NFT and the Future of Digital Content

MeneerWolfman

All debate aside, and there has been a lot of good arguements and sources presented, from the business standpoint this has been running almost a full week now and so far the sales have been bunko. The prices have been slashed in half or more, and it looks like as of this afternoon Daz has taken down the Champion branding from NFT page. And the first Champion NFT auction just ended w/o the reserve met and only one bid.

Hopefully this thing dies and blows over soon.

Subtropic Pixel

kyoto kid said:

...if there was only some way to copy protect art like the music industry does that was affordable and accessible.

The music industry's methods are neither affordable nor accessible.

Seriously; just try to join one of the music copyright organizations and see how much that costs you.

As for accessibility, you can't even post a You Tube of yourself learning or playing a cover from certain bands without they getting pulled.  Well, there IS a way around that.  Play the song VERY badly and VERY out of tune. 

What this means to me:  You Tube promotes bad musicianship.

Mark_e593e0a5

MeneerWolfman said:

All debate aside, and there has been a lot of good arguements and sources presented, from the business standpoint this has been running almost a full week now and so far the sales have been bunko. The prices have been slashed in half or more, and it looks like as of this afternoon Daz has taken down the Champion branding from NFT page. And the first Champion NFT auction just ended w/o the reserve met and only one bid.

Hopefully this thing dies and blows over soon.

Perhaps Champion realized that an engagement in NFT is counter-productive to their brand image. Champion, and especially its brand holder  HanesBrands are invested and engage in sustainability. 

Sera

McGyver said:

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... 

The Beeple sale that I was referring to (and the one probably responsible for putting money signs in a lot of eyes) is referenced in the following links. There are more articles on it, but you get the idea. 

Beeple NFT Sells For $69.3 Million, Becoming Most-Expensive Ever

Crypto investor who bought Beeple’s NFT for $69 million says he would have paid even more

First NFT artwork at auction sells for staggering $69 million

What Are NFTs, Anyway? One Just Sold for $69 Million.

How in the World Did a “Digital Artwork” Sell for $69 Million at Christie’s?

Wonderland

Wolfwood said:

Karuki said:

So far I have that there needs to be a platform that;

 

1. Cuts the environmental impact minting and trading NFTs has by 99%.
2. Allows artists to be verified and authorship of artwork to be confirmed. Combat plagiarism.
3. Works to make NFTs accessible to all artists, including the impact they have on inflating graphics hardware.
4. Is more that just a token with a link attached to it. Risk of losing link if platform closes. Art should be able to be easily viewed and appreciated. 
    

If those points were solved, could NFTs be empowering for artists and a way to really create value with digital art? 

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.

Yes, this stock option analogy seems to be on point. It’s moving to commissions too. Yesterday I was offered a “job” creating art for a poject to be paid in cryptocurrency that I wouldn’t be able to touch for a year. I didn’t even know how to respond to this offer because I still don’t really understand cryptocurrency. I guess it’s gambling time spent rather than money. This is going a bit off topic but wondering what people think. We are supposed to discuss more on Monday. I just met the “middle person” in VR and supposed to meet the actual buyer also in VR on Monday. I’m really beginning to feel like I’ve entered another dimension, virtual people through avatars making deals for (physical) digitally created art to be paid in virtual future money. This is for a card game though, not NFT. Hope this isn’t too off topic but wondering what other artists think of this offer.

Matt_Castle

Wonderland said:

... cryptocurrency that I wouldn’t be able to touch for a year ...

... wondering what other artists think of this offer.

To quote Stephen Fry: "The short answer to that is 'no'. The long answer is 'f*** no'."

AlmightyQUEST

If someone is paying you for your work, get paid in whatever currency you are used to getting. I would not accept crypto currency payments, and certainly not any payment where they promised to pay, I just wouldn't receive the pay for a year.

But think of it this way, if they were offering you stock in the company as payment, knowing what you know of them and their product, would you take it? In some cases (e.g., a passion project with people you know personally, and a clear partnership role in the companies success) this might make sense, but for a limited commission relationship that may not make sense.

