/loomis/ - Art Gains

Art, Animation, Etcetera!

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Mode: Reply
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8000

Files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

Captcha
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules

The backup domain is located at 8chan.se. .cc is a third fallback. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 2.0.



8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

We're All Gonna Make It Join us on DrawPile (Software: https://drawpile.net/ | Host address: artga.in) in the /loomis/ channel, official meetup sunday afternoons ( 2pm US CST/CDT [9pm EU CET] ) with regular activity found throughout the week!

I don't get the NFT market Anonymous 08/27/2021 (Fri) 17:28:29 No. 3885
I have been around Opensea for a few months, together with some others, and I don't get how some art is being sold there while I'm offering my stuff for free and not getting buyers. Does anyone here have one of those invitations for a better website to sell? maybe some advice? help
My knowledge begins and ends at "I'm kind of aware of what NFTs are, somewhat." That said digital collectibles have the same requirements to be successful that physical collectibles do; Marketing. What separates a curio from a collectible is a person's knowledge of what it is and for it to be wanted by several people. Offering a pile of "collectibles" for free is kind of like trying to offload a bin of Beanie Babies. Only, there's no nostalgia factor and they can't double as cute stuffed animals to pass off to kids. Find forums interested in whatever the subject of your NFTs is and offer a few as a promotion, or hold some sort of raffle or contest or whatever. Doesn't matter so long as you treat them as if they have value. If a creator treats their work as worthless then potential owners/customers are also going to see the whatever as worthless. I guess you could also ride the coattails of some other popular NFT twatters to promote your stuff to your "market".
>>3885 First problem is no NFT is free. There's still an associated gas fee. Second if you value your art at 0, everyone will believe your art is just that, nothing.
>>3893 >I pirate NFTs on principle I really need you to explain how to do this as there's a 69 million dollar NFT I really fucking want to have.
>>3898 >just take a picture of the NFT Ah, you don't understand how an NFT works then, my mistake. Really had high hopes there.
>>3935 All art is fundamentally worthless. Art assigned a specific value destroying interpretation is no longer art.
>there are anons that still haven't realized it's literally all just money laundering I know artists sometimes don't have the minds to gasp this stuff but literally no one is unironically paying for NFT's of jpg's, not a single person. Every single NFT of a jpg being sold is only being used to hide other purchases that they don't want on the books, literally every single one. There is no market value for "owning" a random string of characters. >>3936 Except NFT's isn't the purchasing of art so the comparison is retarded. NFT's isn't the act of selling art, or even selling the rights to art. You're literally just selling a string of characters that points to a jpg. You're buying nothing, actually nothing. Art has value in that I might want something specific depicted for my own pleasure that I can commission. Or it has value in that it simply looks nice and I want it on my wall. The range of that value might be subjective, but we can all generally understand how those two things are at the very least tangible. NFT's are not, they are nothing. Their only value is in money laundering. Something that art was already notorious for to begin with. Except now you don't even have the veil of that tangible product to hide behind.
To be fair... Money laundering is based and I think on that alone we should pretend that this is a real thing people pay for.
>>3945 I don't care that people launder money. I care that retards don't understand that's what's being done and think they can make millions of dollars selling strings of 0's and 1's that point to a link of a jpg. It would be like someone coming here and asking how they could get a canvas with 3 shit smeared lines on to sell for $800,000 like some faggot they read about online did. The answer is to become a fucking hitman and murder people.
>>3939 The only thing required for an NFT to have value is for others to believe it has value. Yes, the big purchases are money laundering schemes, but there are speculators out there that value that purchases of NFTs purely for the profit to be made by reselling them. >>3946 All you need to do to make millions selling physical shitstain paintings is playing social games, networking and shit testing people by offering your art for outrageous prices. You'll eventually get there.
>>3947 >but there are speculators out there that value that purchases of NFTs purely for the profit to be made by reselling them. I refuse to accept or believe this. Maybe if you were purchasing the rights to something over the blockchain it would be understandable, but an NFT is nothing. You own literally fucking nothing when buying an NFT. No rights transfer, no physical product is acquired, no server is provided, no commerce actually occurs.
>>3948 >I refuse to accept or believe this. You can say this, but having personally talked to speculators, these people do exist and purely exist to exploit the market. The people who bought Stonetoss NFTs and the Dilbert NFTs come to mind. >You own literally fucking nothing when buying an NFT. No rights transfer, no physical product is acquired, no server is provided, no commerce actually occurs. This applies to any cryptocurrency as well. Is crypto also a money laundering scheme to you?
>>3951 >This applies to any cryptocurrency as well. Is crypto also a money laundering scheme to you? It applies to some cryptocurrencies, and the ones it applies to are money laundering or even outright rug-pulls. All cryptocurrency is not devoid of value. Plenty of them have inherent value in the technology they offer. NFT's don't offer technology, they offer nothing. They don't even offer a sales pitch of useless technology. They don't even TRY to scam you. It's apparent from the get-go that it's completely devoid of value. There isn't even the attempted illusion of value.
