What the hell are NFTs? by Josh Strife-Hayes

[Tigress]

Well again respectfully, I disagree.

If I want to be better informed then I'm way more likely to seek out disinterested, impartial sources that explore all sides without bias.

"You need to shout louder" is how we get to shit like Fox News.

Mostly though, stuff like this seems ineffective. Its an opinion piece for people who already share the opinion. It doesn't help anyone looking to be better informed, and if anything it might be counter-productive, turning away people coming in with a genuinely open mind.

Click to shrink...

im going to say I didn't understand nfts too well and that video did a great job of explaining why they are bad/worthless along with that other video some one posted here. I don't think it being biased at all turned me away. I can see a bias and still think about it and still realize the bias is right.

 

[J-Tier]

This was helpful. I didn't understand why anyone would buy an NFT before these videos.

Now I still don't understand why people would buy an NFT.

 

[Lobster Roll]

im going to say I didn't understand nfts too well and that video did a great job of explaining why they are bad/worthless along with that other video some one posted here. I don't think it being biased at all turned me away. I can see a bias and still think about it and still realize the bias is right.

Click to shrink...

Yup. It's like watching a video that describes why sugar consumption or tobacco consumption is objectively unhealthy, but it has a bias against either so that automatically makes it less valid? Like what?

 

[Scuttlefluff]

I'm currently looking for freelance work in illustration, games and animation (UK), and NFT startups are everywhere. You can't look at a page of jobs on any service without seeing a ton of crypto and NFT related projects. Fiverr.com have just added NFT's as a new section for freelancers.

Lots of companies and people getting sucked into this world, convinced its some amazing lucrative new frontier. It's being treated like social media, mobile games or SEO a decade back or VR/AR recently, companies just rushing to be the first to the buzzwords without even learning what they're in for. Who knows how long that will last.

I expect a lot of good workers are going to crash and burn when it turns out there's no actual money/audience/use to it now as well as the environmental vitriol it's getting, but also with this kind of traction I don't...see it going away anytime soon? I think the crypto industry will continue to try and bend the world to it, through various tactics of dishonesty or trying to peddle it to different industries under a guise of something different like what seemingly happened with Troy Baker this week.

After steering my previous job narrowly away from it, I'm making it my mission to not see any of this shit in my life but IT'S SO PERSISTENT in everything I do recently. I got forcefully added to a Whatsapp group when I got up this morning to a crypto/investment group (group was someone saying hello and then about 200+ people leaving the group, lol!). Get this shit away from me.

 

[slothrop]

1- Owning a videogame NFT can mean you transfer that NFT into a different game. He follows up by saying it's not possible because assets are different. But NFTs are not assets? And what about if they were two games from the same creator of the NFT.. could you then transfer it? How come literally everyone is clamoring for the Castelvania NFT?

Click to shrink...

Companies sell useless plastic crap as collectables all the time. This is just expanding that into the digital space, but even more useless. It really is nothing. And no, not everyone is clamoring for Castlevania NFTs, they only produced and sold 14. That's a niche of a niche of a niche.

 

[scatrapper]

I'm not opposed to digital scarcity. If we can cut out the middle man in real life - for instance, if you want to sell/buy a house, you need to go to the notary, who makes it legal according to law, but in theory you could sell and buy a house together with an NFT - I'm all for it. Notaries are expensive and all they do is make shit official, and this is somewhat similar to the NFT token. Or as an artist, Ive always thought about selling my art digitally without the need for expensive printers and whatnot. I could let the buyer decide if, or how big, they want to print the piece, and the value would be in the digital source instead of the print itself. That is interesting. But this video thought me that so far, artists aren't selling the pieces, but receipts for the pieces, and my mind doesn't really compute.

 

[Dice]

What laws? The video makes a point of mentioning that there really are no regulations governing these things yet.

Click to shrink...

Which honestly explains why everyone and their mums are trying at it.

 

[Yibby]

I didn't realize that you actually buy nothing. That is so crazy I had to look it up for myself to see if it is true and it is. I looked into the terms of a NFT site which sells NFTs for millions.