Sera

Wonderland said:

Yes, this stock option analogy seems to be on point. It’s moving to commissions too. Yesterday I was offered a “job” creating art for a poject to be paid in cryptocurrency that I wouldn’t be able to touch for a year. I didn’t even know how to respond to this offer because I still don’t really understand cryptocurrency. I guess it’s gambling time spent rather than money. This is going a bit off topic but wondering what people think. We are supposed to discuss more on Monday. I just met the “middle person” in VR and supposed to meet the actual buyer also in VR on Monday. I’m really beginning to feel like I’ve entered another dimension, virtual people through avatars making deals for (physical) digitally created art to be paid in virtual future money. This is for a card game though, not NFT. Hope this isn’t too off topic but wondering what other artists think of this offer.

I have never taken a commission so this isn't an educated opinion, but if they plan to pay you, shouldn't you get access to said compensation in the very near future? Say, 90 days after completion of the project at most. There's so much that could go wrong in a year and you could end up with zilch.  

BlueFingers

The thing with crypto's is that they are so volatile, it will be hard to agree a price. They could be worth a lot more or a lot less the next day.

Wolfwood

Matt_Castle said:

Wonderland said:

... cryptocurrency that I wouldn’t be able to touch for a year ...

... wondering what other artists think of this offer.

To quote Stephen Fry: "The short answer to that is 'no'. The long answer is 'f*** no'."

I agree with this. Even if you don't account for the enviromental aspect, a crytocurrency that you cannot touch for a year means that is probably some new or private crytocurrency. Too shady.

Mark_e593e0a5

BlueFingers said:

The thing with crypto's is that they are so volatile, it will be hard to agree a price. They could be worth a lot more or a lot less the next day.

Or it could be worth nothing at all in a year from now. The advantage of any real currency is that it is backed by a country. The US FED would just not allow that the Greenback will be over/undervalued too much. Same applies to the ECB concerning the Euro. Who is backing crypto?

Wonderland

AlmightyQUEST said:

If someone is paying you for your work, get paid in whatever currency you are used to getting. I would not accept crypto currency payments, and certainly not any payment where they promised to pay, I just wouldn't receive the pay for a year.

 

But think of it this way, if they were offering you stock in the company as payment, knowing what you know of them and their product, would you take it? In some cases (e.g., a passion project with people you know personally, and a clear partnership role in the companies success) this might make sense, but for a limited commission relationship that may not make sense.

 

The person I’m supposed to meet (in VR) is supposedly a known film producer, normally easily checkable through IMDB, so it could be good PR for me even if the money doesn’t come through but adding to the fact that I’m only meeting an avatar in VR worries me a bit. I’ve worked in the film biz myself so hopefully I’ll be able to check if he’s for real. If he’s that big a producer though, he could pay an artist for art for a card game upfront. Everything is so virtual now, reality is getting so amorphous. I really feel like I’m living in an alternate universe. Sorry for derailing the topic.

Sera

I know if you put away a small amount of money in a bank, you can have the bank promise a larger payment years later. But if that's the case here, the larger payment does not reflect the actual amount of money being given to you. It would be more like only paying 1/3 of your bill and then sending advice on how to invest it to get enough to cover the difference. And no one can guarantee that investing in crypto will pay off. The more I think about it, the more insulting it seems. 

PerttiA

Wonderland said:

AlmightyQUEST said:

If someone is paying you for your work, get paid in whatever currency you are used to getting. I would not accept crypto currency payments, and certainly not any payment where they promised to pay, I just wouldn't receive the pay for a year.

 

But think of it this way, if they were offering you stock in the company as payment, knowing what you know of them and their product, would you take it? In some cases (e.g., a passion project with people you know personally, and a clear partnership role in the companies success) this might make sense, but for a limited commission relationship that may not make sense.

 

The person I’m supposed to meet (in VR) is supposedly a known film producer, normally easily checkable through IMDB, so it could be good PR for me even if the money doesn’t come through but adding to the fact that I’m only meeting an avatar in VR worries me a bit. I’ve worked in the film biz myself so hopefully I’ll be able to check if he’s for real. If he’s that big a producer though, he could pay an artist for art for a card game upfront. Everything is so virtual now, reality is getting so amorphous. I really feel like I’m living in an alternate universe. Sorry for derailing the topic.