>>3952 >All cryptocurrency is not devoid of value. But it's all just 1 and 0s anon. > Plenty of them have inherent value in the technology they offer. Such as NFTs? Which is a purely crypto construct? >They don't even TRY to scam you. Oh no my friend, plenty try to scam you. Let me introduce you to Waifusion. >https://waifusion.io/ Feel free to pay 2000$ to get one randomly generated waifu. How about if I explained it like this. What if I told you some retards believe NFTs have value and if enough retards believe NFTs have value NFTs actually have value? It's like how DOGE is still sitting at 30 cents. Do you think they're holding it because they just absolutely believe in the tech? It only has value because people believe it has value. That's all I'm going to posit. Some retards believe it has value and thus by definition it has value. We can argue if it will *last*, but that is separate from whether or not it has value *now*.
>>3954 >But it's all just 1 and 0s anon. So is your operating system. Surely you can distinguish between the value behind what those 1s and 0s represent. >Such as NFTs? Which is a purely crypto construct? NFTs don't have inherent technological value. Technology existing doesn't mean it's fulfilling a fundamental need in society. >What if I told you some retards believe NFTs have value and if enough retards believe NFTs have value NFTs actually have value? I think there's a difference between being able to extract value out of something and it having inherent value. Amazon stock will literally only ever go up. Buying Amazon is an investment. DOGE is completely fucking useless. Buying and selling DOGE is a matter of extracting money from people more retarded than you are and leaving them holding the bag. NFTs are the same way. You might extract value from an NFT, but they don't actually have any inherent value. There are technologies like Monero that have inherent value because of the technology they offer. There will never be a time where being able to transfer funds anonymously doesn't have a significant degree of value. It's impossible for that tech and network to not be valuable, people will always care about privacy. Things having value because we think they have value is a concept that I can't accept. For this reason I think bitcoin is also worthless. You can extract money out of bitcoin, but it has been surpassed and then some by other technology.
>>3956 >So is your operating system. Surely you can distinguish between the value behind what those 1s and 0s represent. Because it serves a use I have, much like NFTs do for some people. >NFTs don't have inherent technological value. Technology existing doesn't mean it's fulfilling a fundamental need in society. What does a need being fundamental have to do with anything? People are selling overpriced haircuts and dog shampooing services, are those "fundamental" needs? Putting that to the side if NFTs are fulfilling someone's need somewhere does that not mean that it meets your criteria for value? >I think there's a difference between being able to extract value out of something and it having inherent value. And that would be? You provide examples, but I'm not understanding the underlying premises. Furthermore, let's say I concede this point, assuming I ask you to now use the word "value" to denote "I can extract value from this", do NFTs now have value? Because from my perspective I could not give a single fuck about the supposed underlying value and only what can be extracted, and I care about no other factors. >There are technologies like Monero that have inherent value because of the technology they offer. There will never be a time where being able to transfer funds anonymously doesn't have a significant degree of value. It's impossible for that tech and network to not be valuable, people will always care about privacy. Okay so you seem to be conflating the concept of something "having value" with something being a "having lasting value across time" is this the point you are actually trying to make? >Things having value because we think they have value is a concept that I can't accept. For this reason I think bitcoin is also worthless. Going by this logic the US dollar is also worthless and is only viewed as valuable because people agree it is valuable. So this argument applies to fiat too.
>>3956 Do you believe rare stamps have value when they sell for several million dollars? Why or why not?
>>3957 >much like NFTs do for some people. What use do NFTs serve? >People are selling overpriced haircuts and dog shampooing services, are those "fundamental" needs? These are tangible experiences. An NFT is nothing. You don't get exclusive rights to download jpg, you get nothing. If you really enjoy the act of burning money then I suppose that's the value someone might get out of an NFT. But I think you'd be hard pressed to convince someone that is legitimate commerce and not a mental illness being exploited. >Because from my perspective I could not give a single fuck about the supposed underlying value and only what can be extracted, and I care about no other factors. It's cool that you don't care about people being manipulated and exploited, but society generally looks down upon that behavior and we have laws and regulations in place to prevent it for a reason. The value in these products is the ability to transfer money from stupid peoples accounts into your account. That's literally all there is. Nothing is being generated, nothing is happening. The only difference is that now someone has more money and somehow has less. I don't find the ability to extract value out of things that have none impressive, I find it detestable. At one point in history people got genocided and world wards got started over just that kind of behavior. >Okay so you seem to be conflating the concept of something "having value" with something being a "having lasting value across time" is this the point you are actually trying to make? We