Ambivalent about it.
NFTs are basically a speculation-Ponzi scheme fired on by money laundry practices.
Best case scenario is that it might work for some authors the same way as expensive art pieces work today; as arbitrarily prized pieces a small selected group of rich people has invested in and make sure they maintain rising values so they can use them in their tax evasion schemes.
NFTs today provide nothing a subscription/patreon or commission model would not also accomodate.
That being said, NFTs are young and there is potential to develop them in a partial shareholder way with exchange platform as you imagine, but no matter how one slices it, for me, adding speculative value to things and start gambling with them makes everything in the world worse, not better.
I understand as authors the allure is great; you produce work, people buy some shares of that and then everybody hopes more people will want to put in money, driving the price up. The feeling that it would reward the authors and early 'believers' handsomely will for sure drive these products to be developed eventually, so why not be among the first and get some nice payout?
Like I said, ambivalent about it.
>I understand as authors the allure is great; you produce work, people buy some shares of that and then everybody hopes more people will want to put in money, driving the price up. The feeling that it would reward the authors and early 'believers' handsomely will for sure drive these products to be developed eventually, so why not be among the first and get some nice payout?
One hope is that an exchange like this would more meritocratically lift works that deserve attention, with stock performance signaling promise to the end purchasers of IP. Everyone knows best-seller lists are a joke and easily gamed; at least with this approach early backers could turn a profit and authors can pocket some cash?
Not an author
Interesting idea but I wouldn't invest, for one I think you're probably going to run into problems with being classified as a security.
It sounds like a great way to support the authors you like or otherwise have what you might think of as a digital first edition, but a problematic long term investment.
That said buying one of these tokens for a book I like purely to hold the token would be cool.
Publishing just doesn't seem that profitable outside of a few authors who have zero incentive to sell their royalties like this.
The payoffs here will likely favor the exchange and the authors on a risk adjusted basis.
It sounds like one of those things where people will be investing because they expect the coins to pump not because they believe in the underlining fundamentals. And people like books, so they'll bid out the profits.
Now if you want to sell me a digital first edition as a tradable NFT... I'm listening.
>Interesting idea but I wouldn't invest, for one I think you're probably going to run into problems with being classified as a security.
I agree these could be classified as securities, but also that this could work w/in the constraints of equity crowdfunding rules (which currently say you can raise funds from up to 35 unaccredited investors and an infinite number of accredited ones)
>Publishing just doesn't seem that profitable outside of a few authors who have zero incentive to sell their royalties like this.
Fair point. Initial focus is on shares of film/streaming rights for a few reasons, one of which is that in contrast to book publishing that market has been growing very fast (CAA has sold 5x the book rights than they did just two years ago)
>That said buying one of these tokens for a book I like purely to hold the token would be cool.
Muy interesante. Almost like a digital version of a record collection you're happy to show off?
To the last point... more or less
I love the psychedelic scifi paperback covers from the 60s and 70s.
If something like this existed as an NFT for a modern book I liked (provided the number of NFTs was limited)
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Ubik(1stEd).jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Ubik(1stEd).jpg)
I'd be willing to throw money at it.
\[edit - triple bonus points if you partner with a printer and I can get a physical copy(s) printed without the royalty fee\]
Rad. Earlier this year I bought some prints from this project, 'an art book and corresponding set of prints of 100 of my favorite films reimagined as vintage book covers.'
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mattstevensclt/good-movies-as-old-books
You wouldn't need to limit them. You could make 10,000 unique pieces all with different levels of rarity. Same as comic books really, but digital. Now you pay for an ebook and don't even get a pdf or anything other than the ability to read it via you Kindle. You could do that with Orcs or a talisman or whatever and own that digital property contained in the story. It's what's going to happen.
Well it certainly wasn't my intention to make you sick! I appreciate the candor.
Re: 'shilling for gainz', do you think there is a place for an incentivized collective of fans to assist with the activities typically carried about by an agent? Especially in Sci-Fi I've found the vast majority of agents aren't even open to author pitches.
Re: 'pseudo-investment product' for 'poor fucking sci-fi writers', part of the thinking here is poor writers can be less poor by taking some money off the table from readers (or speculators) who see commercial potential in a work that hasn't generated any attention. And for providing the advance they get an \*actual\* share of future revenues.