Caution is not bad... It's not but a couple of months that my brother got a job offer from a well known and reputable company, but the pay was just too good and in the end it turned out to be a hoax.

tsroemi

 

Even if you don't account for the enviromental aspect, ...

Weird, why does everyone keep saying this? It's like it was somehow in bad taste to refer to environmental issues too strongly. Makes me feel kind of surreal, as if there was a deluge outside and everyone is like, 'Well, apart from all the water ...' 

I do feel really happy about the way DAZ customers are overwhelmingly reacting to this NFT business, though. Gives me some hope!

 

Wonderland

PerttiA said:

Wonderland said:

AlmightyQUEST said:

If someone is paying you for your work, get paid in whatever currency you are used to getting. I would not accept crypto currency payments, and certainly not any payment where they promised to pay, I just wouldn't receive the pay for a year.

 

But think of it this way, if they were offering you stock in the company as payment, knowing what you know of them and their product, would you take it? In some cases (e.g., a passion project with people you know personally, and a clear partnership role in the companies success) this might make sense, but for a limited commission relationship that may not make sense.

 

The person I’m supposed to meet (in VR) is supposedly a known film producer, normally easily checkable through IMDB, so it could be good PR for me even if the money doesn’t come through but adding to the fact that I’m only meeting an avatar in VR worries me a bit. I’ve worked in the film biz myself so hopefully I’ll be able to check if he’s for real. If he’s that big a producer though, he could pay an artist for art for a card game upfront. Everything is so virtual now, reality is getting so amorphous. I really feel like I’m living in an alternate universe. Sorry for derailing the topic.

Caution is not bad... It's not but a couple of months that my brother got a job offer from a well known and reputable company, but the pay was just too good and in the end it turned out to be a hoax.

The fact that the company is well known and reputable is good though. He can contact the press and it’s newsworthy. This hoax could totally destroy them. Much better to just do the right thing and pay your brother. Also, I hope your brother had a contract. He can, of course, sue. He needs to do both! 

bluejaunte

Mark_e593e0a5 said:

BlueFingers said:

The thing with crypto's is that they are so volatile, it will be hard to agree a price. They could be worth a lot more or a lot less the next day.

Or it could be worth nothing at all in a year from now. The advantage of any real currency is that it is backed by a country. The US FED would just not allow that the Greenback will be over/undervalued too much. Same applies to the ECB concerning the Euro. Who is backing crypto?

That would be hilarious though, as then the US would make it onto its own list of currency manipulators. Not to mention it strikes me as somewhat funny that a country has the power to change the value of its own currency and that is somehow better than the market alone setting said value. And the power is limited anyway, see various countries that had their currency devalued rapidly in crysis.

So yeah I don't know, from that point of view I don't think I'd hold up "real" currency as great examples of how to do it right. You can say what you want but people who had the foresight to invest in bitcoin are rich now, and there's no sign of it being a bubble that's going to burst either. I think it would be much more of a miracle if bitcoin suddenly imploded than if it increased steadily in value at this point. 1 bitcoin is worth 57k dollars currently. It's been at relatively insane levels of value for years and years even if it did go up and down quite a bit at times.

 

PerttiA

Wonderland said:

PerttiA said:

Wonderland said:

AlmightyQUEST said:

If someone is paying you for your work, get paid in whatever currency you are used to getting. I would not accept crypto currency payments, and certainly not any payment where they promised to pay, I just wouldn't receive the pay for a year.

 

But think of it this way, if they were offering you stock in the company as payment, knowing what you know of them and their product, would you take it? In some cases (e.g., a passion project with people you know personally, and a clear partnership role in the companies success) this might make sense, but for a limited commission relationship that may not make sense.

 

The person I’m supposed to meet (in VR) is supposedly a known film producer, normally easily checkable through IMDB, so it could be good PR for me even if the money doesn’t come through but adding to the fact that I’m only meeting an avatar in VR worries me a bit. I’ve worked in the film biz myself so hopefully I’ll be able to check if he’s for real. If he’s that big a producer though, he could pay an artist for art for a card game upfront. Everything is so virtual now, reality is getting so amorphous. I really feel like I’m living in an alternate universe. Sorry for derailing the topic.