Owning a **** Item is similar to owning a piece of physical art. You own a cryptographic token representing the Artist's creative Work as a piece of property, but you do not own the creative Work itself. Collectors may show off their ownership of collected ***** Items by displaying and sharing the Underlying Artwork, but Collectors do not have any legal ownership, right, or title to any copyrights, trademarks, or other intellectual property rights to the underlying Artwork, excepting the limited license granted by these Terms to Underlying Artwork. The Artist reserves all exclusive copyrights to Artworks underlying ***** Items Minted by the Artist on the Platform, including but not limited to the right to reproduce, to prepare derivative works, to display, to perform, and to distribute the Artworks.

Click to shrink...

I removed the page name to not make an #Ad for them. But yeah ... people buy these tokens and in the end the artist can do whatever they want with that Artwork, even sell the Art again to another person lol.

 

[Brat-Sampson]

I didn't realize that you actually buy nothing. That is so crazy I had to look it up for myself to see if it is true and it is. I looked into the terms of a NFT site which sells NFTs for millions.



I removed the page name to not make an #Ad for them. But yeah ... people buy these tokens and in the end the artist can do whatever they want with that Artwork, even sell the Art again to another person lol.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, the analogy that you're buying a treasure map but not treasure works, but not completely, as there's *NO* way to claim any 'treasure' from the map. You're buying a receipt that has the name of the Mona Lisa on it, but you have zero ownership or rights to the Mona Lisa. But you can sell that receipt for more than you paid for it (in theory), and you have blockchain proof that you did indeed pay for it...

 

[MegaRockEXE]

Yeah, that explained it well. Really no different from adopting a star or "buying" a property on the moon. It's a purely speculative market that says one person's spot in a database is worth something that they're trying to pass of more than they paid for to another poor so we'll thinks they can do the same. Anything else is just set dressing. It's a get rich quick scheme, plain and simple.

 

[Ayirek]

I'm not able to watch the video now but will when I'm on break, but my understanding of NFTs are you buy a link to specific data, but not necessarily the data itself. So the artwork tied to the NFT isn't the thing you're buying, it's the hyperlink to the artwork, which can be changed or deleted all together. But the way it's presented to people is that they're buying the artwork. That's how it was explained to me once, and I've no idea how accurate that is.

 

[Deleted member 91227]

Thanks for sharing. I at least have a better grasp of what NFTs are now, if I still struggle to wrap my head around why people would by them as someone without the slightest interest in collecting even physical things I can actually own. I buy things to use and enjoy and get rid of them when they're no longer useful nor providing joy. The bit about wanting to beyond to a community makes some sense though, a lot of the behavior I see that baffles me (especially online) is often tied to people trying to belong to some type of community, be it purely virtual or involving real world meet ups etc.

Anyway, yeah, still no interest in NFTs, crypto etc. personally. I'll just keep working, earning a decent salary and putting money in savings and mutual funds. NFTs in games seem particularly scummy given how exploitative as lot of DLC is (especially in things like gatcha games and what not) already with a lot of people in gaming having addictive personalities (games themselves can be addictive without stuff like that) and longing to belong to some community if they lack that in their offline lives. So I'll steer clear of games involving NFTs for sure as that's not something I want to support.

 

[Maxim726x]

This was helpful. I didn't understand why anyone would buy an NFT before these videos.

Now I still don't understand why people would buy an NFT.

Click to shrink...

In a word: FOMO.

 

[AgeEighty]

Which honestly explains why everyone and their mums are trying at it.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, exactly. Until someone comes along and regulates these things, even (maybe especially) big established corporations can and will scam people with them. The only laws they're bound by are ones regulating specific behaviors; there are no laws I know of in most countries that just say "don't scam people generally".

 

[Deleted member 91227]

In a word: FOMO.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, seems a combo of FOMO and the bit he covered about wanting to belong to a community.

You see a lot of that in things like gatcha games. There's both the FOMO of wanting the best characters, but there's also a lot of online community around a lot of those games, people want to belong, want to earn status in those communities by having rare characters/gear/items etc. Especially people who lack community and/or status in their daily lives.

Recipe for addiction and blowing a lot of money for sure.

 

[spam musubi]

Yeah, seems a combo of FOMO and the bit he covered about wanting to belong to a community.

You see a lot of that in things like gatcha games. There's both the FOMO of wanting the best characters, but there's also a lot of online community around a lot of those games, people want to belong, want to earn status in those communities by having rare characters/gear/items etc. Especially people who lack community and/or status in their daily lives.