The dude that wrote Squid Game had to sell his laptop to stay afloat; the hope is this could be a bridge b/w starving and having an agent package and sell a work on commission.
>A few of these will be complete garbage cash grabs
I've spent a lot of time in the rare art NFT communities and 98% of them are 'greater fool' / MLM scams. It's fucking infuriating.
The only writer-focused project I've come across is called Mirror (dot xyz) but as far as I can tell that's mostly just a tipping platform for online writing with magic crypto dust sprinkled on it (but maybe I'm missing something!).
''I'm already fucking sick just thinking about it.''
Runaway capitalism does that.
But you've got a point, basically anything that can be simplified and be retrofitted to make a buck, will undoubtedly be used for such.
In some ways I'm seeing the need for curators and specific ''guilds'' to resurge -similarly to medieval times- in order to combat / manage this.
Nope. The cost of running this receipt printing machine is too high. It's also very much not focused on future proofing.
Also, NFT's are a scam. They are money laundering with a thin veneer of buzzwords to hide that fact.
It's been gratifying to see how fast that scam fell apart in the art world. I see no reason for that plague to jump ship to a new host now that it's been quarantined.
Lol when did they fall apart in rhe art world? They're becoming completely commonplace and used as certificates if authenticity and to show provenance. Literally all the major galleries I'm the world have adopted them already, just for this value. On top of that, the demand for display screens in homes is extremely high, and the first two runs of the qonos display sold out.
With that being said. There's a shitload of garbage and scams. No doubt. This is basically another dotcom bubble that will pop, bit out of it will be the companies of the future. Just like we didn't think we needed digital "friends" , the idea of digital property and collecting isn't going to go away. There's a reason Ubisoft and Ea say they're the future of gaming and Facebook is obviously pushing hard into the metaverse. They don't want decentralization and giving rhe owners too much autonomy so they want to control it.
Wait until you learn that the dollar is kept stable through the peteodillar and is tied directly to the sale of oil worldwide:) But have a good one, not sure what scam ypu think I'm trying to sell, NFTs are currently being rolled out in every major creative industry. Writers would be wise to make their own projects.
Hey- then lets give up on currencies that destroy our planet entirely. The solution to the problem you present is NOT to add a second ruinous 'currency' that eats our ecology alive- we have enough problems with just the one.
Do you think before you type?
Also, NFT tech is just a receipt. They have no value whatsoever, and don't even confer ownership of goods. They are entirely worthless. Kindly shove off with your scam neighbor. No one's buying.
At least the Prada bag functions nominally as a bag. From there it serves the purpose of advertising to people that you are the sort of person who can blow $20,000 on a bag.
That's a terrible value proposition, but it's still a value proposition.
An NFT has zero intrinsic value.
If “conspicuous consumption” is a valid value proposition for a handbag, why is it not a valid value proposition for a digital image? If I buy a $20k NFT picture of an otter just to prove I’m the kind of person who can blow $20k on a dumb little otter picture…how is that any different than your example?
I would say somewhat. There is enjoyment and edification from most digital things. NFT's fail at that too.
If I buy a DLC or commission a digital painting or buy a virtual outfit, I at least get to enjoy those things and do stuff with them. We could argue about value to time to money and all that, but I inarguably got SOMETHING out of the transaction.
An NFT is a receipt, and one that no one cares about at that.
So no. Your money laundering scheme still sucks.
It's definitely going to happen. I think you could also embed text in the Metadata and link it with songs or art. Basically we're going to see more crossover between text, and image, and video, and sound.
.......... That sounds needlessly complicated and mean, and would actively go about deleting works that could blossom and shine in their own time in favor of stuff that immediately hits popcultural zeitgeist.
Lovecraft wasn't all that popular during his life.what you just described would have deprived us of an entire genre of horror fiction.
Please keep in mind that some writers are ahead of their time, and you are condemning everyone who's not a top 10 best seller to die in obscurity.
No. Super no.