Caution is not bad... It's not but a couple of months that my brother got a job offer from a well known and reputable company, but the pay was just too good and in the end it turned out to be a hoax.

The fact that the company is well known and reputable is good though. He can contact the press and it’s newsworthy. This hoax could totally destroy them. Much better to just do the right thing and pay your brother. Also, I hope your brother had a contract. He can, of course, sue. He needs to do both! 

Except the reputable company had not sent the offer... Someone had "minted" it in their name  

Sera

Wonderland said:

PerttiA said:

Caution is not bad... It's not but a couple of months that my brother got a job offer from a well known and reputable company, but the pay was just too good and in the end it turned out to be a hoax.

The fact that the company is well known and reputable is good though. He can contact the press and it’s newsworthy. This hoax could totally destroy them. Much better to just do the right thing and pay your brother. Also, I hope your brother had a contract. He can, of course, sue. He needs to do both! 

I think he meant someone was impersonating the company and that the company wasn't actually involved.  I would be worried about your producer being an imposter as well. Maybe he can do a skype call sometime? And definitely get a contract. But if the contract isn't for a lot of money or the guy isn't who he says he is, that may not help much either. 

Mark_e593e0a5

bluejaunte said:

Mark_e593e0a5 said:

BlueFingers said:

The thing with crypto's is that they are so volatile, it will be hard to agree a price. They could be worth a lot more or a lot less the next day.

Or it could be worth nothing at all in a year from now. The advantage of any real currency is that it is backed by a country. The US FED would just not allow that the Greenback will be over/undervalued too much. Same applies to the ECB concerning the Euro. Who is backing crypto?

That would be hilarious though, as then the US would make it onto its own list of currency manipulators. Not to mention it strikes me as somewhat funny that a country has the power to change the value of its own currency and that is somehow better than the market alone setting said value. And the power is limited anyway, see various countries that had their currency devalued rapidly in crysis.

So yeah I don't know, from that point of view I don't think I'd hold up "real" currency as great examples of how to do it right. You can say what you want but people who had the foresight to invest in bitcoin are rich now, and there's no sign of it being a bubble that's going to burst either. I think it would be much more of a miracle if bitcoin suddenly imploded than if it increased steadily in value at this point. 1 bitcoin is worth 57k dollars currently. It's been at relatively insane levels of value for years and years even if it did go up and down quite a bit at times.

 

Central banks are notorious in influencing currency value by buying or selling foreign currency. Example: Switzerland coupled the value of the Swiss Franc to the Euro. Then the value of the Euro did constantly go up (because at that time the value of the USD was going down as China sold Dollars). They tried to compensate that by selling Euros. When they had run out of Eurso, the de-coupled the exchange rate of the Swiss Franc. Currencies are a very well stabilized system, as long as the country that issues a currency is stable. If not, currency is devalued.Most unstable countries have a very high inflation, as nobody wants their money (see Venezuela, where inflation is going through the roof). 

Mark_e593e0a5

Wonderland said:

PerttiA said:

Wonderland said:

AlmightyQUEST said:

If someone is paying you for your work, get paid in whatever currency you are used to getting. I would not accept crypto currency payments, and certainly not any payment where they promised to pay, I just wouldn't receive the pay for a year.

 

But think of it this way, if they were offering you stock in the company as payment, knowing what you know of them and their product, would you take it? In some cases (e.g., a passion project with people you know personally, and a clear partnership role in the companies success) this might make sense, but for a limited commission relationship that may not make sense.

 

The person I’m supposed to meet (in VR) is supposedly a known film producer, normally easily checkable through IMDB, so it could be good PR for me even if the money doesn’t come through but adding to the fact that I’m only meeting an avatar in VR worries me a bit. I’ve worked in the film biz myself so hopefully I’ll be able to check if he’s for real. If he’s that big a producer though, he could pay an artist for art for a card game upfront. Everything is so virtual now, reality is getting so amorphous. I really feel like I’m living in an alternate universe. Sorry for derailing the topic.

