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
As a Daz user and consumer I definitely relate to this, hopefully it's a learning experience for everyone involved and we can all move forward with some positive and constructive criticism.
Thanks for listening to us Karuki.
No. They were sold for what amounts to a set of Pokemon cards. They may be in the catalogue at that price but nobody who has them paid anywhere close to that. The only way to get that amount of money for them is to find some really stupid rube who has to have them right now and no matter the cost.
The whole trade is basically a "I have this $69 million stick and I trade it for your four $17.25 million pebbles".
Actually, if you go to the NiftyGateway page for Crossroad #1/1 (the Beeple video) (which is more like a GIF), it lists as "Sold to Anonymous" for $6,600,000...
Which is a bargain because my photo of a lost banana on the ground at the grocery store parking lot, "Sad Banana #88" is listing for $888,888,888,888 (it's all eights because 8 is an auspicious lucky number)...
Sad banana isn't a regular NFT though... it's based on my Wonkels cryptocurrency which relies mostly on special acorns hidden by talented squirrels and a series of specially marked turtles who may or may not fall into lava... uh... it's complicated, but trust me it's entirely environmentally friendly (except for the lava part) (and the large percentage of dead turtles), but it's all biodegradable (except for the lava) (there's a lot of lava)... in fact the NFT here stands for Non Fungusie Turtles (mostly because they fall in lava)...
But yeah, you all should buy into this because it's gonna make Bitcoin and traditional NFTs look as yesterday as the Charleston or Pogs... you definitely should get in on the Wonkles system before there is a bubble or I lose interest in it... you'll kick yourselves if you don't... otherwise you can get rich quick and hire someone to kick you so you don't have too... assuming you are into that...
I'm not judging either way.
Yes and No.
Those are what i think are most issues but i would need to add a couple of points. A 5th point would be that whatever platform it works on should be "fair" in terms on distribution and not an easy way for rich to get richier. Hard to do, imposssible to be 100% fair/transparent but better that current options may be possible.
Now, back to the NFTs and not the system behind it, i don't think NFTs will ever get to that point. Should we stick to them as the "next" thing? Maybe not, but if we do; why don't we actually try to understand its capabilities first. Numer "4" is a hard one, if you add too much to the token you have the risk of making it unsustainable. So for the moment NFTs have at best metadata, no Gif, No video, No image, nada. So we can't have en exclusive or selected group of owners of a "piece" because the only thing they bought was a bunch of bits that says so. At best i think it could represent that someone (or limited group) kind of patronage something. Then the question, what happens with the trading aspect? Aha! so i ask, is it needed? The trading part do not really benefit the artist, investors purchase thinking it will be worth more in the future, but maybe they dont even care about the art itself. That kind of person is not a patreon of Arts, a fan or a supporter; is just someone playing with your art as if it were a stock options. I'm certainly not a comunist, but is an imitation of wall street what we really want for the digital art market to become? This is my 6th point, and i don't see NFTs loosing that aspect.
Last topic I recall generating this much heat was Daz's side trip into encrypted assets.
I'll have to leave it to the reader to think about the corporate similarities behind the two for fear of having this post deleted.
That is the absolute best description of NFT I've read!
From what I understand, the cost of NFTing a piece of art just keeps going up and up due to the nature of blockchains. The Ethereum Average Gas Price is at a current level of $186.23. If I see a piece of artwork I like listed at $300, that means the artist is getting, at best, $133.77. Meanwhile, if I buy it, all I'd receive is a digital link to the artwork that could go away at any time. I'd rather go to the artist and say, "Hey, can I buy that from you for $200?" They'd get more money, I'd pay a lot less, and I'm getting a direct download. I don't care about getting a "link of ownership". What I care about is getting the artwork.
NFTs generally don't get a person more advertising. Sure, I read about one person who said their overall sales have doubled thanks to NFT, but they haven't tried to cash out yet. They admitted they have had to do a lot of extra work to get their stuff noticed on the NFT market. If they'd applied that work to their non-NFT items, would those sales have doubled? Maybe if they let their crytpo money sit it'll appreciate more so they earn even more money (like earning interesting in a bank account), or maybe it'll get stolen, or it could get eaten up by the continually rising cost of minting new NFTs.
So far, NFTs seem to exist for art speculation and driving up the worth of crypto currencies. It's technically not a pyramid scheme but will likely implode like one.
