NFT and the Future of Digital Content

Pax Asteriae

Man offers council millions to find hard-drive with £230 million of bitcoin stored on after it was thrown out by mistake

Ariphaos

I seriously thought this was an April Fool's joke.

Still feels like it ought to be.

kyoto kid

Jason Galterio said:

I've been involved with so many of those professional. Amost none of them worked out well for anyone involved.

The only people who they did work out for were the CEOs / Execs that knew to get out while the project was on the upswing. Leaving the building just before it went right off a cliff.

...been there, worked for a company that was driven into the ground by a member of the board who took it over from the original owners and put more importance on (and resources into) pet projects (that were terrible failures) while treating the company's "bread & butter" products that grew the company and kept it in business, as if they were inconsequential.

Sevrin

They talking about NFTs?

RobotHeadArt

I wonder if DAZ management realized that their transactions would be publicly listed in a blockchain explorer where the world can see their current balance. It looks like half the Eth they have received they ended up losing to transaction fees.

Sera

RobotHeadArt said:

I wonder if DAZ management realized that their transactions would be publicly listed in a blockchain explorer where the world can see their current balance. It looks like half the Eth they have received they ended up losing to transaction fees.

That is interesting. I looked it up: "This address has transacted 69 times on the Ethereum blockchain. It has received a total of 3.53617277 ETH ($7,129.00) and has sent a total of 1.1971192588 ETH ($2,413.42). The current value of this address is 0.523513528367846973 ETH ($1,055.41)."

That math doesn't add up. Does this mean they cashed out $3,660? O.o

Sera

Looks like the NFT link at the top of the Daz website no longer works. 

RobotHeadArt

certaintree38 said:

RobotHeadArt said:

I wonder if DAZ management realized that their transactions would be publicly listed in a blockchain explorer where the world can see their current balance. It looks like half the Eth they have received they ended up losing to transaction fees.

That is interesting. I looked it up: "This address has transacted 69 times on the Ethereum blockchain. It has received a total of 3.53617277 ETH ($7,129.00) and has sent a total of 1.1971192588 ETH ($2,413.42). The current value of this address is 0.523513528367846973 ETH ($1,055.41)."

That math doesn't add up. Does this mean they cashed out $3,660? O.o

That's the transaction fees aka gas.

JB007

certaintree38 said:

Looks like the NFT link at the top of the Daz website no longer works. 

Maybe it's finally dawned on them ...

plasma_ring

certaintree38 said:

Looks like the NFT link at the top of the Daz website no longer works. 

I don't see the Daz or Shudu pieces under Tafi's offerings anymore.

Edit: They still show up through the Diigitals banner at the top, so it's possible I just don't know how to search. :V

zombietaggerung

icprncss

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.

VR only? That brings raises more than one red flag. One why would a well known producer deal with such mundane items as a card game?. That what they have second and even third units for. If this is a legitimate film, why do they not have an art department? If this producer is so well known, they likely have a business number. Call and confirm your VR appointment with the producer's office before you waste any time.

kyoto kid

Subtropic Pixel said:

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.

...what I was getting at is something similar to "copy protects" like those which were applied to playback media such as CDs & DVDs to prevent duplication.

A somewhat ingenious example was used many, many years ago with a certain text adventure game.  The developers, being rather keen about of software piracy, did something interesting. If you copied the game to a blank disk and booted it up on another computer, it would open and play like normal for a little while, however you would always end up in the jail cell no matter what path your took,  Eventually if after several failed attempts you entered "help", a message would pop up telling you to buy your own copy. 

Sera

RobotHeadArt said:

certaintree38 said:

RobotHeadArt said:

I wonder if DAZ management realized that their transactions would be publicly listed in a blockchain explorer where the world can see their current balance. It looks like half the Eth they have received they ended up losing to transaction fees.

That is interesting. I looked it up: "This address has transacted 69 times on the Ethereum blockchain. It has received a total of 3.53617277 ETH ($7,129.00) and has sent a total of 1.1971192588 ETH ($2,413.42). The current value of this address is 0.523513528367846973 ETH ($1,055.41)."

That math doesn't add up. Does this mean they cashed out $3,660? O.o

That's the transaction fees aka gas.

Wow...

Sera

You can't get to Daz Studio NFTs directly from the website.

AbyssalEros

certaintree38 said:

You can't get to Daz Studio NFTs directly from the website.

Don't rejoice too early. Most likely, it is just a store malfunction as normally.

nicstt

AllenArt said:

RobotHeadArt said:

No DAZ employee has yet been able to explain how NFTs actually empower artists.  DAZ already has a marketplace with infrastructure for selling items, and they could have easily sold these images, videos, and whatever packs of assets that "inspired" the item.  Why OpenSea?  Why Ethereum?  How do these two things help the customer or the artist?  The OpenSea/Ethereum market look to be completely deregulated and free from any sort of buyer or seller protections that a traditional credit card/Paypal transaction would have.