Caution is not bad... It's not but a couple of months that my brother got a job offer from a well known and reputable company, but the pay was just too good and in the end it turned out to be a hoax.

The fact that the company is well known and reputable is good though. He can contact the press and it’s newsworthy. This hoax could totally destroy them. Much better to just do the right thing and pay your brother. Also, I hope your brother had a contract. He can, of course, sue. He needs to do both! 

May I suggest a very simple exercise. Just take a sheet of paper. Devide it with a line in the middle. On one side, put all the benefits you get accepting that offer. On the other side, put all the risks. Add a numerical value to all benefits. Do the same for the risks. Add up all benefits, and all risks. Is the number you get at the risk side much higher that the one on the benefits side? Don't do it. Is the number on the risk side slightly higher? Go with your gut feeling. Is the number on the benefits side much higher? Go for it. 

BlueFingers

bluejaunte said:

Mark_e593e0a5 said:

BlueFingers said:

The thing with crypto's is that they are so volatile, it will be hard to agree a price. They could be worth a lot more or a lot less the next day.

Or it could be worth nothing at all in a year from now. The advantage of any real currency is that it is backed by a country. The US FED would just not allow that the Greenback will be over/undervalued too much. Same applies to the ECB concerning the Euro. Who is backing crypto?

That would be hilarious though, as then the US would make it onto its own list of currency manipulators. Not to mention it strikes me as somewhat funny that a country has the power to change the value of its own currency and that is somehow better than the market alone setting said value. And the power is limited anyway, see various countries that had their currency devalued rapidly in crysis.

So yeah I don't know, from that point of view I don't think I'd hold up "real" currency as great examples of how to do it right. You can say what you want but people who had the foresight to invest in bitcoin are rich now, and there's no sign of it being a bubble that's going to burst either. I think it would be much more of a miracle if bitcoin suddenly imploded than if it increased steadily in value at this point. 1 bitcoin is worth 57k dollars currently. It's been at relatively insane levels of value for years and years even if it did go up and down quite a bit at times.

 

The thing is with crypto's you will only get that value, if you sell it for a traditional currency. I can't go to the grocers and pay with bitcoin. And there are also a lot of people who lost money with crypto's, it is still very speculative.

AllenArt

bluejaunte said:

Mark_e593e0a5 said:

BlueFingers said:

The thing with crypto's is that they are so volatile, it will be hard to agree a price. They could be worth a lot more or a lot less the next day.

Or it could be worth nothing at all in a year from now. The advantage of any real currency is that it is backed by a country. The US FED would just not allow that the Greenback will be over/undervalued too much. Same applies to the ECB concerning the Euro. Who is backing crypto?

That would be hilarious though, as then the US would make it onto its own list of currency manipulators. Not to mention it strikes me as somewhat funny that a country has the power to change the value of its own currency and that is somehow better than the market alone setting said value. And the power is limited anyway, see various countries that had their currency devalued rapidly in crysis.

So yeah I don't know, from that point of view I don't think I'd hold up "real" currency as great examples of how to do it right. You can say what you want but people who had the foresight to invest in bitcoin are rich now, and there's no sign of it being a bubble that's going to burst either. I think it would be much more of a miracle if bitcoin suddenly imploded than if it increased steadily in value at this point. 1 bitcoin is worth 57k dollars currently. It's been at relatively insane levels of value for years and years even if it did go up and down quite a bit at times.

 

But at what cost!!? 

Wonderland

certaintree38 said:

Wonderland said:

PerttiA said:

Caution is not bad... It's not but a couple of months that my brother got a job offer from a well known and reputable company, but the pay was just too good and in the end it turned out to be a hoax.

The fact that the company is well known and reputable is good though. He can contact the press and it’s newsworthy. This hoax could totally destroy them. Much better to just do the right thing and pay your brother. Also, I hope your brother had a contract. He can, of course, sue. He needs to do both! 

I think he meant someone was impersonating the company and that the company wasn't actually involved.  I would be worried about your producer being an imposter as well. Maybe he can do a skype call sometime? And definitely get a contract. But if the contract isn't for a lot of money or the guy isn't who he says he is, that may not help much either. 

