NFT discussion

I figured its worth discussing again. I do not see any recent topics about NFT. People seem to be waking up to the fact that NFTs are NOT immutable. There are a couple recent issues, notably “Bored Mummies Waking Up” NFT which released and did not shuffle their attributes, so a block of NFT all were extra rare. Community members bought the rare ones on open market, then the devs decide to “shuffle” the attributes and people were left with NFT no longer rare. Devs made them whole again, but its showing cracks in the current NFT system.

Twitter user @Boring_Crypto said this today,
“cute, but actually you only semi-own a number that points to a non permanent link on a centralized server which may return some info and a jpeg. Maybe a pengu today and a goat tomorrow and a 404 the day after.
Surely we can do better…”

I agree with what they say, and I think Maidsafe can be a great place for immutable NFTs in the near future.

Thoughts on the current NFT craze?

6 Likes

Currently, NFTs are pixelated computer-generated art that goes in the trash at the next Bear Market.

By the way, MaidSafe is the company that is developing the first version of the Safe network.


Privacy. Security. Freedom

1 Like

Wow good insight.
They already did survive bear market, though I agree theyre running a bit hot at the moment.

Fine, $MAID, it is still MAID right? Excuse my mistype. Thanks

2 Likes

Yes the placeholder token is MAID, nothing changed there since ICO

I feel that with the Safe Network a system of proving ownership of something is fairly simple. Adapting the NRS (name resolution system) into a system for that (NFT if you want) is possible and not all that difficult.

The entry points to a record that contains the actual Data or record of authentication (if physical item). The entry can change ownership by the owner transferring ownership.

Thus owner is the owner of the entry and the proof of ownership of the item is what the entry points to.

As “fairly simple” as it sounds, it is groundbreaking compared to the current implementations.

5 Likes

There is so much we can do with NFT’s on Safe Network much more easily than others and for cheap.

As was already mentioned the NFT content is stored on the same network it’s minted, traded on, etc and would be visible from the browser or any app that wants to read that data.

So far it’s been discussed that NFT’s on Safe Network could be Digital Bearer Certificates (DBCs) with a type field, very much the same as Safe Network Token. This would mean fast and extremely low cost minting and transfers.

It’s been conceptualized here for quite some time already given how a users SafeID wallet can be tied directly to a piece of content or media that when it is listened to, that SafeID could be paid directly in real time. Or the rewards coulda be split amongst multiple wallets. You could even sell the streaming rights to a buyer or sell a portion share of the streaming rights. Etc etc.

Frustratingly to me, people are catching on to being able to jimmy rig this with what is currently being available out there now.
Network can’t launch soon enough but at least it will be done correctly. It will be easy, under the users full control, low cost, immutable and perpetual, highly accessible across the network, permissions can be shared across multiple apps or revoked at will.

There are other cool ideas in other threads if you’re interested!

9 Likes

Thanks @Nigel for the updated possibilities. That sounds good.

2 Likes

Thanks Nigel, DBCs sound good.

3 Likes

Currently, NFTs are pixelated computer-generated art that goes in the trash at the next Bear Market.

I think that really unfairly overstates the value of NFTs.

9 Likes

I do not understand NFTs or DBC. NFTs are about trying to jack up the price of shovelware?
DBC are not about hook ups and buying weed or hookers they are about trying to keep the damn natural gas pozi going by buying puppets in panama papers style. Its about tax evasion. Its just garbage that fuels bribery and the conversion of law into crime and democracy into slave based oligarchy. Both just seem to be dirty. On one side you get dirty billionaires benefitting and on the other the RIAA and MPAA? Maybe I have this wrong? I feel the same about smart contracts- they just want to make usuary more efficient. I guess I just don’t understand fintech- I don’t see its great liberating promise. It seems like a way of making money even less accountable and magnifying its conflicts of interest. I know SAFE has the coin going way back and I know Musk got his start with paypal but fintech at the bottom not involving the fiats seems dirty. I also don’t really understand the criticism of fiats. It seems that people that criticise fiats have too much faith in money. They they also think fiats are inflationary when they actually seem to make it possible to finally control inflation and deflation and speculation.

It can represent almost anything but it is meant to be verifiably unique, one of a kind, and provably owned by an address or digital identity. Literally a non-fungible token. The term and it’s hype are kind of annoying in my opinion but the concept can be leveraged for good, also in my opinion. A poor musician in a small town could provide a demo and auction off a percentage of sales or streaming rights to the winner, on a global scale with the goal of funding a major record. Maybe they should be vetted, verified, or funds held in escrow to avoid scamming but just one possibility.

Will NFT’s be a tool to make the rich richer? Yeah. Right now crypto punks, penguins, cats, that are jpegs basically trade for hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s ridiculous that anyone has enough money to throw at a jpeg you can just copy and paste. In a single system or network where all apps or virtual worlds have to respect each NFT as a scarce asset and not allow copies or display them as copies, only then does that somehow make an inkling of sense.

DBCs are just a digital cash but you already know that. What’s the point of them preserving privacy? Because privacy should be considered a fundamental human right. It is yet again just another agnostic tool that can be used for either good or evil, or just each age in general.