are getting lost in semantics. Things can have value without being useful. They have this value for no reason. So I worded this as you being able to extract value from something that isn't valuable. Meaning it's useless but idiots will give you money for it because they're stupid. To call nothing valuable because you can sell it for significant value sounds stupid to me so I refuse to do it. Do I call a generic rock valuable as long as I can convince an intellectually impaired wheelchair bound retard on the side of the street to give me his welfare check in exchange for it? I sold the rock to someone for $500, so it's valuable right? Except all I really did was abuse some poor retard. We would not accept this definition of value so we shouldn't accept similar applications at scale. >Going by this logic the US dollar is also worthless and is only viewed as valuable because people agree it is valuable. So this argument applies to fiat too. Yeah. >>3958 A stamp is no different than any other kind of art. It's just smaller. If I can accept that the mono lisa has value as art then I can easily accept that stamps can too.
>>3959 >What use do NFTs serve? Creating exclusivity in the realm of digital art, as far as I can tell. Do I find NFTs valuable? No, not really, but I know humans value exclusivity, and I understand that NFTs offer artists the ability to create exclusivity, and these two facts paired together means that value was generated. Though it's about as tough a market to break into as selling hard copy originals. Why? Because you're selling the same thing. Anyone can take a picture of the Mona Lisa, anyone can download a picture of the Mona Lisa, anyone with an internet connection can enjoy the intrinsic value of the Mona Lisa, but there is only one Mona Lisa. Likewise, anyone can download a jpeg, what you are buying is not the jpeg, it's the exclusivity of owning that specific arrangement of pixels, and just like the Louvre probably doesn't give a fuck that anyone can take a picture of the Mona Lisa, they still own it. Anyone can download a jpeg, but now I have a system of managing exclusivity. You can say it's silly to claim you own the arrangement of pixels, but I would claim it's equally silly to claim you own the land you're on because a pretty piece of paper from the government says you do. >But I think you'd be hard pressed to convince someone that is legitimate commerce and not a mental illness being exploited. I view it the same as any other form of exclusivity where the only value it has is because of it's exclusivity, which only holds value as much as people envy the exclusivity. I >Do I call a generic rock valuable as long as I can convince an intellectually impaired wheelchair bound retard on the side of the street to give me his welfare check in exchange for it? I sold the rock to someone for $500, so it's valuable right? By definition yes and crystal healing companies make millions off of this model. What you described it is a currently operational industry. Though I'd hire you in a minute if you could manage to sell a generic rock for 500$ because you, yourself, would be a god of a salesman, and I fucking want you on my side if you can do that. Just imagine what you could manage if you were selling something like production models, hot damn. You make selling a bad product sound easy, most scams just rely on outright lying as opposed to actually convincing the other person the object has value. >Yeah. Ooooooh, so an NFT is as much as a scam as Bitcoin is, and bitcoin is as much as a scam as fiat is, which means an NFT is as real as fiat. Interesting. One last question, why is gold valuable? If you say industry uses, assume before we developed any scientific uses for it. Why has gold ever been valuable? >If I can accept that the mono lisa has value as art then I can easily accept that stamps can too. Is the value stored in the original Mona Lisa or is stored in the appearance of the Mona Lisa anyone with a computer can enjoy at anytime?
>>3960 >Creating exclusivity in the realm of digital art, as far as I can tell. What the fuck does that even mean? What is exclusive about an NFT? I can download the exact same image with the exact same hash as the owner of the NFT can. That's the farthest you can possibly get from exclusive. You literally just right click the image and save it. >Mona Lisa, anyone with an internet connection can enjoy the intrinsic value of the Mona Lisa, but there is only one Mona Lisa. Likewise, anyone can download a jpeg, what you are buying is not the jpeg, it's the exclusivity of owning that specific arrangement of pixels, and just like the Louvre probably doesn't give a fuck that anyone can take a picture of the Mona Lisa, they still own it. No, you're absolutely wrong. You are not owning a specific arrangement of pixels at all. That is not how NFTs work. I can have the exact same pixel for pixel copy of that JPG. Often the image itself isn't even hosted on the ethereum network and the NFT is just a URL pointing to the location of the image on a server. There is literally nothing preventing me from ripping that content directly and having an exact copy of the "NFT". What the actual NFT is is literally just a digital string of characters saying that you bought that jpg, not a unique version of that jpg. You're buying the receipt to a jpg, not buying a jpg. Anyone else can have that jpg, an identical version of it, but only you have the receipt. But a digit receipt to an infinitely reproducible item where each copy is mathematically indistinguishable from the next is completely fucking useless. >By definition yes and crystal healing companies make millions off of this model And they should be all put in prison for being useless fucks. >One last question, why is gold valuable? If you say industry uses, assume before we developed any scientific uses for it. Why has gold ever been valuable? Silver and gold are valuable as currency because they're rare and because iron rusts, titanium is difficult to smelt, aluminum is hard to extract, platinum/palladium/rhodium/iridium/osmium/ruthenium are too rare so their coins would be too small and difficult to transact with. So by process of elimination silver and gold are natural currencies. Why consider any noble metals currencies in the first place? Because they're shiny and rare. Do you know what isn't shiny and rare? Diamonds. Do you know who is in charge of the bullshit diamond trade? Kikes. >Is the value stored in the original Mona Lisa or is stored in the appearance of the Mona Lisa anyone with a computer can enjoy at anytime? Unlike your claims about NFTs only a single atom for atom copy of the mona lisa exists. So the exclusivity argument actually applies. An NFT would be like selling someone a receipt for the mona lisa at the museum and giving only them the special receipt, then telling them to fuck off and that they have no rights to the actual piece. It's a completely meaningless gesture and you would be considered a fucking laughing stock for buying it.