Yeah, I will definitely ask for a Zoom call if I’m interested after the VR meeting and see if he’s on FB or LinkedIn or has photos on google. My father (now deceased) was an editor at Variety and The Hollywood Reporter and could easily check on anyone for me but now I know enough people that most legit industry people are no more than 3 degees separation from me. Even the CEO of Daz is 2 degrees away on LinkedIn lol.

The problem is, sometimes people act like they’re doing YOU a favor by letting you be involved with their potentially big project. It happens in the entertainment industry all the time. I got the impression it’s not just a card game, but creating characters for some kind of bigger enterprise. They want to steal your creativity and only pay you on the back end if it’s successful. But this is the first time I was offered future crypto! 

If I misunderstood and the previous poster was talking about someone misrepresenting themselves as a legit company, that’s an even bigger lawsuit that the real company would want to be involved in,

Mark_e593e0a5

BlueFingers said:

bluejaunte said:

Mark_e593e0a5 said:

BlueFingers said:

The thing with crypto's is that they are so volatile, it will be hard to agree a price. They could be worth a lot more or a lot less the next day.

Or it could be worth nothing at all in a year from now. The advantage of any real currency is that it is backed by a country. The US FED would just not allow that the Greenback will be over/undervalued too much. Same applies to the ECB concerning the Euro. Who is backing crypto?

That would be hilarious though, as then the US would make it onto its own list of currency manipulators. Not to mention it strikes me as somewhat funny that a country has the power to change the value of its own currency and that is somehow better than the market alone setting said value. And the power is limited anyway, see various countries that had their currency devalued rapidly in crysis.

So yeah I don't know, from that point of view I don't think I'd hold up "real" currency as great examples of how to do it right. You can say what you want but people who had the foresight to invest in bitcoin are rich now, and there's no sign of it being a bubble that's going to burst either. I think it would be much more of a miracle if bitcoin suddenly imploded than if it increased steadily in value at this point. 1 bitcoin is worth 57k dollars currently. It's been at relatively insane levels of value for years and years even if it did go up and down quite a bit at times.

 

The thing is with crypto's you will only get that value, if you sell it for a traditional currency. I can't go to the grocers and pay with bitcoin. And there are also a lot of people who lost money with crypto's, it is still very speculative.

Given that, why am I not able to pay my Daz purchases with ETH currency? If Daz is all in with NFT's? 

RobotHeadArt

Mark_e593e0a5 said:

BlueFingers said:

bluejaunte said:

Mark_e593e0a5 said:

BlueFingers said:

The thing with crypto's is that they are so volatile, it will be hard to agree a price. They could be worth a lot more or a lot less the next day.

Or it could be worth nothing at all in a year from now. The advantage of any real currency is that it is backed by a country. The US FED would just not allow that the Greenback will be over/undervalued too much. Same applies to the ECB concerning the Euro. Who is backing crypto?

That would be hilarious though, as then the US would make it onto its own list of currency manipulators. Not to mention it strikes me as somewhat funny that a country has the power to change the value of its own currency and that is somehow better than the market alone setting said value. And the power is limited anyway, see various countries that had their currency devalued rapidly in crysis.

So yeah I don't know, from that point of view I don't think I'd hold up "real" currency as great examples of how to do it right. You can say what you want but people who had the foresight to invest in bitcoin are rich now, and there's no sign of it being a bubble that's going to burst either. I think it would be much more of a miracle if bitcoin suddenly imploded than if it increased steadily in value at this point. 1 bitcoin is worth 57k dollars currently. It's been at relatively insane levels of value for years and years even if it did go up and down quite a bit at times.

 

The thing is with crypto's you will only get that value, if you sell it for a traditional currency. I can't go to the grocers and pay with bitcoin. And there are also a lot of people who lost money with crypto's, it is still very speculative.

Given that, why am I not able to pay my Daz purchases with ETH currency? If Daz is all in with NFT's? 

