there) but it's also very easy to avoid. Which in its turn leads to possible abuse again.
SO now we can pay $500 for a vague image? Yah... sure, I guess the Corona crisis is really getting taxing for some people.
I suppose some do? I guess it all depends on the kind of stuff you like to hang on the wall. My living room has paintings. My office has movie posters. So I dunno...I don't really see room for even my type of artwork on my walls, lol.
This is the reason for it being in store credit instead of actual cash, but more legal work would be done to see if that is far enough from actual cash so that tax forms, withholdings and all that don't have to be done. If the legal groundwork is there for "Daz sold a print of an image I told them they could sell prints of so I got a $5 discount on a future purchase (via store-credit)" instead of treating store credit as something equivalent to cash it could be possible. If tax forms and withholdings and all that still need to be filled out I don't think we would want to add enough extra accountants to make that happen.
I'm pretty sure Store Credit is still consider compensation. And is still taxable. The Store Credit isn't being given as a refund, it's being given as a payment.
https://www.quora.com/If-company-X-issues-me-1000-worth-of-store-credit-am-I-required-by-law-to-claim-it-as-income-to-the-IRS
"It depends what you did to receive the credit. Did they issue the credit because you returned merchandise you had purchased or received as gifts? Then no, you aren't required to report this as income to the IRS. Did you receive the store credit because you performed a service for the store? Then yes, you are generally required to report this as income to the IRS."
Whether DAZ is required to provide forms to prove this, I don't know.
When you buy stock photos, you are buying the rights to use that image, and not the image itself. I think the only way that this new scheme could have real value is if you were able to sell the full rights and ownership of the image. You sell one, charge whatever you think it's worth, and the other person takes full ownership of it, verified and recorded on the blockchain. They can do whatever they want with it, including selling it again. I would happily list a few images if I could do that.
I'm pretty sure that would be seen as tax evasion in the EU.
That I get. And I've done it. It's not worth the hassle to be honest.
All the value in these NFTs seems to be locked up in who you can sell it to next. If DAZ has already glutted the market with their own products (i.e. 200 viable copies of each video) then who would be left to buy as second hand?
I lived through the variant comic book cover craze of the 90s. Watching more that one store go out of business and a few people go backrupt on items that were "supposed to be worth something" but ended up having no intrinsic value. Granted that most of those people were out to get rich quick and weren't thinking through what they were doing...
I do have a stack of "Death of Superman" comics still in their sealed black bags though.
While both are not smart, there's a distinction between the two kinds of not smart. Calling someone a 'rube' implies a lack of sophistication, a hick, who's too dumb to realize somebody is swindling them. Whereas the memelords who obsess over NFTs and crypto- are convinced we can transcend our frail flesh through digital Satori and join in perfect harmony with the transcendant blockchain. They're technically smart, but ideologically stupid.
I am so NOT buying into this.
It also makes me regret purchasing that gift card, despite the rediculously good percentage off.
Since the moment I heard about NFTs, I became convinced it was a premonition of the nightmarish, dystopian evolution of Austrian School economics.
"Value is whatever you want to pay for something!"
*jazz hands*
I'll give you $5 USD for those jazz hands.
It reminds me of the Encrypted Daz Connect (much better described as DRM - Digital Rights Management).
Time will tell if this is as horrible as that was.
Sold!
Here's your blockchain ID:
Why not just re-name the " collection" the Barnum collection, cuz that's what it is.
I would attach a picture of a $5 bill, but I think that's illegal. So just imagine that I did it. :)
How, other than being unpopular with at least some people? There does seem to be a belief that NFTs are in some way an opening for copy-protection but they don't do that as far as I can see.
The use to provide 1099 income info back in the day for American PAs at least when I was one years ago (Dan Farr era).
Hey man, I'll mint you an NFT for that $5 bill for another $5.
In my best Kermit the Frog voice: "Good grief, it's a runniing gag."
We're talking about NFTs, which are a running gag in-and-of-themselves, so it seems appropriate.
All I see is a tulip scam.
Yeah but what does daz make out of all of this? You aren't doing it for free.
II have a basic question one NFT I looked at was 0.15 (mystery blockchain valuation, hmmmm) on the DAZ site. That translated to about $276 and some odd cents USD (not a mystery as to why that valution is at all - that's a lot of money! LOL). So if I were to buy said NFT for $276 & some odd cents USD would that take the NFT and the associated art work off the market from other buyers? Yes, I know people can screen shot & such and skilled 3D artists can easiliy enough replicate these 3D DAZ 3D style scenes, this is a technical business question about NFTs. So, if that same art can be sold again associated with another NFT there is no way on earth that treats the customer fairly.
Thanks for that link. I wonder how airlines for example handle this, because if you give up your seat on an overbooked flight and they give you a $800 voucher I don't think they send you a 1099 at the end of the year and make you claim that as income.
If there isn't a way for the user to get something out of letting other people order prints of their art I don't think we would spend the web developers time because I suspect we wouldn't have many users opting in so they could just see a little ticker next to their images of how many people have ordered prints. Unless I'm wrong, and please let me know if I am.