The rich will probably abuse it like they have the dollar but you don’t seem to have a problem with fiat. I don’t like fiat just because it’s used to fund war. Maybe slightly off topic but I wouldn’t even mind taxes if I could at least choose where my money goes. Instead of war I would fund public welfare, space exploration, environmental and humanitarian efforts. Since I can’t choose I would donate to such causes but after taxes I feel fleeced.

2 Likes

Unchained: Unconfirmed: How Another NFT Trend, .eth Names, Has Attracted the Likes of Budweiser - Ep.267 How Another NFT Trend, .eth Names, Has Attracted the Likes of Budweiser - Unchained Podcast

2 Likes

Re-introduce scarcity? Why? And sell streaming rights- that is laughable. It streams to the first person who pays and another records it and puts it on clearnet. The people who want NFTs just want (conscious or unconscious) a way to control other people through money.

I don’t think it’s laughable. There are people that will happily participate in such a market (the NFT market is existing proof of this) and to the artists benefit and they or at least the average musician or artist doesn’t get much benefit these days.

I’m surprised to hear you say it’s not good to provide more options to artists. I would hate to see it be good intentioned and morph into something ugly down the road so I’m open to such criticism there so it can hopefully be engineered out.

People might pirate pixels or digital audio etc but ownership of keys and therefore streaming income can’t be so that can potentially provide some leverage to an artist. Granted that means it has to be easy for “consumers” or fans rather, to choose the right thing, the actual artist and not some pirate. That’s why I think having artists verified and shown at the top of search results is a decent strategy to attempt to get the right choice in peoples faces, giving the artist a fairer shot and pirates less of a shot. It will also be encouraged that artists upload higher fidelity and in a future with Safe Compute then hopefully we could stream that higher fidelity music faster than the low fidelity copy cats.

Streaming live maybe on an exclusive angle for NFT, but even that might be worked around. The idea of proritized speed sounds like a royal road to censorship. Also don’t like the idea that something would be more expensive to access on the network than off.

In my mind the design should always prioritize the end user above all else. It should never in any way cator to so called content providers or ‘rights’ holders- shouldn’t even be thinking about that or be willing to consider it. If they do it right it is not a stake holder model, and content providers are not stake holders in this, even SAFE investors aren’t, there is only one stake holder: all of us in our difinitive role as end users. And to me storing data is not the core role or function either. The core function is the same as it was for the original internet: preserve communication under the most adverse conditions.

All that said I 'd like to see zero middleman so artists and others can work directly with customers. But I think a correct pricing model leaves payment if it comes at all under no pressure to the customer and only exactly what the customer thinks it is worth after the fact and primarily as a pump primer to encourage future works. All risk in this zero maginal cost environment must be born by the content contributor. I also think if the network is set up correctly ads and interruption and theft of attention models won’t be possible. Ads models in particular I think completely undermine democracy- democracy cannot withstand major conflicts of interest like sponsorship which is just damn patronage by another name.
And again for product information working search or AI enhanced query if free of conflicts of interest should be enough.

It’s not necessarily prioritized speed (though it could and maybe should be since the artist is verified) but rather that larger higher fidelity files will take more to stream than a pirated mp3. So the pirate would have a speed advantage, how would that be fair?

What I’d like to do is prioritize the end user and actual artist as equally as possible while not playing whackamole with pirates but giving them less surface area or influence. We can’t stop piracy but we can put top priority to stuff that is not pirated so that the fan is supporting who they are actually a fan of.

I agree with your first sentence though it will be hard to have zero middlemen but the goal will be as decentralized as possible with the right incentives to get the job done right. What I mean here is artists will need to be verified, some of that can be automated, content will need to be properly tagged, there’s a bunch of stuff and some of it will rely on clear net and maybe even computations that can’t happen on the network out of the gate.

When it comes to pricing, the streaming payouts will have to have a high amount of consideration to well being but no doubt must be far higher than what Apple, Spotify, and others offer. Pricing for downloads or NFT’s or exclusive content could be whatever the artist chooses. They could choose free if they want. Not anyone else’s decision but theirs and either people buy it because it’s fairly priced or they don’t and the artist adjusts to market demand.

I think we agree on a lot of the same things just say them wildly differently.

1 Like

Well lets start to calculate a floor. The artist will hopefully get on average what a generic second of human attention is worth for the first play if there is sufficient demand for their work. But even if there isn’t they might consider that price of a generic second a floor on asking price. Much of this relies on having scale with 8 billion humans- and there being no basic income or equivalent yet in most countries.

Spotify and others want something like $10 a month in a US market for access to pretty much all or most music. What would a universal subscription to every kind of content cost? I don’t think it should be very high and sure as hell shouldn’t have ads. There really is fair use like libraries and an inalienable speech commons which belongs to the public.

I think its time to lower our expectations on how lucrative pump priming and IP or content will be.
What about hedging for a practical future where IP is no more or doesn’t really have the practicality it used to.
What happens if we get these creative machines that make content seem to have generic high quality and totally obviate the need for stuff like application software like page maker- as quick as they can now code a custom order website they can whip up a page maker- so we just don’t need that stuff any more. We assume these things won’t have senses of humor or be charismatic or persuasive- we may be very wrong. Do we see a future where corporates patent all synthetically created stuff? I don’t. In such a world if we survive it, material gain won’t be connected to the value of capital- there won’t be this concern with “elevating the value of capital.”