NFT and the Future of Digital Content
This discussion has been closed.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Switching from a proof of work (PoW) to a proof of stake (PoS), which would remove the need for intense calculations by allowing the owners of existing coins to control the network, rather than the owners of the computing power. It is estimated this could cut the total energy demands of Ethereum by 99 per cent.
I have a problem with the fact that links don't generally last as well. If they were environmentally friendly, I'd just think NFTs were silly, because the URL could go down at any time and the link in the NFT can never be changed. Just think of all the broken links you find on the internet and imagine that someone paid $1000 for a piece of art on one. The two ideas make NFTs seem silly. A website you pay for is entirely different because you can migrate and have a contract with the host. NFTs do not afford these options or protections.
I just want to say that going into this project everyone on board was super excited to be exploring NFTs and I truly think everyone on board believed that this was about showcasing how digital artists can monetise and sell their work.
Obviously though I should've poked around more and did more research, although reading about crypto makes my head want to explode lol
I think there comes a point where listening to the community is super important, a community that I'm really proud to be a part of.
My advice to any companies that are going to do it is "wait".
Ethereum will be moving over to proof-of-stake in a few months, which will massively reduce the power consumption requirements (the claimed figure is a 99.98% reduction in power consumption) and will mean the network no longer relies on massive amounts of computing hardware, which addresses three of the issues I mentioned.
Waiting until that point also gives more time to assess whether the market is going to be ethical and stable.
In the first point, if NFTs build up a bad reputation for being used as scams or money laundering, it could be a very bad thing to have been associated with the concept. In the second respect, NFTs only really took off recently, and cryptocurrency markets crash pretty hard every now and again. Broader take up of the NFT idea is pretty new, and we don't yet know whether it has long-term stability. It could be the case that in three months we're looking back at NFTs as a "remember those? I pity all those people who bought those and suddenly had them all turn out worthless" - which might be good from a financial point of view for the sellers, but could result in stoking a lot of resentment in some of your most enthusiastic customers. And if I've learned something over the years, if you tick off a dedicated customer, jeebus can they be vindictive.
I know there's the drive to be in right at the start for the biggest returns, but if it's only going to have short term viability, you don't really want to have bought into it, and if it has long-term viability, you'll still make profits in the long run.
I imagine the "gas" for NFTs may also get cheaper after the transfer to proof-of-stake, so less capital will be put on the line and it'll be less of a risk to get involved with.
While I agree that reducing the environmental impact is a very good thing, PoS has the side effect of having the majority of the new coins mined going to people who already own some. Helping the rich get richer isn't something I am really keen on doing, hence part of my reason for saying there is currently no good way to use NFTs.
Thank you everyone for taking the time to respond, I actually was scared when I replied to this topic, but have come away feeling like I have a ton to think about.
I want you to know this is all healthy and good discussion and I'm taking it on board.
I do have to get some sleep though, it's 2am, but it looks like have A LOT of reading to do tomorrrow.
Rest assured everything you say here is being heard and I will make sure it's not falling on deaf ears.
I'll be back when I've had a chance to catch up with Daz and I'll let you all know how it goes!
p.s this thread is a goldmine of information that is extremely valuable to anyone interested in this space.
Hi Cameron, thanks for listening and engaging on this.
I spend a lot of time in fandom and LGBTQ+ art spaces on social media, where artists and fans are usually commissioning within their own social ecosystems. Some of these artists depend on commissions for survival money, and others have successfully created small businesses. And by small I mean small--usually selling pins or accessories, sometimes bigger stuff like graphic novels, prints, and clothes. Maybe 500 sales of a single item at most. It's partially a sharing economy where people trade art back and forth, and just as often end up sending money to each other for food or medical expenses or long term goals. Most are marginalized in some way. There's a joke about how doing commissions in this part of Twitter is just a group of friends circulating the same $50 to whoever needs it most at the time.
The NFT boom is terrifying from this vantage point because none of them can afford to get into doing this, and even if they could it would mean wastefully contributing to the same climate change that's already causing many of them pain. There are so many brilliant artists and writers and performers in this space, and from their perspective people who could afford to spend several years' worth of their salary on an NFT had just unilaterally declared that everyone was going to do art this way now. A bunch of them locked down their accounts because there were trolls going around tokenizing any tweets they found interesting. Everyone had a favorite artist who realized they were successful enough to sell NFTs and got basically love bombed by random crypto accounts in a really creepy way. Everyone seemed to suddenly be fine with wasting energy on a massive scale when that kind of money was involved.
