NFTs and Music

[Dana5140]

Blockchained product cannot be viewed, listened to, copied, spent, or transferred by anyone but its owner. A typical gift card can be given to someone else, but spent out from under them before they have a chance to use it. When blockchained product is transferred to someone else, it's only accessible by that someone else. The former owner who transferred it to the new owner loses all access to it.

But essentially, this is true solely for a digital object, right? And even then, I could own it and make a copy of it and put it out on the net where others could use it? How does this take energy, by the way? I assume it means that tons of computer using tons of energy are doing something, but what is it that the computers are doing that uses so much energy? And this all seems bubble to me- $69 million for some artist I never heard of? Seriously? Who would waste money doing that? You own nothing for 69 mill. That's idiocy in my book.

There is a lot of talk in my field of blockchain for patient records- here, this kind of makes sense- if I am hte patient, I and only I should own my own data. But it is not for sale, only for protection.

ETA: https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...on-beeple-nft/

This simply makes no sense at all. Did metakoven buy this for it s likely appreciation? For its value as art? For what? What does it mean to fractionalize it? Sell little digital pieces? What?

[arturs]

There are thousands of sites devoted to NFT’s. When I first started looking at this I found this one helpful:

https://justincone.com/posts/nft-skeptics-guide/

It’s a no nonense explanation of FAQ’s that most people have and it’s written for the total layperson, i.e. me

Best
Michael

Thank you for posting this article. As a result I now believe I actually understand the basics of the phenomenon. I may not, but at least I think I do...

I think the author's point at the end makes sense: NFTs could work if it doesn't get hyped to death. The NFT doesn't need to make anyone a billionaire. Artists, or bands, could "sell" the token when doing a kickstarter for example for $500 or something. Everyone else could still get the CD or DL for $10 or $20 but it would be the one special thing for a large contributor. If the band was U2 I don't doubt someone might pay $50K for it. But the point is that it would serve as a unique reward for contributing generously to the success of a product.

And yes if the band did subsequently hit it big, it might well go up in value.

[neuroticdog]

Thank you for posting this article. As a result I now believe I actually understand the basics of the phenomenon. I may not, but at least I think I do...

I think the author's point at the end makes sense: NFTs could work if it doesn't get hyped to death. The NFT doesn't need to make anyone a billionaire. Artists, or bands, could "sell" the token when doing a kickstarter for example for $500 or something. Everyone else could still get the CD or DL for $10 or $20 but it would be the one special thing for a large contributor. If the band was U2 I don't doubt someone might pay $50K for it. But the point is that it would serve as a unique reward for contributing generously to the success of a product.

And yes if the band did subsequently hit it big, it might well go up in value.

Hey Arturs...

Your understanding pretty much matches my understanding. As far as being hyped to death...unfortunately, to late. I caught wind of NFT's about a month ago right at the very cusp of them crossing over to mainstream media. I thought to myself at the time that it's just a matter of time CNBC starts to report on them. 2 or 3 days later I started hearing mentions, and now the flood gates have opened and Beeple has already been interviewed 2 or 3 times.

I dont think there is a Gartner hype cycle curve on NFT's but this site makes a guess on where NFT's would sit if there were.

https://www.nevillehobson.com/2021/0...nft-for-short/
(Gartner is one of a few very well regarded research firms that companies hire for consulting purposes. When something is rising up that very steep curve of inflated expectations it may be an indication of a bubble. Very speculative investors (although I hesitate to call them investors, more like gamblers) and also the public tend to jump on the bus during this period only to see their house of cards come tumbling down. it doesn't mean the tech is bad, it just means it has gotten ahead of itself. Sometimes it's easy to see this, I wonder if this is one of those times?)

The short of it is, he thinks it's approaching a point of such inflated hype that it's bubble territory. I agree with him. In the long run it may be a great idea, sure sounds like one but it won't be a smooth ride.

best
Michael

[neuroticdog]

But essentially, this is true solely for a digital object, right? And even then, I could own it and make a copy of it and put it out on the net where others could use it? How does this take energy, by the way? I assume it means that tons of computer using tons of energy are doing something, but what is it that the computers are doing that uses so much energy? And this all seems bubble to me- $69 million for some artist I never heard of? Seriously? Who would waste money doing that? You own nothing for 69 mill. That's idiocy in my book.

There is a lot of talk in my field of blockchain for patient records- here, this kind of makes sense- if I am hte patient, I and only I should own my own data. But it is not for sale, only for protection.

ETA: https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...on-beeple-nft/

This simply makes no sense at all. Did metakoven buy this for it s likely appreciation? For its value as art? For what? What does it mean to fractionalize it? Sell little digital pieces? What?