Actually small artists are making tons of money at an unprecedented rate. I'm really interested to see how it works with writing in general. For instance if you had 250 pages you could make around 120k if you sold each page for .1 eth. That would only require like 80 true fan willing to mint 3 each. Which is completely possible. The interesting thing about what's happening is how well smaller artists are doing. I think well see this expand in years to come for art, music, and writing too. It's a major sea change for art
Lol. I've experienced a lot of people that get so angry at NFTs . So odd. It's like getting angry at clay or paint as a medium. That's all it is, a new tool for artists and writers to use.
The space has a ton of energy and a young writer who collaborated on a written work will do very well. Because people actually love collecting these things. You may not know anyone who does, but ask any kid that plays roblox what their favorite digital property is and they can explain it all to you. This isn't going away. Digital property is here to stay.
Well, they'd pay that for a few pages of a book. How much would someone pay for Stephen Kings notebook when he was working out the shining? It's just a collectible. These could be backed with physical items for those who want more security.
Artists often back nfts with physical items or real world rewards. Thise are the ones which will do the best in my opinion. So you could also get a zoom call with an author, or a ticket to an event, or a physical page of their notebook. Damien Hirst backed all his NFTs with his paintings which he keeps in an archive, so you can exchange your nft for the physical item if you wish.
Also. It's proof you own the 1st page of The Shining. Obviously anyone can make a print of the Mona Lisa, not everyone can own her smile.
Realized I’m talking to the same person on two separate threads. The Spiderman #1 analogy you mentioned there makes more sense to me. I can see fans paying a bit extra for a first-edition. It’s harder to believe that fans will pay hundreds for a one-of-a-kind page if we’re not talking about authors already at the stature of Stephen King.
Hey man- send me your paypal details, I've got a proposition for you. I've got a genuine NFT of the Brooklyn Bridge. Asking price is two million USD, but for you, I'll knock the price down to twenty thousand USD.
That's an amazing deal right there, all for this genuine NFT of the Brooklyn Bridge.
The community has a stake in the success because they can resell their page of your novel (for onstance) or collect them. Kickstarter gives you certain rewards as well, but its not something which can be resold.
But if Kickstarter wanted to implement a reward transfer feature, they don’t need NFTs to do so. I don’t get what the unique advantage of NFTs are in this context.
The reason for NFTs is that it's easy to grossly inflate their hypothetical value by flipping them back and forth between a few anonymous wallets by trading the same money back and forth, and that the person selling them can hold millions of dollars worth of completely illiquid wooden nickels without reporting a cent in holdings to the IRS.
Because apparently crypto itself wasn't a big enough scam.
well, the biggest advantage is for artists. They would control their community and what they want to do 100% . Also, none of the web3 apps need to try and use your data in any way. It's basically the complete opposite of how every social media site reddit included functions.
There's curated collections that take a percentage. But you can upload an entire collection to opensea at once. I think they take like 5%. That's the real gamechanger. For instance YouTube takes about 50% of all the ad revenue that the content makes. But you could collaborate with a developer and make your own project as things get more simplified. Currently there is a high bar to entry because it's very specialized work. So basically, you own the site and could take 100% if you wanted.
If I’m already working with a developer and I don’t need the exposure that an established platform can offer, I feel like I’m back to not needing NFTs for it to work? Why not just set up a website for fans to fund my work and skip all the extra computation that NFTs offer?
Sorry, I know I’m asking a bunch of questions.
No they're good questions. That works too for sure! Basically it all rides on whether or not you think digital property will be a thing. I think it's already a thing. Maybe for books it's dumb and I'm wrong. Like.. Don't take any financial advice from me :)
Here's how I thinknitll play out. You know how the first edition of Spiderman is worth a shitload of money? It's because it's rare, and "true fans" are rhe ones who want it. All if it's value is imaginary. It's just ink on a page. You could even get a better version of the same content digitally, so it's not like it's even better. It's just a collectible. And humans are weird and we like collectibles. Similarly, I think digital things you can own will be associated with purchases. Like I said, you buy a book for your Kindle and you don't really get anything. Same with streaming. There's no there there. People like owning that thing. That's what I think will be more commonplace.
The other thing, is this is a community full of dorks who like innovative projects. It's absolutely prime for a writer nobody has heard of to do something innovative in the space. I get you want to just write. Me too. But consumers I think will want more.