I think if everyone interested in NFTs had been willing to wait to make it blow up and prioritize making it something fair and not wasteful, maybe it wouldn't be so horrifying. But we're all basically used to getting a little stability and being at risk of losing it any time the people hosting platforms or disrupting industries get a new idea. People have come up with ways to establish ownership of digital art in our own communities that are pretty innovative, and at first I understood how NFTs work because I understand how adoptables work: okay, you own this emotionally on the honor system, and this attaches a number to it. Then it was something different.
If it really is the wave of the future, if it really is sustainable and good for small artists, it can wait and be worked on and take everyone's input into account. That's the only way to build something that doesn't leave anyone behind.
Karuki: While we have you here I'd like again to encourage you to collaborate on some assets for sale. While I'm sure plenty of Daz customers enjoy looking at other people's art, we also deeply love the process of making our own. Giving us something to buy that allows us creative agency would be awesome and I'm sure a larger percent of the Daz captive audience would be interested in those items.
Environmental impacts aside, the simple fact that anybody can mint a piece of artwork without having to provide proof of ownership should have been a huge red flag. Add to that the fact that thieves can hide behind a wall of anonymity, and that there's often no way to locate or procesute a thief, even for a legal copyright holder. Even worse, once a piece has been minted, there's no way to remove it from the blockchain. NFT's don't empower artists...it's quite the opposite.
Thank you for your time sir.
I'm in the "Give them a second chance" crowd.
I've gotten a few in my life, and have been thankful for them.
While this isn't ideal, the concept of "the rich getting richer" isn't entirely untrue already - after all, someone's mining income is primarily based on the amount of recent-generation computing hardware they can afford to have around.
Admittedly the balance is likely to be different (someone who has a few million worth of Ethereum probably doesn't have a thousand times more hardware than someone who only has a few thousand or a few hundred worth), but the proof-of-work system more thoroughly excludes the least well off by design.
Exactly... The degree to which the least well off are excluded by this system is exponentially greater than other gigs... and the way it drives up costs for digital artists also makes it difficult for the least well off to actually become digital artists or realize their artistic vision...
The thing that everyone who supports NFTs either harps on or leads in with is the 6.6 million dollars someone paid for the Beeple video, or how Grimes 50 second video went for $300,000, or the 3 million dollar Twitter founder tweet... which kinda reminds me of the way Multi-Level Marketers tell everyone about the three vacation homes or piles of BMWs their top sellers all own... "and that could be you too!... We really, truly care about the little guy and want to give them a chance to get rich too!!"... Yup... the problem with those examples is few people have the footprint of Grimes, Beeple or Jack D. Twitter has... especially the least well off, but the overstressed implication that "anyone can make a mint with NFTs" is touted over and over like an early 00s back alley mortgage broker... "I'm on your side! Of course you can afford this house! Everyone is doing variable interest rates! You'd be crazy not to sign up for this!"
Selling it to the masses as a get rich quick scheme for the little guy or a shot at making money for someone who's not well connected or known is such crap it's not even remotely funny.
The whole tone deaf thing stinks from head to tail no matter how you look at it.
Agreed. But just so you know, the Beeple NFT sold for 69 million, not 6.6 million.
In addition to all of the above - why market receipts of finished images to a marketplace full of artists who make their own art? We're here to purchase tools to create art, not to buy others' art, let alone nebulous proof-of-having-a-link-to-art. The people most likely to buy NFT stuff would wander over, see all the freely displayed art in the Gallery, and like as not grab a few pieces while they're here, possibly NFTing them in the process since there's no proof required of who actually made the piece.
Some aspects of this really upset me (like the energy consumption) while other aspects (who the heck are they marketing to?) just confound me.
I left a rant earlier (on page 16) where I provide my opinion for the flawed rationale behind the idea of NFTs having value, but I'll try to provide a more objective perspective below.
Most people are aware of, and opposed to, the environmental impact of NFTs and crypto due to the underlying blockchains using proof-of-work algorithms. If you're not familiar with what that term means, basically anyone that believes global warming is an existential threat to humanity should be fundamentally opposed to any cryptocurrency using that system, because they needlessly use a massive amount of energy. The ones listed by Daz (Ethereum blockchain) use this system. However, not all blockchains use it, and it's possible Ethereum may move away to the more energy efficient variant. If they did, it would somewhat solve this issue, which is arguably the more controversial aspect.