To my understanding, all these "transactions" are taking place on the Etherium network. In order to verify them there are independent nodes set up by people where it takes massive amounts of electricity and compute power to process these transactions. These people are called miners, and are rewarded for doing this by being paid in more Etherium. Can someone please correct me if my understanding is flawed? Would appreciate it.

There are tons of sites that talk about NFT's and music, this one seems more detailed and was written by one of the players in the scene. It sounds very pie in the sky but it does a good job at explaining the potentiality of it all: https://mixmag.asia/feature/what-is-an-nft

As far as Metakovens agenda, no idea...but I would imagine he's building up a portfolio of NFT's that he expects to increase in value. It's just like any other mutual fund, but instead of owning a basket of companies, I believe he intends to own a basket of NFT's. He's probably looking for investors to go along for the ride, just like any hedge fund.

So this is a market, just like any other market...and for a market to function efficiently, there needs to be other players, i.e. liquidity. Liquidity would really be hard to come by if you are trying to move an asset you just paid mega millions for, so to create more liquidity you fractionalize it. So you are right, you split it up into little pieces to make it more palatable to invest in. (Hey, you got 100k? You too can be a part owner of a Beeple!) Many online brokerages started doing this by allowing the purchase of fractional shares of stock. If you are a kid and want to start investing in the market but you dont have the 3k plus to buy a share of Amazon, you can by a slice, or a fractional share and still get the benefits of ownership. It's a great idea and should have been done long ago.

Here is more on fractionalization: https://defirepublic.com/meet-dark-h...actional-nfts/

One other thing...what really disturbs me with this whole scene if the irony of it all. The original dream of Bitcoin was to make it a decentralized currency, not controlled by any Government or Nation state. Now you have auction sites popping up that skim a percentage of the final price on these NFT's. And, on top of that, I believe they get a piece everytime ownership changes hands. What happened to the original dream of no middleman? Sounds like a very centralized machine to me, right?

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss...

does that help?

best
Michael

p.s. everything I've written above is very much simplified and like others, it makes my head hurt. I'm positive there is much more complexity and nuance to all this that is way way way above my pay grade.

[Poisoned Youth]

The short of it is, he thinks it's approaching a point of such inflated hype that it's bubble territory. I agree with him. In the long run it may be a great idea, sure sounds like one but it won't be a smooth ride.

The hard part is getting people to look past the hype and misinformation, and focus on the future potential. This was the same (and still is to some extent) with blockchain.

As mentioned earlier, "in the real world", we only hear about the absurd transactions like a famous painting that sells for millions or The Beatles catalog rights. The difference is that only the 1% can participate in it. In the case of NFTs, there's this element that you could tokenize something that could essentially "go viral", and you'll make millions for some 8-bit artwork you made in 10 minutes. And there will be future examples of this, but that won't last long.

[Poisoned Youth]

To my understanding, all these "transactions" are taking place on the Etherium network. In order to verify them there are independent nodes set up by people where it takes massive amounts of electricity and compute power to process these transactions. These people are called miners, and are rewarded for doing this by being paid in more Etherium. Can someone please correct me if my understanding is flawed? Would appreciate it.

I used to mine Ethereum, and this is pretty much correct. If you're a PC gamer, you're probably pissed off at the scarcity of high-end graphics cards. The processing power in the graphics cards is what you need to process transactions. I wouldn't say it took "massive amounts" of electricity, but my rig was adding about $50 to my electric bill monthly because it was always on.

One other thing...what really disturbs me with this whole scene if the irony of it all. The original dream of Bitcoin was to make it a decentralized currency, not controlled by any Government or Nation state. Now you have auction sites popping up that skim a percentage of the final price on these NFT's. And, on top of that, I believe they get a piece everytime ownership changes hands. What happened to the original dream of no middleman? Sounds like a very centralized machine to me, right?

I think it's a lot more complex. I would say that the essence of crypto is still very much decentralized with developers committed to seeing it stays that way. But there will be a need for scale in some areas, and an opportunity for larger private companies to capitalize in some way. But that doesn't mean they are in control of it or that any one entity has monopolized it.

Take cryptocurrency exchanges for example. There are 3-4 rather popular exchange sites that are designed to be more secure and more traditional. In fact, Coinbase is about to go public (how is that for irony?). But there are also a growing number of decentralized exchanges or "DEX"s that operate without a central authority. One can trade there and often have greater access to trading options than the main exchanges.