>>3962 >Do you know what isn't shiny and rare? Diamonds Diamonds are obviously shiny, I just meant they aren't rare.
>>3962 >What the fuck does that even mean? What is exclusive about an NFT? It not being the jpg. Anyone can have the jpg. Only one can have the NFT. Even uploading copies of the jpg to the blockchain aren't the original NFT because it's address is written elsewhere. >But a digit receipt to an infinitely reproducible item where each copy is mathematically indistinguishable from the next is completely fucking useless. It's only as useful as people perceive it to be for monetary purposes, again, about as useful as a piece of paper indicating you own the land you're on. >Silver and gold are valuable as currency because they're rare and because iron rusts, titanium is difficult to smelt, aluminum is hard to extract, platinum/palladium/rhodium/iridium/osmium/ruthenium are too rare so their coins would be too small and difficult to transact with. So by process of elimination silver and gold are natural currencies. Why consider any noble metals currencies in the first place? Because they're shiny and rare. Are you saying that the reason gold and silver are valuable is because there's exclusivity in how many people can have it? >Unlike your claims about NFTs only a single atom for atom copy of the mona lisa exists. So the exclusivity argument actually applies. An NFT would be like selling someone a receipt for the mona lisa at the museum and giving only them the special receipt, then telling them to fuck off and that they have no rights to the actual piece. It's a completely meaningless gesture and you would be considered a fucking laughing stock for buying it. I'm confused, in the example of digital art then, where is the "original" or a digital art piece? You're stating that the receipt is just a receipt, okay, then where is the original? Is there one?
>>3966 >It's only as useful as people perceive it to be for monetary purposes, again, about as useful as a piece of paper indicating you own the land you're on. They are absolutely not the same level of usefulness. Unless you're using the NFT system to verify rights to something they aren't comparable. I suppose they could technically be used like that, but I have absolutely no idea why you would even need specifically an NFT when smart contracts are already baked into ethereum. A piece of paper saying I own land gives me the right to shoot people for trespassing. A piece of paper saying I purchased that piece of paper and it's vaguely related to a JPG is fucking useless. If it isn't transferring the rights to that image then there's no point. >Are you saying that the reason gold and silver are valuable is because there's exclusivity in how many people can have it? That is one aspect of why gold and silver are used as currency. I listed a number of other reasons why they are too, them being aesthetically pleasing is the other vital one. >I'm confused, in the example of digital art then, where is the "original" or a digital art piece? You're stating that the receipt is just a receipt, okay, then where is the original? Is there one? There is no such thing as an original digital asset. Digital media/assets are infinitely reproducible with mathematically indistinguishable differences. We even have programs to verify this reality when downloading software to make sure it hasn't been modified anywhere in the download pipeline. My copy of linux is identical to your copy of linux. If there is a discernible difference between two copies of the same version of linux then something has gone wrong or the server has been compromised.
>>3981 >A piece of paper saying I purchased that piece of paper and it's vaguely related to a JPG is fucking useless. If it isn't transferring the rights to that image then there's no point. It is transferring the rights to that pictures specific encoding on the block chain, of which their can only be one, which makes it rare and exclusive as a digital asset. >That is one aspect of why gold and silver are used as currency. I listed a number of other reasons why they are too, them being aesthetically pleasing is the other vital one. Well digital art also has aeshetic value, so I suppose NFTs are trying to add the addition of exclusivity, but again you don't seem to understand the difference between the image itself and owning the NFT of the image, and why that generates value. >There is no such thing as an original digital asset. Digital media/assets are infinitely reproducible with mathematically indistinguishable differences. We even have programs to verify this reality when downloading software to make sure it hasn't been modified anywhere in the download pipeline. My copy of linux is identical to your copy of linux. If there is a discernible difference between two copies of the same version of linux then something has gone wrong or the server has been compromised. So you're saying there's a need to generate originals for monetary purposes for digital assets?
>>3987 >It is transferring the rights to that pictures specific encoding on the block chain Usually what you actually get is a URL, which might currently point to a particular image but could at any time turn into a 404 or be silently replaced with something else. It's inherently volatile.
(253.15 KB 800x800 ETH_minerkike.png)