I would think DAZ employees wouldn't be keen on the idea of their payroll being changed to ETH.

bluejaunte

AllenArt said:

bluejaunte said:

Mark_e593e0a5 said:

BlueFingers said:

The thing with crypto's is that they are so volatile, it will be hard to agree a price. They could be worth a lot more or a lot less the next day.

Or it could be worth nothing at all in a year from now. The advantage of any real currency is that it is backed by a country. The US FED would just not allow that the Greenback will be over/undervalued too much. Same applies to the ECB concerning the Euro. Who is backing crypto?

That would be hilarious though, as then the US would make it onto its own list of currency manipulators. Not to mention it strikes me as somewhat funny that a country has the power to change the value of its own currency and that is somehow better than the market alone setting said value. And the power is limited anyway, see various countries that had their currency devalued rapidly in crysis.

So yeah I don't know, from that point of view I don't think I'd hold up "real" currency as great examples of how to do it right. You can say what you want but people who had the foresight to invest in bitcoin are rich now, and there's no sign of it being a bubble that's going to burst either. I think it would be much more of a miracle if bitcoin suddenly imploded than if it increased steadily in value at this point. 1 bitcoin is worth 57k dollars currently. It's been at relatively insane levels of value for years and years even if it did go up and down quite a bit at times.

 

But at what cost!!? 

$57k for each bitcoin currently 

All kidding aside, I'm not sure what you mean. Are we talking environment? Yeah that part sucks I agree. Although the main problem doesn't seem to be crypto, but how we still produce electricity in dirty ways. If the world was using 90% renewable energy we'd have no issue. In any case, however much it sucks that crypto uses energy for mining, in terms of global warming there are way worse things. Probably can't say much more than that without having posts removed though.

By the way, it may look like I'm super pro crypto. I'm not really, I don't own any despite being of the opinion that bitcoin is fairly safe now. I guess I'm just too chicken to put my money where my mouth is. Then again I'm also just not the type who is looking to make money all the time. But I also wouldn't go around praising existing money systems, these are clearly flawed as well when only a few lucky countries on earth get to have the "good" currencies.

I saw the dollar devalued last year with the pandemic. Not in overly dramatic ways but enough that it hurt me. I'm sorry to say if I had gotten my payouts in bitcoin instead, I would've been massively better off.

plasma_ring

tsroemi said:

 

Even if you don't account for the enviromental aspect, ...

Weird, why does everyone keep saying this? It's like it was somehow in bad taste to refer to environmental issues too strongly. Makes me feel kind of surreal, as if there was a deluge outside and everyone is like, 'Well, apart from all the water ...' 

I do feel really happy about the way DAZ customers are overwhelmingly reacting to this NFT business, though. Gives me some hope!

 

When I've done it it's because environmental issues alone are really easy for even well-meaning people to justify away. All my life. Tell someone my home state is literally burning to ash every year and some towns just don't exist anymore and their eyes go blank as they start rambling about planting trees and carbon offsets. It feels too big to fix so as long as they can do something to make it less harmful, what more do people want from them?

Wolfwood

tsroemi said:

 

Even if you don't account for the enviromental aspect, ...

Weird, why does everyone keep saying this? It's like it was somehow in bad taste to refer to environmental issues too strongly. Makes me feel kind of surreal, as if there was a deluge outside and everyone is like, 'Well, apart from all the water ...' 

I do feel really happy about the way DAZ customers are overwhelmingly reacting to this NFT business, though. Gives me some hope!

It was actually the opossite, i could have not referenced it because it was not what was asked, but decided to remind that the environmental aspect it is still there even when NFTs are not involved.

BlueFingers

tsroemi said:

 

Even if you don't account for the enviromental aspect, ...

Weird, why does everyone keep saying this? It's like it was somehow in bad taste to refer to environmental issues too strongly. Makes me feel kind of surreal, as if there was a deluge outside and everyone is like, 'Well, apart from all the water ...' 

I do feel really happy about the way DAZ customers are overwhelmingly reacting to this NFT business, though. Gives me some hope!

 

I live below the sea level, you have no idea how true this is for me,....I keep thinking of people who want to ignore the enviroment: "Boy,...they must really hate their kids." 

BTW: Not having a go at you Wolfwood , just an reaction to tsroemi's remark.