What you’re buying when you purchase an NFT is a link to a website. That link shows the image. If the link ever breaks because the website goes down or out of business, it’s pretty worthless. I would have thought the implementation would be based on something more enduring like the actual content and not a link.
Basically the transfer function on an erc721 interface (nft) cannot have enforced royalty payment otherwise it wouldn’t support people transferring the token outside of a sale. Theoretically you could use some kind of interface standard or write up a different contract where users are forced to pay a royalty on any kind of transfer but then there wouldn’t be a way to transfer it without paying the royalty and basically no nft trading platforms would support it because under the hood you have to transfer them the token so they can sell it on your behalf once a buyer is found.
FYI not trying to shill funny pictures but I do know a bit of solidity so maybe someone here is actually curious about the limitation.
Are they trying to say that NFTs are some kind of bullshit scam that should have dissolved into the ether like the crypto bro’s cocaine-fueled manic state that spawned them in the first place? How shocking and unpredictable.
NFTs have a place but it isn’t central to the Internet. That was hype to separate idiots who didn’t know better from their money, aka grifting, and that kind of grifting has used literally everything to do that same thing in the past so NFTs are not a unique tool to that end.
It’s broken now? I’d say that’s a bold assumption that it ever worked in the first place.
Edit: to be clear, I mean that it is and always has been an impossible problem. The only reason it ever worked is because some broker company wanted it as a feature, not because anything compelled them to give original artists a cut. And that’s before you consider the question, “but how do you know the NFT was made by the original artist?”
Hard disagree, “web3” (defi) is meant to provide a decentralized alternative to our modern economic infrastructure, that doesn’t have huge institutional points of failure like central banks or investment banks. The only reason people piled into these speculative projects, centralized exchanges etc. is because probably > 60% of the population is into the idea of getting-rich-quick while < 1% of the population is into trying to build a better future with tech, or even just getting their head around how the technology work in the first place & what kind of potential it actually has.
I’ve been watching blockchain since Bitcoin was under a dollar and it really blows my mind how much people love to spout off about it without understanding anything about the space. You’ve got teams of hundreds, thousands of people working for years to solve all the problems in the space like PoS or scalability or contract security, but the general public is all just talking trash about the entire space because of NFTs.
Even this article, “Web3 was supposed to make sure the original artist always got paid”? Who said that? “A key feature of NFTs has completely broken?” No one who knew anything about NFTs ever said there was some universal “guarantee an artist would get paid”, particularly not if a contract to purchase an NFT didn’t guarantee that directly. If a given contract guaranteed that (or at least, the party creating the NFT on-chain), then it still does. If it didn’t, then it didn’t. Anyone actually learned Solidity and read a smart contract for themselves? Cause I’ll tell you, any smart contract where some institution has “god controls” over the state of the contract, that’s against the entire point of “web3”/“defi”.
Yeah NFTs themselves don’t guarantee royalties, but most publicly advertised NFTs are based on unique or limited run graphics that include such contract terms. When artists started getting sketched out by the idea, one of the biggest arguments in favor of them was that artists could receive royalties on every sale, something that became a major selling point for marketplaces aimed at laymen who didn’t really know anything about crypto.
It’s not surprising, then, that this feature being taken away seems to negate one of biggest supposed benefits that NFTs provided. This was supposed to be the thing that balanced concerns about art theft and the value of quantity over quality that haunt NFTs to this day.
The general opinion of crypto isn’t going to improve until people feel it’s stable and safe enough to actually trust their money with, and moves like this certainly aren’t helping that image of volatility.
I don’t know much about NFTs, but can’t the “give original artist a cut of royalties” clause be coded into the smart contracts? Why does it depend on a particular platform?
It doesn’t depend on the platform, but the venn diagram of artists trying to get paid and people who know how to write a smart contract doesn’t overlap much. Marketplaces were built to ease the former into the space by taking care of all that for them. The artists, for their part, just had to trust that the contracts actually did what they said they did and watch for the money to hit their accounts as proof.
People who were depending on the platform to sort that out are now stuck with either finding another platform or figuring out how to write the contracts themselves on top of their other business duties. Even if they do so, they’re likely going to lose a good portion of their following and brand precense in the move.
Fundamental difference between a currency accruing value due to superior characteristics over its competitors, and a Ponzi scheme where a truly worthless good that only has transitory value because it’s “the next big thing” is passed along from original entrants to new entrants. USD has no “inherent” value (not even the “full faith and credit of the government”) either, and critical issues where the broader institution responsible for its issuance is a corrupt war-mongering police state. If we’re being honest here.