The other issue with NFTs and crypto, however, is one of a more political nature. I will avoid getting too deep into it, nor arguing for any side, but to summarize, cryptocurrencies are decentralized, which means no state or government is able to control or regulate them. In addition, wallets are anonymous, meaning with enough caution, it can be made nearly impossible to trace the identity of the person making transactions. Both of these features make cryptocurrencies lean heavily libertarian on the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum, making them ideal among anarchists (aka left wing libertarians). If all currency were decentralized, it would be impossible for a state to exist, because it would be impossible to collect taxes. While it's unlikely that crypto will be the end of world governments, it's hard to know what the worldwide impact would be if crypto valuations grew substantially.
Furthermore, the concerns people bring up about theft, scams, and lawless behavior are some of the consequences of crypto/blockchain actually functioning as intended, because its decentralized nature means there are no laws or governing bodies that can protect or remedy abuse. The onus is on the buyer to ensure that they are dealing with an honest seller. And if someone's computer/account gets hacked, well... tough luck.
Unlike the issue of energy, the decentralized aspect of today's popular cryptocurrencies has no alternative, at least not until some sort of global pact on regulation is established, and those changes forced to be implemented.
Now, I have no doubt that Daz's decision to promote NFTs was neither an environmental nor political statement, but if you're wondering why some of us strongly object to their promotion, these would be the reasons why.
Thanks a lot and KUDOS for showing up here while others prefer to keep a low profile.
After having seen your first partnership product with Daz, I was really enthusiastic what would come up next. And even more disappointed when I realized that it was only something that is not really of any use for the average Daz customer.
Daz had produced a couple of very nice charity-oriented bundles. A "Black Girls CODE" bundle with a Diigitals inspired black girl character (Shudu's little sister?) would have been an instant buy for me. Art is all about inspiration. The swimsute bundle inspired me to look more into Daz animation features. Something I did not do before. Daz and 3D art is largely about taking what is there, and create something new. The Daz PC+ club has a weekly contest based on the weekly freebies and PC+ stuff to create something new. The results are more often than not really amazing.
Selling NFT's is not about inspiration at all. It is basically all about selling hot air. And, unfortunately, it is very attractive for things like money laundering, because you can stay completely anonymous.
Nevertheless, I hope that Diigitals continue with the Daz colaboration, inspiring Daz customers to create something new.
I appreciate Karuki came to visit us on the Daz forum, how have we not seen any Daz leadership adressing these issues?
So an "outsider" beats Daz leadership to addresses our issues with all of this, clearly there has not been any marketing research performed on NFTs, clearly the customer experience is still broken without any visible signs to make this a priotity to improve. I think I should give up on anything getting better in the future, and that is just from 3 monts of experience with Daz. I cannot imagine what most of you feel about all of this,...ah guess I answered my own question.
..+13 Allen Art (apoliogies, late to the show).
That's actually a great idea about launching a character with a bundle that can benefit Black Girls Code, hopefully if Daz still want to work with me I'll get the chance.
I probably won't get a chance to catch up with them until after the weekend, but I think ideas like this are super constructive.
At the end of the day I really want to create items that the community love and can use and I definitely was unaware of a lot of the issues surrounding NFTs.
Morning :)
I won't have much to update until after the weekend, but I will be checking this thread periodically, looking for any new info I can pass along.
Just an idea. If someone wanted to promote the history and culture of the Black people (as in not the stereotypical modern city toughs and pop stars from the USA), why not create something original, that has been neglected so much it is actually sad? Help people learn about the history of the Black people. You know, it didn't begin in the 17th century.
There is a serious lack of stories and aesthetics promotion for the rich history of African cultures. Just a couple of examples - Timbuktu, Aksum, and the kingdoms of the Zulus. Create some products depicting their unique people, architecture, outfits, weapons, items of daily use, art, items and beasts related to the various mythologies etc. Make thematic bundles for these. Advertise them properly. negotiate some of the proceeds to be dedicated to the support of young Black artists.
Make the products, and especially the figures, unique. Give each product a description that mentions the "fluff" around them. Not just the generic "X is a great new figure that can be whatever you want". Give the figures names, short backstories, tell us who they are meant to be. Give them life. Maybe some of us will send them to space, some may make them fight dragons, some may employ them under various other genres. But maybe some artists will actually take time to learn more about the history associated with the products.