Because that they "empower the artist" is utter bull****. They benefit no one but Daz and Tafi, which I DON'T have a problem with. Their businesses and business exists to make money. No problem. However, this just for all the world remins me of the early days of Las Vegas where the whole thing lured many regular people to come and sample the entertainment but was run by shady mafia members.  It stinks of waste and get-rich-quick schemes and the people at this site are the LAST people in the world generally that I would think would want to even imagine buying this worthless junk. Most of us can't even afford decent graphics cards to run the DS software (IF we could even find one) and here is Daz participating in the very thing (the number one thing) that makes them so scarce and stupidly expensive. I don't see how that empowers us at all. Only NFT investors, where the artwork is NOT the focus of the entire thing. In fact, an NFT may as well be 5 black pixels on a field of white for as much as the art behind it matters.

Daz, if you want to sell NFT's, sell em ffs (tho I will always disapprove of the waste of the entire bitcoin endeavor), but not here. We are NOT your target audience. Not even close. And given the reception all this has gotten, I would be very surprised if any more than a very few of us would want to sell our artwork in this way. Please take it offsite. 

+6

keremgo3d

The crap that "beeble" dude sold for 69 million, I wouldn't even pay 69 cents for it. 

MeneerWolfman

I kinda feel sorry for all the PA's  I know a handful of them outside of the forums and they're all nice people trying to make a buck and share something they love.

I would feel pretty bad if the company I entrusted my selling to considers trading a "Nazgul" nft not for money but for another nft called "Baby Yoda loves crypto in Space" with a guy named LAZERW0LF a "good deal" 

FirstBastion

A market may giveth, but the fees always take it away.

Paintbox

So when is DAZ gonna scrap the NFT. I hope sooner rather than later.

I hope some of the DAZ core team would think about this : Please invest in making this place (daz3d.com and it's software) a better place. So how about this idea, which is not hard to implement (talking as being a webdev myself)  Make the gallery truly work for us. Let us sponsor certain gallery items with a bit of store credit. I wouldn't mind throwing 0.99cts at some people on here who are WAY more talented than I could ever hope to be. So next to giving a like, I could give a little bit store credit. DAZ can even keep max 25%.

PerttiA

kyoto kid said:

Jason Galterio said:

I've been involved with so many of those professional. Amost none of them worked out well for anyone involved.

The only people who they did work out for were the CEOs / Execs that knew to get out while the project was on the upswing. Leaving the building just before it went right off a cliff.

...been there, worked for a company that was driven into the ground by a member of the board who took it over from the original owners and put more importance on (and resources into) pet projects (that were terrible failures) while treating the company's "bread & butter" products that grew the company and kept it in business, as if they were inconsequential.

It's when the company becomes the product that the employees should start looking elsewhere... 

RobotHeadArt

certaintree38 said:

RobotHeadArt said:

certaintree38 said:

RobotHeadArt said:

I wonder if DAZ management realized that their transactions would be publicly listed in a blockchain explorer where the world can see their current balance. It looks like half the Eth they have received they ended up losing to transaction fees.

That is interesting. I looked it up: "This address has transacted 69 times on the Ethereum blockchain. It has received a total of 3.53617277 ETH ($7,129.00) and has sent a total of 1.1971192588 ETH ($2,413.42). The current value of this address is 0.523513528367846973 ETH ($1,055.41)."

That math doesn't add up. Does this mean they cashed out $3,660? O.o

That's the transaction fees aka gas.

Wow...

That's why a number of articles say artists seduced by the promise of making millions on NFTs end up in the red losing money due to fees. DAZ's wallet has about $1000 worth of Eth but they started with $300 to pay fees of minting NFTs so only $700 of sales. Less taxes, less the cut for Champion, less the cut for Digiitals, less the part going to charity... DAZ probably would have been better off selling Genesis Pro packs on discount over the same time period.

whitemagus

keremgogus_698410389d said:

The crap that "beeble" dude sold for 69 million, I wouldn't even pay 69 cents for it. 

That is exactly what beeble calls his stuff crap!!! I saw one guy unboxing one item he purchased and it was full of cursing inside the box and all around. Just the number itself 69 tells a lot of what kind of people are involved in this buy`s.

I am loving the comments on this tread of most of you guys. :) It shows strong ethics.

Summerhorse

Just adding my 2 cents in case Daz is actually reading this thread.... I hope Daz follows Art stations lead and backs out of the NFT business as quickly as possible.

I do not want anything to do with this shady business. I've been heading back twords full time as a  paint on canvas artist- and this may push me all the way out of your store.

Subtropic Pixel

Ascania said:

SMBC did a cartoon on the topic. I hope it helps people understand what's going on through the power of graphical representation.