The issue is not much effort is put into developing price stability in cryptocurrencies, this is because it is counter to the incentives of the creators and early HODLers. They do not want price stability, they want significant price decreases, this causes people to speculate on the “currency” not use it as a currency. Until a cryptocurrency implements some form of MV=PY it will not really be successful as a currency.
How does one “implement” the equation for calculating GDP? All the (descriptive) variables in the equation are already present. IDK how that got 4 upvotes.
Several major cryptos are already used as media of exchange. That’s the actual criteria for “success of a currency”, relative usage. They haven’t overtaken USD, but let’s not pretend it’s just a speculative vessel, Ethereum sees over a million transactions per day.
You cannot, but you can increase money supply money supply more stably when following average GDP growth, and increase money supply more when velocity decreased- and atrophy the supply when it increases. And a currency is much more than just what people can spend at a store. It is what people keep their savings in, what companies pay their employees in, what banks lend.
This cannot be done with an unstable currency- you cannot have a debt that will either go up or down 20% in value in the same year. I do not think fiats are inherently more stable, but some fiats have proven to be somewhat more stable because of responsible central banking- its not a good idea to count on central banks being responsible for ever. But essentially all widely spread cryptos continue to have a significant amount held by speculators and therefore they cannot be stable currencies.
The simple answer is that fiats are only more stable because their relative worth is more settled. For the same reason small stocks are unstable while big blue chip stocks are (relatively) not. If you look at logarithmic charts of any big crypto over time you can literally see the volatility tapering out as the market cap increases.
Yeah, I’ll just unlearn all the monetary theory books I read because, trust me bro money is worthless. I got this new money, it’s worth more money. I see now.
Am I supposed to treat this like a good faith comment? Let’s assume you’re wrong, how would I even reply? It’s basically “no u”.
If you really know so much about monetary theory I’d expect you to lead with what you actually know, not just vaguely allude to how much you know. Right?
I’d expect that I wouldn’t want to waste time trying to convince a brainwashed crypto bro or that I give a single fuck past making fun of you.
Here’s some super basics of almost all monetary economic theory. Currency is a medium of exchange. It’s velocity (or rare it moves through the economy) is a vital measure of the health of the economy and effectiveness of the currency. How easy is it to go buy something with Bitcoin, and how fast is it moving through hands in an economy? Oh, it’s a joke as a currency you say? Description of how it is being used sounds exactly like a ponzi scheme for some reason.
See to everyone else, it’s very, very obvious why it’s a ponzi scheme. It will collapse someday. As it’s only real use is as a very ineffective currency. Somehow people like you have made that worth tens of thousands of dollars to each other.
See, this is the classic bad faith anti-blockchain argument. Article we’re talking about is about NFTs, which are based on Ethereum, an extremely sophisticated blockchain with proof-of-stake, smart contract capability, and a huge infrastructure of people who’ve built economic machinery on top of it and are using it actively. But you want to prove your point, so you cherry-pick Bitcoin, the very first “proof of concept” blockchain which has essentially had active development halt because the creator wanted anonymity, vanished into thin air, and the developers working on it largely refuse to hard-fork it, so which has no real smart contract capability, still uses wasteful proof-of-work, etc.
It’s not “obvious” that it’s a ponzi scheme, it’s the point you want to make so you’re just bending the facts and cherry-picking things to try to prove it. I’m not impressed. And tossing “monetary velocity” out there as a term isn’t making me think you’re some brilliant economist - if anything, monetary velocity is an overstressed concept in modern econ because the government sits around trying to manipulate it via interest rates instead of letting people’s actual spending priorities dictate how the economy works, leading to a consumerist frenzy and catastrophic boom/bust cycle.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Ik the technology is useful, but selling shit I can screen shot is fucking pointless. If you want to buy shit from the artist, just buy their shit.
What you’re buying when you purchase an NFT is a link to a website. That link shows the image. If the link ever breaks because the website goes down or out of business, it’s pretty worthless. I would have thought the implementation would be based on something more enduring like the actual content and not a link.
I thought the royalty payments were enforced by the contract?
Basically the transfer function on an erc721 interface (nft) cannot have enforced royalty payment otherwise it wouldn’t support people transferring the token outside of a sale. Theoretically you could use some kind of interface standard or write up a different contract where users are forced to pay a royalty on any kind of transfer but then there wouldn’t be a way to transfer it without paying the royalty and basically no nft trading platforms would support it because under the hood you have to transfer them the token so they can sell it on your behalf once a buyer is found.
