The use case for NFTs is to provide a bulletproof cryptographically secured registry for arbitrary content. Such as deeds or titles. Legally recognized, that would represent a marked improvement on the current system. You can have it represent digital goods also, that’s just more of a toy than a useful tool.

Archival is extremely important and one of the side effects of copyright schemes is that they limit its viability. The less access people have, the more likely some work becomes lost forever. I’ve seen it a few times already, with recent work, but in one or two hundred years we’re talking about libraries of art that could have been preserved but are just gone.

Closed source software, that’s actually distributed to people, has all kinds of problems beyond that too. Tons has been written about that, but from an artistic perspective, I think the biggest loss is that people can’t legally expand the original work. Giant franchises with a central cultural presence get walled off and usually just go through a huge creative decline, which is crazy because there’s millions of people preoccupied with the concepts from the franchise who are barred from using them to express themselves. With software in specific, if it’s open source you can modify it, fix it, expand it, maintain it, whatever - there’s all these great resources they could use, but we won’t let them.

Open source software, love it or…eventually be miserable

deleted by creator

I’ve gotten so much recruitment crap from Amazon. This kind of crap is why none of those worked out for them.

That’s optimistic.

Kopimi

(edit 4 minutes in - hey I have this guy’s album already (“Red Extensions of Me”))

I’m basically on the same page as this guy except I don’t think the government has to manage a royalties system. People can handle that freely, no? Plus you can pretty immediately envision they’re gonna have some kind of asinine censorship policy for what content is acceptable and what content isn’t.

Honestly, not to blame the public, but people were sitting here for the last decade going, don’t like being censored? Don’t use Google/Facebook/whatever. Don’t like being tracked across the internet? Don’t use Google/Facebook/whatever. And everyone kept using it. As for streaming services, I mean, if you don’t want monopolistic pricing power, abolish copyright/DMCA. We complain constantly about the consequences of these big corps but society keeps religiously buying shit from them or participating in their services. Just like complaining constantly about global warming but driving your car 3 miles to the store to get a 1L bottle of water. We set up these structures and put people in these positions where they can exploit you, then act surprised when they do, and we have an excuse for why we think every individual part of it needs to stay exactly the same.

OK, maybe to blame the public a little.

We need to vote on bills directly, having representatives is stupid.

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.

Well, maybe some day we’ll all catch a glimpse of your true brilliance.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/730818/average-number-of-ethereum-transactions/

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.

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.

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?

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.

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”.

Any basic “you may like this” algorithm can produce those results.

There are places where it’s absolutely necessary, there are places where it’s inconvenient to get rid of but a good idea, and there are places where it’s absolutely stupid to use plastic.

The actual guy generating the content by the way, not to be confused with the middleman platform that just serves it up to you.