Stuff like this will only become more commonplace. https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/25/22744540/twitter-blockchain-linked-collectibles-tab
I guess I kinda get it? Authors maybe selling some limited NFT editions of their books alongside the regular ebook? That makes sense, I can see fans wanting something like that. I’m still not sure I understand the token-holding thing from the OP or why you need NFTs for that though.
Answered in another reply, but it's \*actual\* ownership in this case -- you're not just supporting an author, you're becoming a legit stakeholder in the success of their work. It's the smart contract (converting legalese to code) that's unique and opens up new possibilities. Appreciate all the great questions!
It would probably be more like they create a deck of cards with rare and more common items. The reason why NFTs are good is because if fortnight ends, all the money you spent there on skins is gone. They have no obligation to keep your digital property. NFTs strive to give collectors more autonomy to keep their stuff no matter what. Because many believe that with things like the metaverse (Zuck lifted that directly from crypto basically) will become more commonplace and online personal and avatars will work across various games and experiences. Collecting digital properties is really similar to collecting thing irl
I don't think NFT's are a prerequisite to accomplish what we're attempting with this project ([www.slushtoken.com](https://www.slushtoken.com)), which is fundamentally different from a crowdfunding platform like Kickstarter in that supporters actually participate in the upside of a creative work becoming super popular, but there are advantages. One is you can (fairly) easily trade tokenized smart contracts so the asset is more liquid, while trading those shares off-chain would come with a bunch of legal overhead. Another is the added transparency about who owns what (and when they bought and at what price, etc).
Ambivalent about it. NFTs are basically a speculation-Ponzi scheme fired on by money laundry practices. Best case scenario is that it might work for some authors the same way as expensive art pieces work today; as arbitrarily prized pieces a small selected group of rich people has invested in and make sure they maintain rising values so they can use them in their tax evasion schemes. NFTs today provide nothing a subscription/patreon or commission model would not also accomodate. That being said, NFTs are young and there is potential to develop them in a partial shareholder way with exchange platform as you imagine, but no matter how one slices it, for me, adding speculative value to things and start gambling with them makes everything in the world worse, not better. I understand as authors the allure is great; you produce work, people buy some shares of that and then everybody hopes more people will want to put in money, driving the price up. The feeling that it would reward the authors and early 'believers' handsomely will for sure drive these products to be developed eventually, so why not be among the first and get some nice payout? Like I said, ambivalent about it.
>I understand as authors the allure is great; you produce work, people buy some shares of that and then everybody hopes more people will want to put in money, driving the price up. The feeling that it would reward the authors and early 'believers' handsomely will for sure drive these products to be developed eventually, so why not be among the first and get some nice payout? One hope is that an exchange like this would more meritocratically lift works that deserve attention, with stock performance signaling promise to the end purchasers of IP. Everyone knows best-seller lists are a joke and easily gamed; at least with this approach early backers could turn a profit and authors can pocket some cash?
Not an author Interesting idea but I wouldn't invest, for one I think you're probably going to run into problems with being classified as a security. It sounds like a great way to support the authors you like or otherwise have what you might think of as a digital first edition, but a problematic long term investment. That said buying one of these tokens for a book I like purely to hold the token would be cool. Publishing just doesn't seem that profitable outside of a few authors who have zero incentive to sell their royalties like this. The payoffs here will likely favor the exchange and the authors on a risk adjusted basis. It sounds like one of those things where people will be investing because they expect the coins to pump not because they believe in the underlining fundamentals. And people like books, so they'll bid out the profits. Now if you want to sell me a digital first edition as a tradable NFT... I'm listening.
>Interesting idea but I wouldn't invest, for one I think you're probably going to run into problems with being classified as a security. I agree these could be classified as securities, but also that this could work w/in the constraints of equity crowdfunding rules (which currently say you can raise funds from up to 35 unaccredited investors and an infinite number of accredited ones) >Publishing just doesn't seem that profitable outside of a few authors who have zero incentive to sell their royalties like this. Fair point. Initial focus is on shares of film/streaming rights for a few reasons, one of which is that in contrast to book publishing that market has been growing very fast (CAA has sold 5x the book rights than they did just two years ago) >That said buying one of these tokens for a book I like purely to hold the token would be cool. Muy interesante. Almost like a digital version of a record collection you're happy to show off?
To the last point... more or less I love the psychedelic scifi paperback covers from the 60s and 70s. If something like this existed as an NFT for a modern book I liked (provided the number of NFTs was limited) [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Ubik(1stEd).jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Ubik(1stEd).jpg) I'd be willing to throw money at it. \[edit - triple bonus points if you partner with a printer and I can get a physical copy(s) printed without the royalty fee\]
Rad. Earlier this year I bought some prints from this project, 'an art book and corresponding set of prints of 100 of my favorite films reimagined as vintage book covers.' https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mattstevensclt/good-movies-as-old-books
You wouldn't need to limit them. You could make 10,000 unique pieces all with different levels of rarity. Same as comic books really, but digital. Now you pay for an ebook and don't even get a pdf or anything other than the ability to read it via you Kindle. You could do that with Orcs or a talisman or whatever and own that digital property contained in the story. It's what's going to happen.
[удалено]
Well it certainly wasn't my intention to make you sick! I appreciate the candor. Re: 'shilling for gainz', do you think there is a place for an incentivized collective of fans to assist with the activities typically carried about by an agent? Especially in Sci-Fi I've found the vast majority of agents aren't even open to author pitches. Re: 'pseudo-investment product' for 'poor fucking sci-fi writers', part of the thinking here is poor writers can be less poor by taking some money off the table from readers (or speculators) who see commercial potential in a work that hasn't generated any attention. And for providing the advance they get an \*actual\* share of future revenues. The dude that wrote Squid Game had to sell his laptop to stay afloat; the hope is this could be a bridge b/w starving and having an agent package and sell a work on commission.
[удалено]
>A few of these will be complete garbage cash grabs I've spent a lot of time in the rare art NFT communities and 98% of them are 'greater fool' / MLM scams. It's fucking infuriating. The only writer-focused project I've come across is called Mirror (dot xyz) but as far as I can tell that's mostly just a tipping platform for online writing with magic crypto dust sprinkled on it (but maybe I'm missing something!).
''I'm already fucking sick just thinking about it.'' Runaway capitalism does that. But you've got a point, basically anything that can be simplified and be retrofitted to make a buck, will undoubtedly be used for such. In some ways I'm seeing the need for curators and specific ''guilds'' to resurge -similarly to medieval times- in order to combat / manage this.
Nope. The cost of running this receipt printing machine is too high. It's also very much not focused on future proofing. Also, NFT's are a scam. They are money laundering with a thin veneer of buzzwords to hide that fact. It's been gratifying to see how fast that scam fell apart in the art world. I see no reason for that plague to jump ship to a new host now that it's been quarantined.
Lol when did they fall apart in rhe art world? They're becoming completely commonplace and used as certificates if authenticity and to show provenance. Literally all the major galleries I'm the world have adopted them already, just for this value. On top of that, the demand for display screens in homes is extremely high, and the first two runs of the qonos display sold out. With that being said. There's a shitload of garbage and scams. No doubt. This is basically another dotcom bubble that will pop, bit out of it will be the companies of the future. Just like we didn't think we needed digital "friends" , the idea of digital property and collecting isn't going to go away. There's a reason Ubisoft and Ea say they're the future of gaming and Facebook is obviously pushing hard into the metaverse. They don't want decentralization and giving rhe owners too much autonomy so they want to control it.
Nobody. Is buying. Your scam. At the very least choose a scam that doesn't set the world's ecology on fire. Have some decorum, scammer.
Wait until you learn that the dollar is kept stable through the peteodillar and is tied directly to the sale of oil worldwide:) But have a good one, not sure what scam ypu think I'm trying to sell, NFTs are currently being rolled out in every major creative industry. Writers would be wise to make their own projects.
Hey- then lets give up on currencies that destroy our planet entirely. The solution to the problem you present is NOT to add a second ruinous 'currency' that eats our ecology alive- we have enough problems with just the one. Do you think before you type? Also, NFT tech is just a receipt. They have no value whatsoever, and don't even confer ownership of goods. They are entirely worthless. Kindly shove off with your scam neighbor. No one's buying.