FYI not trying to shill funny pictures but I do know a bit of solidity so maybe someone here is actually curious about the limitation.
Thank you. This is what I wanted to know!
A problem with a blockchain-related grift? I’m utterly shocked!!!
Are they trying to say that NFTs are some kind of bullshit scam that should have dissolved into the ether like the crypto bro’s cocaine-fueled manic state that spawned them in the first place? How shocking and unpredictable.
What do you mean? You didnt go out and spend all your money on reproducable jpegs? Whats wrong with you?
I spent all my money on a chance to get a certain jpg.
I mortgaged my house for a computer-generated ape that my son’s cousin’s uncle’s neighbor’s mailman said would one day finance my retirement.
It will, it will. Any day now, you’ll see! My kid told me the same thing, and his favorite streamer wouldn’t just say anything for money, would he?
OpenSea is bad on purpose. Who remembers their insider trading scandal(s)?
NFTs have a place but it isn’t central to the Internet. That was hype to separate idiots who didn’t know better from their money, aka grifting, and that kind of grifting has used literally everything to do that same thing in the past so NFTs are not a unique tool to that end.
Does anyone know a wallet that actively unsupports nfts? I need to use it
It’s broken now? I’d say that’s a bold assumption that it ever worked in the first place.
Edit: to be clear, I mean that it is and always has been an impossible problem. The only reason it ever worked is because some broker company wanted it as a feature, not because anything compelled them to give original artists a cut. And that’s before you consider the question, “but how do you know the NFT was made by the original artist?”
How do I too sell pngs for butloads of money?
OnlyFans
“Web3” was supposed to enrich a bunch of assholes. It was never meant to do anything else.
Hard disagree, “web3” (defi) is meant to provide a decentralized alternative to our modern economic infrastructure, that doesn’t have huge institutional points of failure like central banks or investment banks. The only reason people piled into these speculative projects, centralized exchanges etc. is because probably > 60% of the population is into the idea of getting-rich-quick while < 1% of the population is into trying to build a better future with tech, or even just getting their head around how the technology work in the first place & what kind of potential it actually has.
I’ve been watching blockchain since Bitcoin was under a dollar and it really blows my mind how much people love to spout off about it without understanding anything about the space. You’ve got teams of hundreds, thousands of people working for years to solve all the problems in the space like PoS or scalability or contract security, but the general public is all just talking trash about the entire space because of NFTs.
Even this article, “Web3 was supposed to make sure the original artist always got paid”? Who said that? “A key feature of NFTs has completely broken?” No one who knew anything about NFTs ever said there was some universal “guarantee an artist would get paid”, particularly not if a contract to purchase an NFT didn’t guarantee that directly. If a given contract guaranteed that (or at least, the party creating the NFT on-chain), then it still does. If it didn’t, then it didn’t. Anyone actually learned Solidity and read a smart contract for themselves? Cause I’ll tell you, any smart contract where some institution has “god controls” over the state of the contract, that’s against the entire point of “web3”/“defi”.
Yeah NFTs themselves don’t guarantee royalties, but most publicly advertised NFTs are based on unique or limited run graphics that include such contract terms. When artists started getting sketched out by the idea, one of the biggest arguments in favor of them was that artists could receive royalties on every sale, something that became a major selling point for marketplaces aimed at laymen who didn’t really know anything about crypto.
It’s not surprising, then, that this feature being taken away seems to negate one of biggest supposed benefits that NFTs provided. This was supposed to be the thing that balanced concerns about art theft and the value of quantity over quality that haunt NFTs to this day.
The general opinion of crypto isn’t going to improve until people feel it’s stable and safe enough to actually trust their money with, and moves like this certainly aren’t helping that image of volatility.
I don’t know much about NFTs, but can’t the “give original artist a cut of royalties” clause be coded into the smart contracts? Why does it depend on a particular platform?
It doesn’t depend on the platform, but the venn diagram of artists trying to get paid and people who know how to write a smart contract doesn’t overlap much. Marketplaces were built to ease the former into the space by taking care of all that for them. The artists, for their part, just had to trust that the contracts actually did what they said they did and watch for the money to hit their accounts as proof.
People who were depending on the platform to sort that out are now stuck with either finding another platform or figuring out how to write the contracts themselves on top of their other business duties. Even if they do so, they’re likely going to lose a good portion of their following and brand precense in the move.