I agree with this. Even if there's a way to make them more ecologically friendly, there's no way (yet or in the near future) to regulate them. Because an NFT is not about the artwork, I find it nigh to impossible to find a way for the artwork to be anything more than secondary to what the NFT actually IS. Like I've said before, random pixels can be an NFT. There's no art appreciation in the mix whatsoever. NFT's are pie-in-the-sky get-rich-quick schemes and nothing more.
Am I allowed to say "+1"?
I'd like to link to some essays here that don't have to do with NFTs, but can offer a lot of insight into how people are already working to create systems to empower artists. I'm a game developer so these come from a gaming perspective, but Daz is connected to that and especially to people making games as self-expression. While I'm not sure I'd call Daz a "small tool" as described in one of the essays below, the majority of the community here uses it like one--and that's part of the reason, I think, many of us view this move as existentially incompatible with the spirit of it.
(Because you do have influence and you will be consulting with companies, I would ask that you take these to heart if you choose to read them but reach out to the authors personally if you have interest in developing anything that includes their ideas.)
Like most social problems that require difficult solutions, the work is already being done. The reason crypto and other disruptive technologies are so damaging is that a person with enough money and power can sincerely want to help with a problem, but be unable to see the thoughtful work being done at the ground level by people with little support. And they treat it like a Gordian knot, believing they've found a one-cut solution and simply out of earshot of people who are begging them not to swing a sword around.
I mentioned adoptables in an earlier post, and they're an example of how a small community effort tackled the problem NFTs are purportedly trying to solve on a smaller scale. Art theft has always been rampant in digital art communities, but in fandom and fandom-adjacent spaces it comes in the forms of capital theft and peer theft. Capital theft is situations like someone outside the community uploading your art piece to Teespring or whatever and selling products. Peer theft is when other people in the community steal and reupload art for personal use.
There's almost nothing an artist can do to stop capital theft because it happens at scale; they can report it when they see it, but it's like playing whack-a-mole with a hydra. With peer theft you're dealing with a single person who has an emotional stake in using your art. On the malicious end, they want to repost it on their instagram because it gets them lots of likes, or put it on DeviantArt and claim they drew it. But on the mostly-harmless but still not cool end, they may just want to use it for social media graphics or to enhance their roleplaying. Like, maybe someone has an original character they want to write about and get commissioned art of, and Shudu looks just like they imagine their character does so they use renders of her to illustrate their writing under a different name.
Some artists don't care when people do this, but it can really hurt those who make money off their art because once it's out on the internet without their name attached, whatever attention it gets may never get back to them. Since it's often personal work of the artist's own original characters being stolen, the peer thief usually doesn't ask because they're embarrassed at the idea of being told, "No, I don't want you to use my character as your character." And they don't link back so the artist doesn't find out.
So a few artists got the idea of creating one-off character designs exclusively for sale and giving people the opportunity to pay them for use. The process is really similar to buying an NFT: artists put either a single design or a lot of several (sometimes each is a color variant or follows a theme) up for informal auction or direct sale. The buyer then owns permission to use that design and the art associated with it. Artists put different limitations on use and usually retain the copyright, but the basic thing up for sale is permission to treat it as their own character. The artist sometimes even keeps a public record of official owners.
Ripples in this system include:
It might seem like NFTs could make everything more secure by giving adopts unique identifiers, but the system already works as-is. Anyone could just steal the art and use it, but it turns out that most people are happier supporting the artists and getting to say they have this adopt. And adopts are sold for anywhere from $20 to $1,000, with some people making enough to live off of. Artwork may still get stolen, but the artist can divert one line of peer theft into income, while giving people who don't actually have malicious motives a way to use the art above board.
Tons of solutions are already in place out there, and they aren't widely known because they usually don't provide any avenue to turn into A Market exploitable by big capital (very much by design).
The NFT does not provide any copyright protection, usage rights, or ownership proof of the original artwork. It's not recognized by any legal entity. It does not contain a copy of the artwork or any durable connection to the artwork. There is no requirement for the one minting the NFT to be either owner or creator of the artwork. The provenance of the NFT only extends to the one copy of the artwork linked to the NFT and the link may expire at any time.
When you buy an NFT, you become the proud owner of a link identified by numerical code. That's why you can get (or mint!) an NFT of Nyan Cat or an image with 5 black pixels and 2 white pixels, or even the 1x1 transparent spaceholder gif. It's not about the art. And when people say they are selling you an artwork when they sell you an NFT, they are not selling you an artwork. It's not like I sell you a painting and you have the physical painting. It's also not like when I sell you a copyright of a digital work I made to use in your card game or whatever. The scope, contract requirements, and legal protections are utterly absent. Also, notice I can do either of these things without resorting to an NFT.