Recipe for addiction and blowing a lot of money for sure.

Click to shrink...

another reason is to try to get in on a speculative bubble and make some cash by swindling others into their pyramid

 

[chilleverest]

So its basically like crypto, its money with its own unique identity created from nothingness, but look at crypto now, everyone is on board with it, well, almost. I have never traded nor purchased any of these scams, but by the looks of it, this is looking like a new trend soon to be future feature.

 

[rashbeep]

It gives some people a way to make money that's better than a newspaper job or working at McDonald's.

Teen Artists Are Making Millions on NFTs. How Are They Doing It?

Click to shrink...

im glad these teens found a way to scam people i guess

 

[Dervius]

So its basically like crypto, its money with its own unique identity created from nothingness, but look at crypto now, everyone is on board with it, well, almost. I have never traded nor purchased any of these scams, but by the looks of it, this is looking like a new trend soon to be future feature.

Click to shrink...

NFT's feel by-and-large more predatory because they seem to rely on the false notion of ownership. I think many people interested in the current NFT boom are buying them thinking they now own something unique. The lack of understanding and huge signal boosting from crypto bros seem to just be contributing to this boom.

If people wanna make art and get paid, more power to them. But the real winners are ssentially anyone who owns the exchanges that facilitate these sales.

 

[L Thammy]

1- Owning a videogame NFT can mean you transfer that NFT into a different game. He follows up by saying it's not possible because assets are different. But NFTs are not assets? And what about if they were two games from the same creator of the NFT.. could you then transfer it? How come literally everyone is clamoring for the Castelvania NFT?

Click to shrink...

NFTs aren't assets themselves, no, but this is a topic that I think is best spoken about by game developers. Here's something from Rami Ismail which I think is really valuable; I generally understood most of it going in but he points out how it introduces security issues which I wasn't even thinking of.

https://twitter.com/tha_rami/status/1480404367459168258

 

[Deleted member 13101]

If you've even used game builder garage for a decent length of time then you've likely run into at least all the issues Rami mentions, and that was just one specific example of possible interoperability.

 

[Arcus Felis]

On the french side of YouTube, for those interested, Iconoclaste also released a video (rather long: 35min) explaining what NFTs are and how dangerous they can be.
While I frown upon his tendency to promote grey market through his sponsoring, he at least seems to on point on the subject and is calling out the pyramidal scheme for what it is (not to mention the environmental and the money laundering issues).

 

[nib95]

Whilst this video is accurate to the vast majority of NFT's being sold which do not actually give you original rights to said piece of media or art associated with the NFT or "queue position", it's also inaccurate to say none do. In that sense this video is highly selective in the type of NFT that it addresses, and as such is inaccurate to the totality of what an NFT does or can encompass.

The rights/ownership to the associated art portion of the NFT is entirely up to the original NFT creator, and there are plenty of NFT's for which the queue position or receipt, also includes ownership rights to the piece of art of media associated with it. There have been publicly prominent examples of this, for example the "Charlie Bit my Finger" NFT, which was associated with the digital rights of that video and its licensing, use etc. Many of the big ticket selling NFT's have such digital rights. Likewise, the popular big ticket Monkey NFT sale also included ownership rights to the image. The blockchain being decentralised proof of sale essentially.

Many prominent artists selling NFT's, do include the ownership to said associated art. Ultimately, where the issuer has ownership of the asset, the NFT can include a license that confers to the owner of the NFT. Some of these licences even detail you limited rights to exploit the related asset (eg $200k per annum). Generally with these types of asset ownership NFT's, there's usually a clause that grants the original issuer of the NFT a cut of all future proceeds of the sale/ownership of the associated asset or piece of art too.

 

[treasureyez]

The rights/ownership to the associated art portion of the NFT is entirely up to the original NFT creator, and there are plenty of NFT's for which the queue position or receipt, also includes ownership rights to the piece of art of media associated with it. There have been publicly prominent examples of this, for example the "Charlie Bit my Finger" NFT, which was associated with the digital rights of that video and its licensing, use etc. Many of the big ticket selling NFT's have such digital rights. Likewise, the popular big ticket Monkey NFT sale also included ownership rights to the image. The blockchain being decentralised proof of sale essentially.

Many prominent artists selling NFT's, do include the ownership to said associated art. Ultimately, where the issuer has ownership of the asset, the NFT can include a license that confers to the owner of the NFT. Some of these licences even detail you limited rights to exploit the related asset (eg $200k per annum). Generally with these types of asset ownership NFT's, there's usually a clause that grants the original issuer of the NFT a cut of all future proceeds of the sale/ownership of the associated asset or piece of art too.

Click to shrink...

Serious question: the rights are not attached to the NFT itself, right? The NFT is just a token that proves you are the one beholden to the license of the original work? What does this accomplish that any other type of contract/agreement wouldn't?

 

[ghibli99]

Whilst this video is accurate to the vast majority of NFT's being sold which do not actually give you original rights to said piece of media or art associated with the NFT or "queue position", it's also inaccurate to say none do. In that sense this video is highly selective in the type of NFT that it addresses, and as such is inaccurate to the totality of what an NFT does or can encompass.

The rights/ownership to the associated art portion of the NFT is entirely up to the original NFT creator, and there are plenty of NFT's for which the queue position or receipt, also includes ownership rights to the piece of art of media associated with it. There have been publicly prominent examples of this, for example the "Charlie Bit my Finger" NFT, which was associated with the digital rights of that video and its licensing, use etc. Many of the big ticket selling NFT's have such digital rights. Likewise, the popular big ticket Monkey NFT sale also included ownership rights to the image. The blockchain being decentralised proof of sale essentially.

Many prominent artists selling NFT's, do include the ownership to said associated art. Ultimately, where the issuer has ownership of the asset, the NFT can include a license that confers to the owner of the NFT. Some of these licences even detail you limited rights to exploit the related asset (eg $200k per annum). Generally with these types of asset ownership NFT's, there's usually a clause that grants the original issuer of the NFT a cut of all future proceeds of the sale/ownership of the associated asset or piece of art too.

Click to shrink...

I seem to recall reading the bolded part as being included in one (or multiple) game publisher NFT agreements... I mean, if they get a cut every time an NFT is resold, no wonder they're all over it.

 

[Kaiken]

Serious question: the rights are not attached to the NFT itself, right? The NFT is just a token that proves you are the one beholden to the license of the original work? What does this accomplish that any other type of contract/agreement wouldn't?

Click to shrink...

No paper trail/government regulations.

 

[nib95]

Serious question: the rights are not attached to the NFT itself, right? The NFT is just a token that proves you are the one beholden to the license of the original work? What does this accomplish that any other type of contract/agreement wouldn't?

Click to shrink...

Depends on what the original owner/issuer chooses. Essentially it's the blockchain being used as decentralised proof of purchase, a ledger of all sales. Easier to track sale/ownership history and a potentially more accessible means to sell digital art/assets. Plus the original creator also has the option to guarantee themselves a cut of all future sale proceeds of that art, which doesn't generally happen with the sale of art today, irrespective of how much a piece of art goes up in value.

Unfortunately they're also something that can be used to scam people and is rife for potential misunderstandings or exploitation (which I suppose is partly true for the sale of all digital and regular art too).

 

[Dervius]

Whilst this video is accurate to the vast majority of NFT's being sold which do not actually give you original rights to said piece of media or art associated with the NFT or "queue position", it's also inaccurate to say none do. In that sense this video is highly selective in the type of NFT that it addresses, and as such is inaccurate to the totality of what an NFT does or can encompass.

The rights/ownership to the associated art portion of the NFT is entirely up to the original NFT creator, and there are plenty of NFT's for which the queue position or receipt, also includes ownership rights to the piece of art of media associated with it. There have been publicly prominent examples of this, for example the "Charlie Bit my Finger" NFT, which was associated with the digital rights of that video and its licensing, use etc. Many of the big ticket selling NFT's have such digital rights. Likewise, the popular big ticket Monkey NFT sale also included ownership rights to the image. The blockchain being decentralised proof of sale essentially.

Many prominent artists selling NFT's, do include the ownership to said associated art. Ultimately, where the issuer has ownership of the asset, the NFT can include a license that confers to the owner of the NFT. Some of these licences even detail you limited rights to exploit the related asset (eg $200k per annum). Generally with these types of asset ownership NFT's, there's usually a clause that grants the original issuer of the NFT a cut of all future proceeds of the sale/ownership of the associated asset or piece of art too.

Click to shrink...

Genuine question, how is this determined or recorded?

So if I, as an NFT purchaser, gain my token into a crypto wallet how is a purchase that includes ownership rights delineated from one that is simply 'the spot in the queue'?

 

[Älg]

Teen Artists Are Making Millions on NFTs. How Are They Doing It?

Click to shrink...

"Some People Are Making Millions Buying Powerball Tickets. How Are They Doing It?

 

[treasureyez]

Depends on what the original owner/issuer chooses. Essentially it's the blockchain being used as decentralised proof of purchase, a ledger of all sales. Easier to track sale/ownership history and a potentially more accessible means to sell digital art/assets. Plus the original creator also has the option to guarantee themselves a cut of all future sale proceeds of that art, which doesn't generally happen with the sale of art today, irrespective of how much a piece of art goes up in value.

Unfortunately they're also something that can be used to scam people and is rife for potential misunderstandings or exploitation (which I suppose is partly true for the sale of all digital and regular art too).

Click to shrink...

Sorry, I'll be clearer: is the license itself on the blockchain and directly associated with the NFT? Or any mechanisms that enforce it beyond indicating the purchase history and who currently owns the token?

 

[Laurel_McFang]

I had to stop half way into the video. Sure people are stealing intellectual copyrighted stuff and making NFTs from them. That is sleazy, but the idea that a digital contract stating that I own say a 3D model of a character from Castlevania is sleazy seems wrong. NFTs create all types of interesting new avenues of digital ownership with out necessarily creating artificial scarcity. There seems to be conflation between proof of work (bitcoin style) blockchains where the amount of time needed to mint a coin and then verify it via the blockchain create scarcity and proof of stake blockchains. In other words, if you buy say a 3D model officially licensed from konami of a castlevania character, konami can keep selling that 3D model to other people. The difference is the contract between konami and you can be digitally verified which means that indie game developers could allow you to import the model provided konami's contract for the nft allows it and the NFT verifies (and yes someone could still steal or use the model illegally, but the difference here is indie developer has a way of verifying the 3D model is legit). NFTs are similar to Steam's marketplace, except that your trading cards of Team Fortress 2 hats can be traded across platforms. My bigger concern with NFTs is if the verifier for your NFT will continue to exist.

 

[Lobster Roll]

In other words, if you buy say a 3D model officially licensed from konami of a castlevania character, konami can keep selling that 3D model to other people. The difference is the contract between konami and you can be digitally verified which means that indie game developers could allow you to import the model provided konami's contract for the nft allows it and the NFT verifies (and yes someone could still steal or use the model illegally, but the difference here is indie developer has a way of verifying the 3D model is legit). NFTs are similar to Steam's marketplace, except that your trading cards of Team Fortress 2 hats can be traded across platforms. My bigger concern with NFTs is if the verifier for your NFT will continue to exist.

Click to shrink...

Yeah and if I go to the Sunshine King he'll grant me five rainbows for every unicorn that produces an egg made of pure unobtainium.

 

[Tahnit]

This whole NFT thing is the stupidest fucking shit ive ever seen and anyone buying nft's is a fucking moron.

 

[Billfisto]

I had to stop half way into the video. Sure people are stealing intellectual copyrighted stuff and making NFTs from them. That is sleazy, but the idea that a digital contract stating that I own say a 3D model of a character from Castlevania is sleazy seems wrong. NFTs create all types of interesting new avenues of digital ownership with out necessarily creating artificial scarcity. There seems to be conflation between proof of work (bitcoin style) blockchains where the amount of time needed to mint a coin and then verify it via the blockchain create scarcity and proof of stake blockchains. In other words, if you buy say a 3D model officially licensed from konami of a castlevania character, konami can keep selling that 3D model to other people. The difference is the contract between konami and you can be digitally verified which means that indie game developers could allow you to import the model provided konami's contract for the nft allows it and the NFT verifies (and yes someone could still steal or use the model illegally, but the difference here is indie developer has a way of verifying the 3D model is legit). NFTs are similar to Steam's marketplace, except that your trading cards of Team Fortress 2 hats can be traded across platforms. My bigger concern with NFTs is if the verifier for your NFT will continue to exist.

