NFTs

sufi

lala
for instance look at how digitisation has messed with the desirability of obscure 12" records,
is that gonna rebound now with special blockchained exclusive tracks?
limited editions and all that crap :rolleyes:
 

Trillhouse

Well-known member
The everyday investment bro is definitely a burgeoning personality type. From the Gary V social media hustlers, the GameStop/DogeCoin 'to the moon' gamifyers, to the pokemon trader hype smashthatlikebutton millionaire dirtbags. Everybody's at it, why aren't you?

NFT's you can create yourself. Then sell them to yourself. Then sell them back to yourself again.

Art's only worth what the market says it's worth right? It's a game the rich have been playing for years.
 

wild greens

Well-known member

Dusty

Tone deaf
I predict this is a fad that will die a death. Just like no one cares about collecting Crypto Kitties this year.

A lot of money will be made by artists in the short term and I don't begrudge them that, but I highly doubt they will be able to keep it up once the crypto-bros made rich from their bitcoin success have lost interest. The bragging rights of owning something on the blockchain will fade.

After all, digital files beg to be replicated and copied. The fact you 'own' it on the blockchain means nothing to me, I can save the file to my desktop and print it out. Unlocking high resolution files doesn't really work, because I can buy your NFT, download the file and then sell it on. Nothing stops me then distributing the file via other methods.

There's already been a method of selling unique, numbered reproductions of artwork... it's called prints. Oddly no-one is rushing to snap those up with the same fervour.

My one disclaimer is that truly famous artists and legendary memes (Nyancat) will perhaps always benefit and raise money this way. The other 99% will become worthless.
 

pattycakes_

Well-known member
Maybe it's a new angle for low level artists to make a decent return on their work for once? As long as the music is good maybe a new door is opening? They sell a few, get a decent rep and then djs and listeners after exclusives would buy on sight as used to happen with certain labels and artists
 

glasshand

dj panic attack
yeh this definitely seems like a major bubble to me. will see if anything remains when the dust settles.

the best take i saw on it was this tweet about how buying an NFT is a bit like buying a certificate that says you've got a star named after you.

this website is about to launch - https://catalog.works/ - that tries to apply NFTs directly to music. if i understand it right, all it does is mint a token that verifiably points or links to the piece of music. the actual music can be released on streaming sites and bandcamp etc as usual. so one person just gets to own this virtual certificate that doesn't give them any rights in the music itself (neither the recording or publishing rights). they can hold it in their wallet or whatever to say they own it. seems lame as fuck.

the most annoying thing about this NFT hype for me is that some ppl are going on as if this is genuinely going to benefit musicians, artists, music culture, or society at large, or that it's a better form of capitalism than what we've got at the moment. ppl are referring to other applications of NFTs and saying that there's a more useful or radical thing they can do in music and art than this way to enrich a few early adopters, but then i don't see any of these other options and i don't even see the ppl saying there are other options doing anything other than talking about NFTs.

i think maybe Audius is one of the more interesting applications of crypto and decentralised web that i've seen in music - https://audius.co/ - (it looks horrible and the music on it on the whole so far is not good) - but i don't think it has anything to do with non fungible tokens.
 

glasshand

dj panic attack
if NFTs can be used more like a decentralised crowd funder for art/music projects that might be a better use than these lame tokens. i want to see an application/platform for that instead of these weird crypto art market platforms
 

catalog

Well-known member
yeh this definitely seems like a major bubble to me. will see if anything remains when the dust settles.

the best take i saw on it was this tweet about how buying an NFT is a bit like buying a certificate that says you've got a star named after you.

this website is about to launch - https://catalog.works/ - that tries to apply NFTs directly to music. if i understand it right, all it does is mint a token that verifiably points or links to the piece of music. the actual music can be released on streaming sites and bandcamp etc as usual. so one person just gets to own this virtual certificate that doesn't give them any rights in the music itself (neither the recording or publishing rights). they can hold it in their wallet or whatever to say they own it. seems lame as fuck.

the most annoying thing about this NFT hype for me is that some ppl are going on as if this is genuinely going to benefit musicians, artists, music culture, or society at large, or that it's a better form of capitalism than what we've got at the moment. ppl are referring to other applications of NFTs and saying that there's a more useful or radical thing they can do in music and art than this way to enrich a few early adopters, but then i don't see any of these other options and i don't even see the ppl saying there are other options doing anything other than talking about NFTs.

i think maybe Audius is one of the more interesting applications of crypto and decentralised web that i've seen in music - https://audius.co/ - (it looks horrible and the music on it on the whole so far is not good) - but i don't think it has anything to do with non fungible tokens.
catalog.works! That could be my website
 

Leo

Well-known member
JPG File Sells for $69 Million, as ‘NFT Mania’ Gathers Pace
After a flurry of more than 180 bids in the final hour, a JPG file made by Mike Winkelmann, the digital artist known as Beeple, was sold on Thursday by Christie’s in an online auction for $69.3 million with fees. The price was a new high for an artwork that exists only digitally, beating auction records for physical paintings by museum-valorized greats like J.M.W. Turner, Georges Seurat and Francisco Goya. Bidding at the two-week Beeple sale, consisting of just one lot, began at $100.

With seconds remaining, the work was set to sell for less than $30 million, but a last-moment cascade of bids prompted a two-minute extension of the auction and pushed the final price over $60 million. Rebecca Riegelhaupt, a Christie’s spokeswoman, said 33 active bidders had contested the work, adding that the result was the third-highest auction price achieved for a living artist, after Jeff Koons and David Hockney.
 

Leo

Well-known member
a grotesque example of income inequality, and a strong case for raising taxes on the rich.
 
Last edited:

sufi

lala
It is pocket change to the forums bitcoin billionaires
yeah that is exactly the deal - seems like the cash to bitcoin exchange is always for losers, but a crumb from the table of these tycoons, just a tiny fraction of their ample early bc, is enough to transform us from digital peasants to crypto barons
(bitcoin:bc1qfvfv0vqkfqpq9zs8tc9hwu829705zjm636mmae?time=1614299626 btw)
 

Leo

Well-known member
from artnet about the Beeple auction

The Christie’s website saw 22 million visitors tune in during the final minutes of the sale. The majority (58 percent) of bidders were millennials, according to the auction house, while Gen X comprised 33 percent. There were relatively few Gen Z bidders (6 percent) and Boomers (3 percent). Nearly all of them—91 percent—were new buyers to Christie’s.
 
Top