Adblock and Yesscript together could NOT stop this page's ads from overlapping the comic strip and then causing Firefox to consume all the CPU on my i9 processer.  I could not close the ad, nor could I even scroll the page.  Whatever this comic is about, its method of monitization hurts the reader.

Subtropic Pixel

PerttiA said:

So, I can legally start selling something I don't own?

 

Richard Haseltine said:

No.

Actually, you already can, in at least 2 ways that I can think of:

1.  You buy something on credit (so you've promised to pay for it at some future date) and turn around and sell it before you've paid for it.  This happens probably most frequently with cars and homes, but construction and manufacturing companies often buy raw materials and supplies on credit.  Many could take months to pay their suppliers, giving lots of time for those raw materials to end up in finished products for sale to a customer.  As I understand DAZ's way of paying its PAs, it's very possible that the PA won't see payment until some time AFTER their product has already been selling in the DAZ store. 

Not paying generally exposes individuals to debt collection, maybe a poor credit rating, then foreclosure (maybe), repossession (like for a car), bankruptcy, and not much else; but all of that takes a lot of time, and it's possible that the asset itself is long gone.  If it's a company not paying, their smallest suppliers usually end up holding the bag until (if?) that invoice is paid from 6 months ago.

2.  You short stock.  Shorting stock is selling it before you've bought it.  Or maybe more accurately, selling it with the promise of buying it "later".  Buying it back is known as "covering your short".  If the shorted stock starts to rise in price (which is bad for the person shorting it), then it's possible that your broker (who's actually serving as your creditor) might demand that you sell other investments so that you can raise cash to cover that short.

In the Western world, it's very common to pay for something after you've received it.  It's also common to not pay; hence all the bankruptcies even in non-covid times. 

In the US, we don't have debtor's prison so a debtor's greatest downside might be the loss of other assets (if you renege say on a car or million-dollar home), but in some parts of the world, you can be put in prison (or worse) for not paying back your debts.

brimstoneomega

Subtropic Pixel said:

Ascania said:

SMBC did a cartoon on the topic. I hope it helps people understand what's going on through the power of graphical representation.

Adblock and Yesscript together could NOT stop this page's ads from overlapping the comic strip and then causing Firefox to consume all the CPU on my i9 processer.  I could not close the ad, nor could I even scroll the page.  Whatever this comic is about, its method of monitization hurts the reader.

Here you go 

Ascania

Subtropic Pixel said:

Ascania said:

SMBC did a cartoon on the topic. I hope it helps people understand what's going on through the power of graphical representation.

Adblock and Yesscript together could NOT stop this page's ads from overlapping the comic strip and then causing Firefox to consume all the CPU on my i9 processer.  I could not close the ad, nor could I even scroll the page.  Whatever this comic is about, its method of monitization hurts the reader.

Even if I turn off uBlock Origin, even if I switch to a browser without any adblocker installed to it, even if I go to it on my mobile phone, I don't see any overlapping ads or excessive processor utilisation. I suggest you consider that the problem lies with your PC already being compromised beforehand.

Richard Haseltine

Subtropic Pixel said:

PerttiA said:

So, I can legally start selling something I don't own?

 

Richard Haseltine said:

No.

Actually, you already can, in at least 2 ways that I can think of:

1.  You buy something on credit (so you've promised to pay for it at some future date) and turn around and sell it before you've paid for it.  This happens probably most frequently with cars and homes, but construction and manufacturing companies often buy raw materials and supplies on credit.  Many could take months to pay their suppliers, giving lots of time for those raw materials to end up in finished products for sale to a customer.  As I understand DAZ's way of paying its PAs, it's very possible that the PA won't see payment until some time AFTER their product has already been selling in the DAZ store. 

Not paying generally exposes individuals to debt collection, maybe a poor credit rating, then foreclosure (maybe), repossession (like for a car), bankruptcy, and not much else; but all of that takes a lot of time, and it's possible that the asset itself is long gone.  If it's a company not paying, their smallest suppliers usually end up holding the bag until (if?) that invoice is paid from 6 months ago.

2.  You short stock.  Shorting stock is selling it before you've bought it.  Or maybe more accurately, selling it with the promise of buying it "later".  Buying it back is known as "covering your short".  If the shorted stock starts to rise in price (which is bad for the person shorting it), then it's possible that your broker (who's actually serving as your creditor) might demand that you sell other investments so that you can raise cash to cover that short.

In the Western world, it's very common to pay for something after you've received it.  It's also common to not pay; hence all the bankruptcies even in non-covid times. 

In the US, we don't have debtor's prison so a debtor's greatest downside might be the loss of other assets (if you renege say on a car or million-dollar home), but in some parts of the world, you can be put in prison (or worse) for not paying back your debts.

No, you must agree to the EULA before downloading so you would be unable to sell the content regardless.