[Jacob Holm-Lupo]

NFTs are not as mysterious as they sound. We ascribe value to any goods we exchange - from those little green pieces of paper to cars to LPs. And usually the value we give to an object has little to do with its inherent, material value.
For a prog example: Originals of K2's Boomland are sold for 200-300 dollars on ebay. That is not the inherent value of the plastic and cardboard, but the value some folks - enough folks - put on the joy of owning a rare, original album (of good music).
Same with NFTs, and I think they have solved a classic problem in the post-digitized world of art:
A buyer's ownership. Up until now it's been almost impossible to own digital files of for instance music. You can download an album on Spotify and think you have it, but later they might remove that album from their catalog, and you can no longer play it. Same even with iTunes. You change your computer, didn't back up your files, only to realize that albums you paid good money for no longer show up on iTunes. On Bandcamp artists may choose to delete songs and albums you have already paid for - bad luck if you didn't download it first. All this has been a bit of an elephant in the room with regards to customers paying for something they might not end up owning in the long run. NFTs appear to solve that issue. It'll be interesting to follow this and see how it develops.

[markwoll]

Here you go, soon reaching peak NFT's:

https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2021/03/15/nft

[Dana5140]

Keep it going, but thanks for all the very good information so far!

[miamiscot]

Block chain madness. Bitcoin music? Makes sense Kings Of Leon are all over this.

[neuroticdog]

The hard part is getting people to look past the hype and misinformation, and focus on the future potential. This was the same (and still is to some extent) with blockchain.

As mentioned earlier, "in the real world", we only hear about the absurd transactions like a famous painting that sells for millions or The Beatles catalog rights. The difference is that only the 1% can participate in it. In the case of NFTs, there's this element that you could tokenize something that could essentially "go viral", and you'll make millions for some 8-bit artwork you made in 10 minutes. And there will be future examples of this, but that won't last long.

Yes, super important to remember that, at least right now it's just seems to be the high profile artists are the ones making money. They already have the social network cred to make this happen. Excuse me while I go bid on Paris Hilton's latest digital art piece, she can really use the money.

People will learn soon enough that their street of dreams is paved with shards of glass. From what I've been reading, there is an entry cost to mint and get an NFT listed on an auction site, so right away the unknown artist is behind the eight ball a little bit. Right now all the media is reporting is the high profile huge money transactions. These don't include the 99%.

best
Michael

[progmatist]

With cryptocurrencies in particular, the value is tied to absolutely nothing. Like gold, the US Dollar, the Euro, the Pound Sterling, the Japanese Yen, the Chinese Yuan, etc. So they're highly volatile. And they're impossible to forecast, so the bottom can fall out at any moment, without any warning whatsoever.

[neuroticdog]

I think it's a lot more complex. I would say that the essence of crypto is still very much decentralized with developers committed to seeing it stays that way. But there will be a need for scale in some areas, and an opportunity for larger private companies to capitalize in some way. But that doesn't mean they are in control of it or that any one entity has monopolized it.

Take cryptocurrency exchanges for example. There are 3-4 rather popular exchange sites that are designed to be more secure and more traditional. In fact, Coinbase is about to go public (how is that for irony?). But there are also a growing number of decentralized exchanges or "DEX"s that operate without a central authority. One can trade there and often have greater access to trading options than the main exchanges.

Yeah, somewhere upthread I alluded to companies using their own privately developed blockchain to further their business. I think we are going to see more and more of this...everything from tracking supply chains of food from farm to table to document and contract management to probably tons of fintech solutions around settlement and buying/selling stocks. All of this will be incredibly beneficial to society in the future and is a movement that probably can't be stopped, but not decentralized.

My beef is not about monopolization because it's not going to be a winner take all game but, it could be a winner take most. The tech titans (Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft) just won't' simply go away overnight in favor of a decentralized world. Their lobbying power is too entrenched in our world order. We aren't going to wake up one day and see Web 2.0 replaced by Web 3.0 (as much as I hope I see it in my lifetime). As long as there are bankers and Wall street around, the old white haired men in 3 piece pinstriped suits are going to fight for their 95% of the world wealth and every time something like a decentralized currency gets close, you'll see a change of legislation happen faster than you can say Satoshi Nakamoto.