Bunch of words about people working hard on a ponzi scheme doesn’t make it not functionally a ponzi scheme.
Fundamental difference between a currency accruing value due to superior characteristics over its competitors, and a Ponzi scheme where a truly worthless good that only has transitory value because it’s “the next big thing” is passed along from original entrants to new entrants. USD has no “inherent” value (not even the “full faith and credit of the government”) either, and critical issues where the broader institution responsible for its issuance is a corrupt war-mongering police state. If we’re being honest here.
The issue is not much effort is put into developing price stability in cryptocurrencies, this is because it is counter to the incentives of the creators and early HODLers. They do not want price stability, they want significant price decreases, this causes people to speculate on the “currency” not use it as a currency. Until a cryptocurrency implements some form of MV=PY it will not really be successful as a currency.
How does one “implement” the equation for calculating GDP? All the (descriptive) variables in the equation are already present. IDK how that got 4 upvotes.
Several major cryptos are already used as media of exchange. That’s the actual criteria for “success of a currency”, relative usage. They haven’t overtaken USD, but let’s not pretend it’s just a speculative vessel, Ethereum sees over a million transactions per day.
You cannot, but you can increase money supply money supply more stably when following average GDP growth, and increase money supply more when velocity decreased- and atrophy the supply when it increases. And a currency is much more than just what people can spend at a store. It is what people keep their savings in, what companies pay their employees in, what banks lend.
This cannot be done with an unstable currency- you cannot have a debt that will either go up or down 20% in value in the same year. I do not think fiats are inherently more stable, but some fiats have proven to be somewhat more stable because of responsible central banking- its not a good idea to count on central banks being responsible for ever. But essentially all widely spread cryptos continue to have a significant amount held by speculators and therefore they cannot be stable currencies.
The simple answer is that fiats are only more stable because their relative worth is more settled. For the same reason small stocks are unstable while big blue chip stocks are (relatively) not. If you look at logarithmic charts of any big crypto over time you can literally see the volatility tapering out as the market cap increases.
Yeah, I’ll just unlearn all the monetary theory books I read because, trust me bro money is worthless. I got this new money, it’s worth more money. I see now.
Am I supposed to treat this like a good faith comment? Let’s assume you’re wrong, how would I even reply? It’s basically “no u”.
If you really know so much about monetary theory I’d expect you to lead with what you actually know, not just vaguely allude to how much you know. Right?
I’d expect that I wouldn’t want to waste time trying to convince a brainwashed crypto bro or that I give a single fuck past making fun of you.
Here’s some super basics of almost all monetary economic theory. Currency is a medium of exchange. It’s velocity (or rare it moves through the economy) is a vital measure of the health of the economy and effectiveness of the currency. How easy is it to go buy something with Bitcoin, and how fast is it moving through hands in an economy? Oh, it’s a joke as a currency you say? Description of how it is being used sounds exactly like a ponzi scheme for some reason.
See to everyone else, it’s very, very obvious why it’s a ponzi scheme. It will collapse someday. As it’s only real use is as a very ineffective currency. Somehow people like you have made that worth tens of thousands of dollars to each other.
See, this is the classic bad faith anti-blockchain argument. Article we’re talking about is about NFTs, which are based on Ethereum, an extremely sophisticated blockchain with proof-of-stake, smart contract capability, and a huge infrastructure of people who’ve built economic machinery on top of it and are using it actively. But you want to prove your point, so you cherry-pick Bitcoin, the very first “proof of concept” blockchain which has essentially had active development halt because the creator wanted anonymity, vanished into thin air, and the developers working on it largely refuse to hard-fork it, so which has no real smart contract capability, still uses wasteful proof-of-work, etc.
It’s not “obvious” that it’s a ponzi scheme, it’s the point you want to make so you’re just bending the facts and cherry-picking things to try to prove it. I’m not impressed. And tossing “monetary velocity” out there as a term isn’t making me think you’re some brilliant economist - if anything, monetary velocity is an overstressed concept in modern econ because the government sits around trying to manipulate it via interest rates instead of letting people’s actual spending priorities dictate how the economy works, leading to a consumerist frenzy and catastrophic boom/bust cycle.
If a currency were a superior currency it would not necessarily increase in value, it would increase in acceptance and (generally) velocity.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/730818/average-number-of-ethereum-transactions/
It sure sounds like that wasn’t a feature of NFTs, but a feature of OpenSea
removed by mod
removed by mod