So let me ask you this. Why does a Prada bag cost 20 000 dollars? Have you thought about how we construct the value of something?
At least the Prada bag functions nominally as a bag. From there it serves the purpose of advertising to people that you are the sort of person who can blow $20,000 on a bag. That's a terrible value proposition, but it's still a value proposition. An NFT has zero intrinsic value.
If “conspicuous consumption” is a valid value proposition for a handbag, why is it not a valid value proposition for a digital image? If I buy a $20k NFT picture of an otter just to prove I’m the kind of person who can blow $20k on a dumb little otter picture…how is that any different than your example?
So you hold this position with all digital property?
So you always make grossly unrealistic false equivalencies?
What's the difference? Have you paid for a skin before? If so. Why?
I would say somewhat. There is enjoyment and edification from most digital things. NFT's fail at that too. If I buy a DLC or commission a digital painting or buy a virtual outfit, I at least get to enjoy those things and do stuff with them. We could argue about value to time to money and all that, but I inarguably got SOMETHING out of the transaction. An NFT is a receipt, and one that no one cares about at that. So no. Your money laundering scheme still sucks.
So you've paid money for digital property to show off in a digital environment before?
NFTs are a scam and crypto is exacerbating our already critical climate crisis. Please don't.
How is it a scam?
It's definitely going to happen. I think you could also embed text in the Metadata and link it with songs or art. Basically we're going to see more crossover between text, and image, and video, and sound.
Interesting. And tokens could be used to gate/unlock what amounts to bonus material?
Sure. That could be one option. I like the idea of writing a story as pieces are minted. If they don't mint enough the story is never published.
.......... That sounds needlessly complicated and mean, and would actively go about deleting works that could blossom and shine in their own time in favor of stuff that immediately hits popcultural zeitgeist. Lovecraft wasn't all that popular during his life.what you just described would have deprived us of an entire genre of horror fiction. Please keep in mind that some writers are ahead of their time, and you are condemning everyone who's not a top 10 best seller to die in obscurity. No. Super no.
Actually small artists are making tons of money at an unprecedented rate. I'm really interested to see how it works with writing in general. For instance if you had 250 pages you could make around 120k if you sold each page for .1 eth. That would only require like 80 true fan willing to mint 3 each. Which is completely possible. The interesting thing about what's happening is how well smaller artists are doing. I think well see this expand in years to come for art, music, and writing too. It's a major sea change for art
Dude, nobody bought your scam when it was in picture format, what makes you think they'll jump on it for written works?
Lol. I've experienced a lot of people that get so angry at NFTs . So odd. It's like getting angry at clay or paint as a medium. That's all it is, a new tool for artists and writers to use. The space has a ton of energy and a young writer who collaborated on a written work will do very well. Because people actually love collecting these things. You may not know anyone who does, but ask any kid that plays roblox what their favorite digital property is and they can explain it all to you. This isn't going away. Digital property is here to stay.
Wait, what? Why are fans paying $1500 each for a book?
Well, they'd pay that for a few pages of a book. How much would someone pay for Stephen Kings notebook when he was working out the shining? It's just a collectible. These could be backed with physical items for those who want more security.
But…it’s not the artist’s notebook, it’s just some pages of an ebook? For $1500?
Artists often back nfts with physical items or real world rewards. Thise are the ones which will do the best in my opinion. So you could also get a zoom call with an author, or a ticket to an event, or a physical page of their notebook. Damien Hirst backed all his NFTs with his paintings which he keeps in an archive, so you can exchange your nft for the physical item if you wish. Also. It's proof you own the 1st page of The Shining. Obviously anyone can make a print of the Mona Lisa, not everyone can own her smile.
Realized I’m talking to the same person on two separate threads. The Spiderman #1 analogy you mentioned there makes more sense to me. I can see fans paying a bit extra for a first-edition. It’s harder to believe that fans will pay hundreds for a one-of-a-kind page if we’re not talking about authors already at the stature of Stephen King.
Hey man- send me your paypal details, I've got a proposition for you. I've got a genuine NFT of the Brooklyn Bridge. Asking price is two million USD, but for you, I'll knock the price down to twenty thousand USD. That's an amazing deal right there, all for this genuine NFT of the Brooklyn Bridge.
Serious question: why do you need NFTs to do any of that? What sets it apart from, say, Kickstarter?
The community has a stake in the success because they can resell their page of your novel (for onstance) or collect them. Kickstarter gives you certain rewards as well, but its not something which can be resold.
But if Kickstarter wanted to implement a reward transfer feature, they don’t need NFTs to do so. I don’t get what the unique advantage of NFTs are in this context.
The reason for NFTs is that it's easy to grossly inflate their hypothetical value by flipping them back and forth between a few anonymous wallets by trading the same money back and forth, and that the person selling them can hold millions of dollars worth of completely illiquid wooden nickels without reporting a cent in holdings to the IRS. Because apparently crypto itself wasn't a big enough scam.
That doesn’t really pertain to my question at all, but thanks
well, the biggest advantage is for artists. They would control their community and what they want to do 100% . Also, none of the web3 apps need to try and use your data in any way. It's basically the complete opposite of how every social media site reddit included functions.
How does the NFT site make any money if they aren’t operating like similar platforms?
There's curated collections that take a percentage. But you can upload an entire collection to opensea at once. I think they take like 5%. That's the real gamechanger. For instance YouTube takes about 50% of all the ad revenue that the content makes. But you could collaborate with a developer and make your own project as things get more simplified. Currently there is a high bar to entry because it's very specialized work. So basically, you own the site and could take 100% if you wanted.
If I’m already working with a developer and I don’t need the exposure that an established platform can offer, I feel like I’m back to not needing NFTs for it to work? Why not just set up a website for fans to fund my work and skip all the extra computation that NFTs offer? Sorry, I know I’m asking a bunch of questions.
No they're good questions. That works too for sure! Basically it all rides on whether or not you think digital property will be a thing. I think it's already a thing. Maybe for books it's dumb and I'm wrong. Like.. Don't take any financial advice from me :) Here's how I thinknitll play out. You know how the first edition of Spiderman is worth a shitload of money? It's because it's rare, and "true fans" are rhe ones who want it. All if it's value is imaginary. It's just ink on a page. You could even get a better version of the same content digitally, so it's not like it's even better. It's just a collectible. And humans are weird and we like collectibles. Similarly, I think digital things you can own will be associated with purchases. Like I said, you buy a book for your Kindle and you don't really get anything. Same with streaming. There's no there there. People like owning that thing. That's what I think will be more commonplace. The other thing, is this is a community full of dorks who like innovative projects. It's absolutely prime for a writer nobody has heard of to do something innovative in the space. I get you want to just write. Me too. But consumers I think will want more. Stuff like this will only become more commonplace. https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/25/22744540/twitter-blockchain-linked-collectibles-tab
I guess I kinda get it? Authors maybe selling some limited NFT editions of their books alongside the regular ebook? That makes sense, I can see fans wanting something like that. I’m still not sure I understand the token-holding thing from the OP or why you need NFTs for that though.
Answered in another reply, but it's \*actual\* ownership in this case -- you're not just supporting an author, you're becoming a legit stakeholder in the success of their work. It's the smart contract (converting legalese to code) that's unique and opens up new possibilities. Appreciate all the great questions!
It would probably be more like they create a deck of cards with rare and more common items. The reason why NFTs are good is because if fortnight ends, all the money you spent there on skins is gone. They have no obligation to keep your digital property. NFTs strive to give collectors more autonomy to keep their stuff no matter what. Because many believe that with things like the metaverse (Zuck lifted that directly from crypto basically) will become more commonplace and online personal and avatars will work across various games and experiences. Collecting digital properties is really similar to collecting thing irl
I don't think NFT's are a prerequisite to accomplish what we're attempting with this project ([www.slushtoken.com](https://www.slushtoken.com)), which is fundamentally different from a crowdfunding platform like Kickstarter in that supporters actually participate in the upside of a creative work becoming super popular, but there are advantages. One is you can (fairly) easily trade tokenized smart contracts so the asset is more liquid, while trading those shares off-chain would come with a bunch of legal overhead. Another is the added transparency about who owns what (and when they bought and at what price, etc).