(Bolding mine.) Honestly, I don't even know who's hyping NFTs since everything I see within my online artistic circles (I'm not just talking DAZ users) is vocally opposed to the environmental destruction, GPU shortage crisis, and failure of NFTs to provide any real value to the "customer". It's important to understand the blockchain does not include the artwork or any of it's associated rights - it's little more than a record of provenence with an address that can fail at a any moment leaving you with no art and an expensive receipt. NFTs are a bit backwards. NFTs don't secure against duplication, redistribution, or new NFT tokenization of the asset by any random person. Shopping at at legitimate sites from legitimate sellers already guarantees the legitimacy of a product. The average Daz user has no use for a token pointing to an Aiko render, only Aiko herself has value.
The NFT points to the digital content, but nothing points the digital content or duplicates thereof to the NFT. The token's security flows entirely in one direction and only as long as image or asset is hosted at that location. In no use case does it prove legitimacy better than a traditional proof of purchase email and/or vanilla embedded metadata. Technically it allows resale, but unless Daz is going to send lawyers after people to ensure they stop using the assets after they give the token to a new user, functionally, they've secured nothing. You're basically buying a fancy, high tech and energy intensive receipt for a collectible that may or may not still be at the linked location in the future buyer beware).
The whole concept of owning "an original" is entirely meaningless in 3D asset distribution. Anyone who cares about legitimacy buys a legitimate copy from the legitimate seller instead of pirating, NFTs add nothing to this process except the risk your asset might disappear leaving you with nothing but a fancy token. This likely applies to all digital art. NFTs only guarantee the originality of the token, not the asset or image itself. By the time an artwork or asset is hosted online, it's probably technically a copy by any reasonalble definition anyway. The special NFT link doesn't offer any additional rights over any other method of sale or distribution, and if anything seems more brittle and risky than using a traditional asset store, patreon, or gumroad.
While I appreciate your willingness to engage with the Daz community and learn about NFTs, perhaps you should reconsider consulting with other companies on a subject you admit don't actually understand? I'm glad you're open minded and willing to learn, but it seems odd to charge for expertise you admit you don't have.
This is a great idea :) I work mostly in fashion and am more focused on modern stuff, but I know an amazing Nigerian 3D artist who could perfectly execute something like this.
His work is phenomenal and I agree I would love to see some products with deeper cultural and historical ties.
The experience of this launch is what I would be including in my consulting, so of course I will be waiting until this project is seen to the end before sharing my findings and also a lot of the opinions and facts shared on this thread.
So far I have that there needs to be a platform that;
If those points were solved, could NFTs be empowering for artists and a way to really create value with digital art?
Those are some pretty major sticking points. 'D
Might as well start from scratch and create something that is actually meant to empower artists and create value.
NFTs were not designed with any of that in mind.
And this current campaign honestly seems little more than monkey see/monkey do. Or Beeple see/Beeple do in this case.
No, we all don't get to copy/paste and become Beeple rich.
Lol I definitely didn't think I was going to get Beeple rich, it's about an experience for me, seeing if I could learn something. I definitely got what I asked for haha in heaps!!
You're right though, perhaps this is something that needs building from scratch, it's artists in mind, or maybe it's just not the right medium at all.
I do believe that it's still early days and there are many developments yet to come.
Mike Judge, the creator of Silicon Valley (and King of the Hill, Office Space, etc.) briefly worked in Silicon Valley as a programmer. He quit because, in his own words:
Cryptocurrency will always have weird libertarian undertones. It's decentralized to prevent states from having a monopoly on fiscal policy. The blockchain is immutable to prevent state power from taking people's property away. There's no mechanism for authorities to "undo" a fraudulent transaction, railroading people into an ultra-strict caveat emptor mentality. It was ideologically designed to enforce an anti-state, pro-market mentality.
If that's the kind of thing you want to rubber-stamp, it can be "empowering" for those who're drinking the anarcho-capitalist Kool-Aid.
But, judging by the bitter reaction, many people aren't.
I think also what sprung some outrage was that Daz was implementing a side business while the core business could use improvement. I did for me at least and made me feel marginalized as a customer, still think that was a horrible decision.
Regarding the NFTs, I cannot justify it for myself because of the environmental costs and the art theft which a lot of people into NFTs do not seem to have an issue with. It makes me feel that eco-system is greed focused and toxic to art.