Nfts are purely speculations. People buy them because they expect to be able to sell them later at a higher price. For the price to rise you need to create hype which is the result of good marketing. Personally I would look at the team's marketing budget before deciding whether to invest in a particular project. I would say that $10k is the bare minimum marketing budget for the project to take off. In order to successfully launch a nft you need a relatively large initial investment and it is risky business. That being said shilling on an obscure board with 12 users is a waste of time. ETH gas fee is super high right now due to nft.
>>3987 >It is transferring the rights to that pictures specific encoding on the block chain, of which their can only be one, which makes it rare and exclusive as a digital asset. The rights of what? You don't get copyright, you don't get permission to use that image in any way. You're transferring nothing. You're transferring a receipt for a receipt associated with an image. If you wanted to buy the rights to an image you would just go buy the rights to the image. >So you're saying there's a need to generate originals for monetary purposes for digital assets? There is zero need for it. I suppose you could maybe technically do it, but it would be utterly pointless. NFTs could perhaps serve a purpose for authenticating real art. Meaning you buy a physical piece of art and are also transferred the NFT for that piece so you can cryptographically verify the authenticity or ownership of that physical thing. But there is no good faith use in doing that for an infinitely reproducible intangible thing like digital assets. Maybe if you wanted to implement some orwellian DRM crypto based bullshit that would be a bad faith use. Artificial scarcity is immoral. But as NFTs are being interacted with here and now it's just stupid.


Forms
Delete
Report
Quick Reply