Sure! And I'll say +2. Though maybe it's not the best idea to waste the remaining posts in this thread on upvoting. So I will reiterate that Beeple was the lucky lottery winner for this promotion and his results are not typical for what ordinary people can expect for NFT performance.
Yes, adoptables are definitely worth mentioning in this context. Very articulate statement, too. The weird, queasy part to me is that it seems the odd copyright claims and the notion of species are unenforceable. Respect of that limit is strictly optional. Respect of any of those limits is optional. First, you have to actually know the stuff exists, and most people would have no idea. Usually the prices are so low that it's not maybe worth pursuing in court, especially across international boundaries. And a lot of times, it's groups of kids doing stuff on Paypal and Discord, anyway. In many ways, the web continues to be the wild west.
Well I guess we can all agree that somebody once called Mr.Ponzi would aprove of this new business deal. Wouldn't he?
In the other hand, I still have to find and read a couple of serious studies that justifies that blockchain techology is really a menace to ecologism. Until then, I just see it as another attack, under the mask of the New Green Deal, of plutocrats agaisnt the blockchain concept and altcoins until they get the total control of them. But I guess that a whole different topic, and people really interested in it already know it.
Shudu, it's a beautiful character. It should be celebrated. As many other art pieces made in Daz. But that's it. As has already been pointed, there many roads Daz3d, and Tafi (why not), could go torwards, and the NFT is precisely no the one most of us have asked.
Economical inflation is growing day by day, but still I believe there's better ways to invest money.... Or at least it should be made crystal clear that any blockchain investment is higly risky, and thus, people should be really aware of it.
Oh, it's super unenforceable. But it works in the same way you could steal the artwork and just never tell the artist instead of paying them like $250 for their approval. This is on a scale where if you disrespect the artist's boundaries for their creative property they just point and go "Wow, what a jerk thing to do, @Thiefname" and everyone else says, "Yeah, @Thiefname, why would you be such a jerk?" and the person who was trying to get some positive attention for having nice art on their profile doesn't reap the meager benefits of art theft.
I'm not sure it scales past where it already is, but that's the Gordian knot thing. Tech keeps trying to come up with stuff where if they can just get the broad angles right, they can wind it up and let it go as a civilization-wide solution. But solutions need to fit specific communities, or at least be flexible enough for those communities to tinker them to fit.
Good points! I suppose it would be pretty obvious when it's theft and/or blatant copying.
No easy solutions.
So...a question for Karuki. On some of the offerings, they unlock specific things as well as the NFT. One of them was the OBJ of that gorgeous dress. What sorts of things can we do with that OBJ? Can we download it and use it? I know its not rigged for DS I assume, but does this give us the right to use the unlockable "content" somehow? Or just learn from it?
Another item says it includes an MD file, which could be interesting to learn from. Some items say they incude the assets used to create the animations, as well as assets inspired by the artwork, but it doesn't list what they are that I can see. I assume these are Daz Studio assets that are sold here in the store so we can use them just like we bought them here?
It would not matter so much to me about the fact that the link might disappear, if purchasing the NFT allowed usage of the fies they are linked TO. If I am buying just artwork, what exactly can I DO with it? Use it like stock? Only display it for personal use? Display it on a website? The usage attached to the NFT purchase is unclear.
My NFT of the Invisible Chair
Hope you like it
most NFT's (99.9%) - I just paid this, for bragging rights alone. no rights like copyright, etc.
thats all folks! bragging rights.
My posts have been disappearing, so I don't know what is allowed and what is not... But the facts are;
- No proof of origin and/or ownership is required for minting an NFT
- Minting an NFT and selling it can be done anonymously
- Minting an NFT costs money
With those in mind, looking at what has been minted and sold at the auction site, leaves one wondering...
There may be less to NFTs than the hype suggests. NFTs still suck, but maybe they'll die a natural death. Let's hope something less insane replaces them eventually.
NFT Price Crash Stirs Debate on Whether Stimulus-Led Fad Is Over - Bloomberg
An NFT at the current stage is no diferent then a receipt, you want prove of owenership that is it. :)
What is the need for an expensive blockchain....
LOL
Bloomberg News reporting on this is interesting development.
Time 5:30...lol
The problem is that as a receipt, it only proves that you own the NFT, not ownership of whatever the NFT is attached to.
Wow! Indeed.
Nice!
Everyone just be very carefull with NFT´s it is very easy to loose huge amouts of money in this hypes!
I'm sorry, but your humour is no good here. Reality will always out-absurd you without breaking a sweat.