Click to shrink...

Huh.

NFT Fantasy: Why Items-as-NFTs Does Not Enable Transfer Of Assets Between Games

As usual, everything is more complicated than it looks.

chhopsky.substack.com

NFT Fantasy 2: Why NFTs Don't Enable Knowing What You Own In Other Games

We do that already. Inter-game communication is far less complicated than you might think.

chhopsky.substack.com

NFT Fantasy 3: You Can't Fix A Bad Plan With More Code

Why none of the promises make logical sense.

chhopsky.substack.com

 

[Teeth]

Depends on what the original owner/issuer chooses. Essentially it's the blockchain being used as decentralised proof of purchase, a ledger of all sales. Easier to track sale/ownership history and a potentially more accessible means to sell digital art/assets. Plus the original creator also has the option to guarantee themselves a cut of all future sale proceeds of that art, which doesn't generally happen with the sale of art today, irrespective of how much a piece of art goes up in value.

Unfortunately they're also something that can be used to scam people and is rife for potential misunderstandings or exploitation (which I suppose is partly true for the sale of all digital and regular art too).

Click to shrink...

Does the law recognize the NFT as transfer of copyright ownership, or does there need to be additional paperwork to have it mean anything in the real world?

 

[L Thammy]

Does the law recognize the NFT as transfer of copyright ownership, or does there need to be additional paperwork to have it mean anything in the real world?

Click to shrink...

I doubt NFTs are established enough yet for specific laws to be built around them.

 

[Teeth]

I doubt NFTs are established enough yet for specific laws to be built around them.

Click to shrink...

Which means, at this point, if you buy an NFT that supposedly contains the copyright, you have literally bought nothing, UNLESS there is additional documentation (like a customer receipt or contract about transfer of ownership), which, of course, means the NFT is completely pointless.

 

[Unknownlight]

Does the law recognize the NFT as transfer of copyright ownership, or does there need to be additional paperwork to have it mean anything in the real world?

Click to shrink...

If the actual text of the contract is embedded in the blockchain, it should. I can't see why it would be treated any differently than any other digital contract. Emails are valid contracts after all.

 

[L Thammy]

Which means, at this point, if you buy an NFT that supposedly contains the copyright, you have literally bought nothing, UNLESS there is additional documentation (like a customer receipt or contract about transfer of ownership), which, of course, means the NFT is completely pointless.

Click to shrink...

I actually think that part's straightforward? They agree to give you the copyright along with whatever else along with your payment, so it just works however that would work in any other situation where someone agrees to buy a copyright.

The bigger issue on that front is that the market is new and no one's looked into it so everything's super sketchy. Like, that Voiceverse NFT that Troy Baker bought into made it extremely confusing whether or not you'd get the rights to use the voice if you bought the thing - you wouldn't, but it didn't really sound like that from their pitch. Who do you go to in a case like that?

 

[Dragon Puncher]

One thing I really don't get with NFT's is, why is the blockchain even needed? If you wanted to create a general system to show proof of ownership specific digital art, shouldn't that be possible without putting it all in a gigantic math equation that uses an insane amount of power?

I just don't see the point. It feels like someone just realized everything tied to crypto makes people lose their minds thinking they can get rich fast betting on it. And then they tried to convince people afterwards that this is all in the artist's best interest.

 

[Teeth]

If the actual text of the contract is embedded in the blockchain, it should. I can't see why it would be treated any differently than any other digital contract. Emails are valid contracts after all.

Click to shrink...

If an email is valid, why is the blockchain needed then?

 

[Unknownlight]

If an email is valid, why is the blockchain needed then?

Click to shrink...

I dunno. I guess if you're challenged in court you can prove the contract exists exactly as written, whereas emails can be forged and you need to get the email service provider involved to confirm its validity. I don't really know how these things work.

 

[TheChrisGlass]

One thing I really don't get with NFT's is, why is the blockchain even needed? If you wanted to create a general system to show proof of ownership specific digital art, shouldn't that be possible without putting it all in a gigantic math equation that uses an insane amount of power?

I just don't see the point. It feels like someone just realized everything tied to crypto makes people lose their minds thinking they can get rich fast betting on it. And then they tried to convince people afterwards that this is all in the artist's best interest.

Click to shrink...

Yes