So when I hear Zuck trying to develop his own internet currency and/or the Federal Reserve trying to come up with a Central Bank Digital Currency (all in the guise of making a faster, more efficient way of commerce) please explain how the notion of decentralization will work then? I'm all for it, and would be beyond excited to see something like NFT's truly fulfill their potential...but right now I'm in the watch and learn phase and I'm not even cautiously optimistic (yet).

best
Michael

[neuroticdog]

NFTs are not as mysterious as they sound. We ascribe value to any goods we exchange - from those little green pieces of paper to cars to LPs. And usually the value we give to an object has little to do with its inherent, material value.
For a prog example: Originals of K2's Boomland are sold for 200-300 dollars on ebay. That is not the inherent value of the plastic and cardboard, but the value some folks - enough folks - put on the joy of owning a rare, original album (of good music).
Same with NFTs, and I think they have solved a classic problem in the post-digitized world of art:
A buyer's ownership. Up until now it's been almost impossible to own digital files of for instance music. You can download an album on Spotify and think you have it, but later they might remove that album from their catalog, and you can no longer play it. Same even with iTunes. You change your computer, didn't back up your files, only to realize that albums you paid good money for no longer show up on iTunes. On Bandcamp artists may choose to delete songs and albums you have already paid for - bad luck if you didn't download it first. All this has been a bit of an elephant in the room with regards to customers paying for something they might not end up owning in the long run. NFTs appear to solve that issue. It'll be interesting to follow this and see how it develops.

Yes...this ^^^!!!

You put this much more elegantly than I ever could...thank you. I was trying to bring this idea across when I was talking about the gaming community and their absolutely insatiable thirst to own that skin, or weapon, or power, or badge...or even being the digital owner of that Kings of Leon album that allows them to have dinner with the band or something. They can care less about a physical object...if they see the cred in owning a fractional piece of a Beeple, or a Lebron clip and can then brag about to their social network, well don't underestimate that!

best
Michael

[Sunlight Caller]

This is a really interesting discussion. I have been seeing the letters NFT pop up repeatedly recently, and only have limited understanding. I am still kicking myself for not getting involve with Bitcoin years ago when it first crossed my path, I would be retired with millions in the bank now... yes I would have converted to something I trust and understand better. I had read all about it, and was enthralled, but not enough to put any money where the big idea was, so my loss!

I saw the news article about the $69m digital artwork, it baffled me. Then I saw on Facebook that Roger Dean is selling some art via NFTs too, but I have not read deep into this story. I’ll be following the links that have been provided and try to up my knowledge base.

[neuroticdog]

I saw the news article about the $69m digital artwork, it baffled me. Then I saw on Facebook that Roger Dean is selling some art via NFTs too, but I have not read deep into this story. I’ll be following the links that have been provided and try to up my knowledge base.

Just for the sake of being on topic and relevant to the PE, can you please provide links to this?

thanks

Michael

[MudShark22]

https://www.loudersound.com/news/rog...first-nft-drop


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[neuroticdog]

https://www.loudersound.com/news/rog...first-nft-drop


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

awesome...thx. Will try and follow along on the auction and I wish RD all the luck in the world on this venture.

best
Michael

[MudShark22]

I went to the site.
I am unsure if it dropped or not.

I may dip a toe, dependent on cost.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[neuroticdog]

I went to the site.
I am unsure if it dropped or not.

I may dip a toe, dependent on cost.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

It says collection opens in 1 day, 55 minutes

And, without reading anything about using this auction site, I think the currency is Etherium but didnt confirm that.

also, there is a price of $999 listed there so it has a $ sign which implies U.S. currency, so I dont know how this works yet.

best
Michael

[neuroticdog]

some info on how to pay on Nifty Gateway

https://help.niftygateway.com/2020/0...nifty-gateway/

[Dana5140]

This article seems harsh, but I think it sums up my thinking to date: https://www.washingtonpost.com/enter...49a_story.html

[Sunlight Caller]

some info on how to pay on Nifty Gateway

https://help.niftygateway.com/2020/0...nifty-gateway/

So following the link I am looking at one of the artworks "Inland Sea II", released tomorrow in an edition size of 9,999 and they want $999 for this. So that is near enough $1 million in total and you would be a part owner of a digital representation of a physical painting. Obviously the physical painting would cost more than $999, but even though it is a Roger Dean, presumably considerably less than $1 million. I can get my head around wanting to hang the painting on my wall, indeed I would love to own a Dean original, but I cannot see the benefits of owning a digital copy amongst another 9,998 like-minded souls.

All in all, I think I understand the concept of the blockchain and asserting digital ownership rights for the creator. I just do not see what is in it for the buyer.

[markwoll]

The buyer gets cred. I saw an article relating NFT to having powerful magic items in games that they had to work hard for ( or spend a lot of real money for ). They are the goal for some people and grant them Clout or some other status points.

[MudShark22]

https://niftygateway.com/itemdetail/...02804676b918/1

If you click on the actual NFT item - the artwork has sound and animation



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk