Loading...
> >

Commentary on The Daz 3D Non-Fungible People Holiday Challenge

123578

Comments

  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 40,049

    it's like going to a banquet and admiring the dirty dishes

  • AlmightyQUESTAlmightyQUEST Posts: 2,006

    I've been in galleries showing digital art already, connections to NFTs not required. I don't understand how you are saying NFTs are a medium.

    And I'm not knocking modern art, I love plenty of modern art, and I'm not knocking digital art. My fondness for digital art is why I've been so upset about the direction DAZ3D has chosen.

  • glaseyeglaseye Posts: 1,312

    Mada said:

    just look at Duchamp's toilet that's worth $2 million :

    Not to me, just a worthless piece of crap wink. But then to me, value is not so much determined by what somewhat paid for it or is willing to pay for it. As to NFT's, personally I don't see it  as a medium, just an overexpensive (in more ways then one) link to a medium. But I also think that the ones in favor of NFT's will never convince the ones who are against it - and vice versa.

  • MadaMada Posts: 2,043
    edited December 2021

    There's a lot of people who see and saw it that way - but its still worth money - I see so many similarites to NFTs. This discussion is super interesting and I love hearing all the opinions - I'll be back later today, my son is taking me for breakfast and a trip to the zoo :D

    Post edited by Mada on
  • SevrinSevrin Posts: 6,313

    Mada said:

    interesting link... I suspect we'll see more art museums adding an nft section :)

    http://www.geekwire.com/2021/tech-entrepreneurs-opening-seattle-nft-museum-to-showcase-digital-artform-in-a-physical-space/amp/

    That's a showcase to promote investments, not art.  Why would digital artwork being tagged as NFTs make it anymore worth viewing than artwork that wasn't connected to the blockchain?  Why not just have a museum for price tags or stock portfolios?

  • AlmightyQUESTAlmightyQUEST Posts: 2,006

    To be clear what I mean about it not being a medium, local coverage has shown some of the works that are going to be at this gallery I believe (or other local galleries) under NFT coverage. They have shown some cool VR and AR artwork. But none of what they are showing have the NFT process as part of the artwork. You can have VR spaces without NFTs, you can have AR artwork without NFTs, both of these things existed before.

  • AlmightyQUESTAlmightyQUEST Posts: 2,006

    glaseye said:

    Mada said:

    just look at Duchamp's toilet that's worth $2 million :

    Not to me, just a worthless piece of crap wink. But then to me, value is not so much determined by what somewhat paid for it or is willing to pay for it. As to NFT's, personally I don't see it  as a medium, just an overexpensive (in more ways then one) link to a medium. But I also think that the ones in favor of NFT's will never convince the ones who are against it - and vice versa.

    I don't know about that, I've seen people online go from defending NFTs to reading into what's going on with them further, to realizing all the problems we're talking about here and turning against them.

  • TaozTaoz Posts: 10,249

    CHWT said:

    MelissaGT said:

    PerttiA said:

    Three years shy of sixty, and I'm frequently finding myself thinking "what's happening with the world?..."

    Today the papers wrote about someone paying $650k for an NFT with a badly modelled ship that can be used in a game that has not yet even been released (The Sandbox)...

    So they paid $650K for a link to a picture of a ship model, and not the actual model itself? Or am I still missing the sheer ridiculousness of this whole NFT thing.  

    This alone is the most ridiculous aspect of NFT. It just doesn't make sense. Whether harmful to the environment or not.

    +1

  • SnowSultanSnowSultan Posts: 3,773
    edited December 2021

    Well, I think I can answer why certain NFTs are worth something. Is because they have been minted. And now they are forever part of the blockchain of whatever currency, So no one can own that mint of NFT, unless that owner sells it. It  has it's own hash. Which makes the piece unqiue. I too do not understand how some of these NFTs can be worth so much.  Most of the art NFTs I have bought have been 1.00 to 20.00 usd. And then you just hold them for the future when they might rise in price. That is why I invest more in the game NFTs. Utility is the key for me in the NFT world. 

     

    "So no one can own that mint of NFT, unless that owner sells it. It  has it's own hash. Which makes the piece unqiue."

    And again I ask, how does any of that make an NFT purchase worthwhile?

    Even if you took everything negative out of the equation -  let's assume no NFTs harmed the environment, they weren't likely being used for money laundering and other criminal activity, they were artworks created by actual humans, they didn't have a practical in-game function, and 99.9% of them didn't look like something you just scrubbed off your toilet: WHY would anyone pay money for them? Why do people believe that an image with a unique hash makes it more valuable than the countless copies of it already on the internet? What factors would make something like that increase in value to where people are willing to spend more than just a dollar or two to have their name attached to it?

    I'm really not sure if anyone can answer that with much more than "it's fun" or "it's the future", or "you just don't get it".

    Post edited by SnowSultan on
  • Saxa -- SDSaxa -- SD Posts: 880

    Mada said:

    interesting link... I suspect we'll see more art museums adding an nft section :)

    http://www.geekwire.com/2021/tech-entrepreneurs-opening-seattle-nft-museum-to-showcase-digital-artform-in-a-physical-space/amp/

    https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2021/06/nfts-and-the-law-what-do-i-actually-own/

    Concerning.  Is commerical ownership really off the table?  Humans (sic) are involved and many love money first.  This article discusses the legal implications.  Lots to unpack and see going forward.

    (unlike Tulip Craze, this NFT has legal ownership implications and subject to sale terms, and maybe other vendors will change terms?  To me, potentially scary as heck for impact on metaverse and ideas in virtual reality that in a way have been around forever.)

    Anyway for some of you, Enjoy the next wild-west land rush!

  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 40,049
    edited December 2021

    I would rather browse Artstation like I frequently do, and it has download buttons for all the images so I can add them to my desktop wallpaper gallery as I do wink

     

    this all somewhat reminds me of those Gacha Life Species people buy, those are at least actual game fan art drawings though or the rights to draw a particular species agreed upon within their community.

    I never understood that either but watched many amusing Youtube videos about their squabbles.

    Post edited by WendyLuvsCatz on
  • plasma_ringplasma_ring Posts: 1,027
    edited December 2021

    SnowSultan said:

    ChadCrypto, thanks for the detailed explanation. The game-related NFTs make some sense, especially if you can earn them in-game. As you said that is primarily where you deal with NFTs, perhaps someone else might be able to answer my original question though - why does anyone think that these 'artistic' NFTs will increase in value? You mentioned *how* they can (by being resold, etc), but I'm still waiting for anyone to explain WHY someone would spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a virtual piece of art that not only everyone else can own via right-click or printscreen, that you cannot hang on a wall or place on a shelf, and that has no real logical *reason* to increase in value.

    The very first 3D render I ever posted online (possibly the first finished 3D art I ever made) is likely floating around on the internet somewhere. It's 23 years old and I do not even have a copy. It's a curiosity and perhaps interesting to anyone who follows my work or knows me, but why should it be worth anything? If someone made it into an NFT, would I buy it back? No, I'd say "wow, that guy found it", right-click to Save Image and then report him for art theft.

    I think the concept of NFTs is interesting, but certainly not the current iteration of them. Right now it really feels like a bubble waiting to burst.

    You more or less have to buy into the idea of the metaverse/Web 3.0 being the next iteration of the internet--and believe it will replace the current version of the internet entirely--to extrapolate that these will have long term value simply for existing. The thinking goes that everyone will have a virtual space where they hang out in VR and showcase their virtual possessions, and in that world having bought an NFT now means you got in on the ground floor of the future. Descriptions of how this is meant to work and how NFTs are supposed to integrate with games sound to me exactly like what gamers come up with when they've never made a game but decide they could do MMORPGs better than anything on the market--as though the real reason we're not all running around in fully-immersive virtual worlds is a failure of imagination and not that making shared spaces online that actually work is really hard and expensive.

    Re: why people would buy them if there were no ethical downsides, I mentioned this in the NFT forum but I actually really loved the first pitch I heard for NFTs and could have gotten way into them if it'd worked out that way. The concept was sort of like a variation on the Ko-fi or Patreon model, where a supporter buys an artist's NFT knowing that the value is primarily given through the act of buying it and establishing that it's something with personal meaning. A person buying the "original" minted version of a specific 3D animation would be doing it to support the artist for having produced it, and in that case displaying the NFT is a way to promote the artist and advertise that you believe their work is valuable enough to pay for. This already works with commissions and existing patronage avenues, but it would be a way for people with a lot of money to do the equivalent of purchasing a gallery piece from an independent artist to show off to all their friends. If it works that way, it having resale value makes sense, and so do the royalty payments in perpetuity. 

    Except it's not about that, it's about turning art into stocks on marketplaces about as meaningful as Redbubble. The model I described above does not require infinite growth to sustain itself and is not dependent on crypto becoming the currency of the land. It also doesn't require that the art itself gain subjective monetary value, because the original purchaser is simply demonstrating that the artist's work has value to them.

    Post edited by plasma_ring on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,847
    edited December 2021

    McGyver said:

    I think what some people are missing is that's it's less of a generational divide than what some of us feel are ethical issues.

    Without going through explaining the whole thing again for the Nth time, NFTs are minted using the same basic methods as Cryptocurrenies, and these are all to some degree vastly wasteful of energy, generating huge amounts of greenhouse gasses and waste heat in the process... regardless of what anyone at the moment says, the science says it's not a great time to be heating up the planet more at such a scale.

    And that not even remotely touching on the exploitive “Fear Of Missing Out” sales tactics employed by many in pushing NFTs, or all the illegal activities that crypto has been used to untraceably fund.

    So there is that.

    Then there is the Meta/VR thing... VR on its own is freaking great, it's fully immersive and amazing and will only get better... but the slant on this which we all keep getting pummeled with, ultimately keeps leaning towards the social media aspects of this “new world”, like for example, about how you can "wear" a virtual walrusman costume as your VR social media avatar. 

    Yay... 

    but it's really the social media aspect that many people are fed up with... I honestly don't know what to tell people who don’t understand other people's aggravation and resentment towards social media as it stands.

    If you are not aware of all the bad things that have come to fruition recently, all the negative things these companies have done, and continued to do after they realized it was bad, that’s one thing… but knowing about it and pretending “it’s nothing” is on you. 

    And yes, I know the Metaverse and Facebook/Meta are two different things, but they and most social media companies are chomping at the bit to become fully entrenched in every aspect the Metaverse in one way or another to the point where they are unavoidable. 
    That’s not me, that’s pretty much the summary of their own words in press releases and lectures.

    So that’s not coming out of nowhere.

    It’s not about age, it’s about “maybe some of this ain’t right, and if you don’t address that, I’m not on board with it”… And sorry, but a company promising they’ll do something, maybe, perhaps, one day in the undefined future, maybe, perhaps, is absolutely meaningless.

    I can’t speak for others, but I’m sure most of the folks objecting here don’t give a flying fig’s fart what you spend your money on… if someone wants to pay $20 for an image of a Beanie-boo doll locked away in mountain vault in Tibet that they get to share with two hundred other people and don’t own the rights to, that’s their business… but if that actual Beanie-boo is spewing out tons of greenhouse gases, maybe people should be bothered by that part… it’s not the collecting, it’s the environmental damaging that’s objectionable.

    Same with VR, I don’t care if you want to wear a llamacorn costume when you visit your insomniac sea captains group, that’s not the problem… its neither sea captains or insomnia people are objecting to… it’s that the place hosting that meeting is one way or another responsible for a lot of nefarious crap, and even if it’s not the exact same in virtual world version of their services yet, it probably soon will be because they have no incentive to not do it again in VR, “engagement” equals cash bro… in fact they’ve all expressed (swooned on it really) that the VR aspect of social media is way more lucrative because of all the virtual merch you can sell people… So engagement + virtual merch = untold riches. 
    When did vast wealth with no consequences ever lead to bad things?

    So really, it’s not about being on top of cool trends or being a Luddite stuck in the past…. It’s about objecting to things we should all be concerned about.

    Unless you got some other planet you intend to move to when this one is on fire?

     

     

     

    ...+1 and well said.

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,847

    Greymom said:

    Thank you, McGyver and MelissaGT, and others, for the excellent summaries of the issues!

    Just to illustrate that this is NOT a generational/neo-Luddite issue, my college-age sons are even more opposed to NFTs and similar trends than I am.   They and their friends have largely withdrawn from FB and other "mainstream" social media.  They have warned me in great detail about the social and environmental impact of NFTs, Cryptocurrency, the MetaVerse/VR, etc.  I have been involved with computers about as long as there have been computers, and have been reading science fiction voraciously since the '50s, yet they are even more aware of both current and potential problems than I am.  I think this is a vary hopeful sign.

    I would characterize Cryptocurrency and NFTs as equivalent to paying a large sum of money for a description of the aroma of a bowl of soup instead of getting real soup.

    I think the marketplace will quickly sort out what works and does not work with NFTs, and if artists can use them to help make a living, that's fine.   I am just not interested.

    ..also +1 and well said. 

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,847

    MelissaGT said:

    ChadCrypto said:

    SnowSultan said:

    ChadCrypto, thanks for the detailed explanation. The game-related NFTs make some sense, especially if you can earn them in-game. As you said that is primarily where you deal with NFTs, perhaps someone else might be able to answer my original question though - why does anyone think that these 'artistic' NFTs will increase in value? You mentioned *how* they can (by being resold, etc), but I'm still waiting for anyone to explain WHY someone would spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a virtual piece of art that not only everyone else can own via right-click or printscreen, that you cannot hang on a wall or place on a shelf, and that has no real logical *reason* to increase in value.

    The very first 3D render I ever posted online (possibly the first finished 3D art I ever made) is likely floating around on the internet somewhere. It's 23 years old and I do not even have a copy. It's a curiosity and perhaps interesting to anyone who follows my work or knows me, but why should it be worth anything? If someone made it into an NFT, would I buy it back? No, I'd say "wow, that guy found it", right-click to Save Image and then report him for art theft.

    I think the concept of NFTs is interesting, but certainly not the current iteration of them. Right now it really feels like a bubble waiting to burst.

    Well, I think I can answer why certain NFTs are worth something. Is because they have been minted. And now they are forever part of the blockchain of whatever currency, So no one can own that mint of NFT, unless that owner sells it. It  has it's own hash. Which makes the piece unqiue. I too do not understand how some of these NFTs can be worth so much.  Most of the art NFTs I have bought have been 1.00 to 20.00 usd. And then you just hold them for the future when they might rise in price. That is why I invest more in the game NFTs. Utility is the key for me in the NFT world. 

     

    And if someone decides to mint your artwork and profit from it? How does one prevent or fight that? 

    ...one of my primary concerns I mentioned in that long winded piece I posted. 

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,847

    WendyLuvsCatz said:

    it's like going to a banquet and admiring the dirty dishes

    ...nailed it. 

  • NylonGirlNylonGirl Posts: 2,203

    Mada said:

    I seem to have hit a nerve with my generational comment :)

    Or maybe just insulted a lot of people.

    I'd like to see any example of a person buying an NFT anything and selling it for a higher price. Being part of a "blockchain" could only make it valuable if anybody cares about something being on that blockchain. It seems that, like bitcoin, most people only spend money on an NFT because they hope somebody else will spend even more money on it. I don't think you have to be a senior citizen to believe it's stupid to buy something based on the assumption that something else will happen, when that something else never happens.

  • ChadCryptoChadCrypto Posts: 596

    SnowSultan said:

    Well, I think I can answer why certain NFTs are worth something. Is because they have been minted. And now they are forever part of the blockchain of whatever currency, So no one can own that mint of NFT, unless that owner sells it. It  has it's own hash. Which makes the piece unqiue. I too do not understand how some of these NFTs can be worth so much.  Most of the art NFTs I have bought have been 1.00 to 20.00 usd. And then you just hold them for the future when they might rise in price. That is why I invest more in the game NFTs. Utility is the key for me in the NFT world. 

     

    "So no one can own that mint of NFT, unless that owner sells it. It  has it's own hash. Which makes the piece unqiue."

    And again I ask, how does any of that make an NFT purchase worthwhile?

    Even if you took everything negative out of the equation -  let's assume no NFTs harmed the environment, they weren't likely being used for money laundering and other criminal activity, they were artworks created by actual humans, they didn't have a practical in-game function, and 99.9% of them didn't look like something you just scrubbed off your toilet: WHY would anyone pay money for them? Why do people believe that an image with a unique hash makes it more valuable than the countless copies of it already on the internet? What factors would make something like that increase in value to where people are willing to spend more than just a dollar or two to have their name attached to it?

    I'm really not sure if anyone can answer that with much more than "it's fun" or "it's the future", or "you just don't get it".

    This is why I don't follow the Art side of NFT really. I don't get it.  I do follow the game aspect. Which have good art and utility.  The great thing about NFTs is you don't have to have anything to do with it. Just go about your day. If you are interested in it. Then it might be for you.  You say money laundering. Well , that is done with everything. Even good old cold cash money. So that argument is just a sign of out times through thousands of years.  I'm kinda tired of trying to explain. Check out videos on youtube. Hear what the pro people have to say and the con people. NFTs and Crypto curriences are not going anywhere. 

  • MalandarMalandar Posts: 776

    Yeah, how about no... Not even going to go there. Not with how the group describes themselves, since I don't fit into either of those categories. Besides, I have no interest in nfts in any way shape, or form. How about making a DAZ group on Discord that includes EVERYONE, even us "evil males (There's no eyeroll emoji)." (If there is already one just let me know)

  • ChadCryptoChadCrypto Posts: 596

    marble said:

    ChadCrypto said:

    SnowSultan said:

    ChadCrypto, thanks for the detailed explanation. The game-related NFTs make some sense, especially if you can earn them in-game. As you said that is primarily where you deal with NFTs, perhaps someone else might be able to answer my original question though - why does anyone think that these 'artistic' NFTs will increase in value? You mentioned *how* they can (by being resold, etc), but I'm still waiting for anyone to explain WHY someone would spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a virtual piece of art that not only everyone else can own via right-click or printscreen, that you cannot hang on a wall or place on a shelf, and that has no real logical *reason* to increase in value.

    The very first 3D render I ever posted online (possibly the first finished 3D art I ever made) is likely floating around on the internet somewhere. It's 23 years old and I do not even have a copy. It's a curiosity and perhaps interesting to anyone who follows my work or knows me, but why should it be worth anything? If someone made it into an NFT, would I buy it back? No, I'd say "wow, that guy found it", right-click to Save Image and then report him for art theft.

    I think the concept of NFTs is interesting, but certainly not the current iteration of them. Right now it really feels like a bubble waiting to burst.

    Well, I think I can answer why certain NFTs are worth something. Is because they have been minted. And now they are forever part of the blockchain of whatever currency, So no one can own that mint of NFT, unless that owner sells it. It  has it's own hash. Which makes the piece unqiue. I too do not understand how some of these NFTs can be worth so much.  Most of the art NFTs I have bought have been 1.00 to 20.00 usd. And then you just hold them for the future when they might rise in price. That is why I invest more in the game NFTs. Utility is the key for me in the NFT world. 

     

    Please explain this for us: what, exactly, are you investing your money in? As I understand it (which is not well) you don't own the artwork, you don't own the copyright to the artwork, you don't even own a share of the artwork ... what do you own? A token? Which benefits you how? Isn't it just a meaningless token which can be bought and sold in the hope that its value will increase even though it has no intrinsic value of its own? If so, we are moving into the world of crazy. 

    Well , like I said. buying the type of NFTs that are tied to a game. They have utility. which gives them value. Some can be staked to help the transactions of the currency it is tied to. In return you earn a part of the transactions of the blockchain. I wonder why no one  has come out and protested the trading card and comicbook industry. Which is ver similar. They chop trees to make these pieces of imagery. And they are sold, traded and held. Just like a digital art assest. I say it takes more energy to make actual real media then it does a proof of stake NFT. Prove me wrong! 

  • ChadCryptoChadCrypto Posts: 596

    Malandar said:

    Yeah, how about no... Not even going to go there. Not with how the group describes themselves, since I don't fit into either of those categories. Besides, I have no interest in nfts in any way shape, or form. How about making a DAZ group on Discord that includes EVERYONE, even us "evil males (There's no eyeroll emoji)." (If there is already one just let me know)

    i keep seeing this in the posts. where exactly is this saying us evil males are not able to participate? 

    Please post a link. 

  • MalandarMalandar Posts: 776
    edited December 2021

    ChadCrypto said:

    Malandar said:

    Yeah, how about no... Not even going to go there. Not with how the group describes themselves, since I don't fit into either of those categories. Besides, I have no interest in nfts in any way shape, or form. How about making a DAZ group on Discord that includes EVERYONE, even us "evil males (There's no eyeroll emoji)." (If there is already one just let me know)

    i keep seeing this in the posts. where exactly is this saying us evil males are not able to participate? 

    Please post a link. 

    When you click the join button on the ad roll on the upper left when you click shop. Under step 3 'accept the rules" on the left side it explains what they are and they say the nft people are a group of "women and non binary people" Sounds like no males to me.

    EDIT:Forgot the link... https://www.daz3d.com/join-our-nfp-discord

    Post edited by Malandar on
  • ChadCryptoChadCrypto Posts: 596

    Malandar said:

    ChadCrypto said:

    Malandar said:

    Yeah, how about no... Not even going to go there. Not with how the group describes themselves, since I don't fit into either of those categories. Besides, I have no interest in nfts in any way shape, or form. How about making a DAZ group on Discord that includes EVERYONE, even us "evil males (There's no eyeroll emoji)." (If there is already one just let me know)

    i keep seeing this in the posts. where exactly is this saying us evil males are not able to participate? 

    Please post a link. 

    When you click the join button on the ad roll on the upper left when you click shop. Under step 3 'accept the rules" on the left side it explains what they are and they say the nft people are a group of "women and non binary people" Sounds like no males to me.

    EDIT:Forgot the link... https://www.daz3d.com/join-our-nfp-discord

    that is odd, though they are not talking about us or any real people. they are talking about the actual NFT collection is Woman and Non-Binary.  

     

  • MalandarMalandar Posts: 776

    ChadCrypto said:

    Malandar said:

    ChadCrypto said:

    Malandar said:

    Yeah, how about no... Not even going to go there. Not with how the group describes themselves, since I don't fit into either of those categories. Besides, I have no interest in nfts in any way shape, or form. How about making a DAZ group on Discord that includes EVERYONE, even us "evil males (There's no eyeroll emoji)." (If there is already one just let me know)

    i keep seeing this in the posts. where exactly is this saying us evil males are not able to participate? 

    Please post a link. 

    When you click the join button on the ad roll on the upper left when you click shop. Under step 3 'accept the rules" on the left side it explains what they are and they say the nft people are a group of "women and non binary people" Sounds like no males to me.

    EDIT:Forgot the link... https://www.daz3d.com/join-our-nfp-discord

    that is odd, though they are not talking about us or any real people. they are talking about the actual NFT collection is Woman and Non-Binary.  

     

    Even if that were the case, what if someone is only interested in nfts of males who are males It still excludes specific people.

  • SnowSultanSnowSultan Posts: 3,773

    They're obviously talking about the NFT images themselves, they are a collection of pictures of female and non-binary people. I think there ought to be males in that collection too, but they're not saying only actual women and non-binary people can join the Discord.

  • namffuaknamffuak Posts: 4,406

    SnowSultan said:

    They're obviously talking about the NFT images themselves, they are a collection of pictures of female and non-binary people. I think there ought to be males in that collection too, but they're not saying only actual women and non-binary people can join the Discord.

    But why would I chose an avatar from a set of images that do not represent me? (Asks the guy whose current avatar is a painted lead figure of a Napoleonic Carabinier-à-Cheval from 1809 laugh)

  • marblemarble Posts: 7,500

    ChadCrypto said:

    Well , like I said. buying the type of NFTs that are tied to a game. They have utility. which gives them value. Some can be staked to help the transactions of the currency it is tied to. In return you earn a part of the transactions of the blockchain. I wonder why no one  has come out and protested the trading card and comicbook industry. Which is ver similar. They chop trees to make these pieces of imagery. And they are sold, traded and held. Just like a digital art assest. I say it takes more energy to make actual real media then it does a proof of stake NFT. Prove me wrong! 

     Well, I do see a difference although I'm no fan of such ridiculous prices for comics and cards. I had a pile of 1950s DC and Marvel comics in my bedroom as a child and I shudder to think what they would be worth now. At least I bought actual comics just like a stamp collector buys stamps or an art collector owns original artwork (or signed prints). There's something tangible to own. Something to look at and get pleasure from. It is, however, a speculative pastime for the rich and the real enthusiasts are priced out of the market which is sad and shameful. But NFTs are - well - nothing. They don't give pleasure, they don't look nice, they don't do anything or make the world a better place - they are just another outlet for unadulterated greed.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,847
    edited December 2021

    namffuak said:

    SnowSultan said:

    They're obviously talking about the NFT images themselves, they are a collection of pictures of female and non-binary people. I think there ought to be males in that collection too, but they're not saying only actual women and non-binary people can join the Discord.

    But why would I chose an avatar from a set of images that do not represent me? (Asks the guy whose current avatar is a painted lead figure of a Napoleonic Carabinier-à-Cheval from 1809 laugh)

    ...actually my icon does have some identity to it, as I still tend to think young (in spite of my achy creaky old joints), and enjoy a bit of sillines now and then. 

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • tsroemitsroemi Posts: 3,461

    @ChadCrypto, the move of some towards proof of stake is indeed probably a good thing, and I think it's fair enough to point out that there are efforts to reduce the environmental harmfulness of NFTs and cryptomining in general. But a), as far as I'm aware most major marketplaces still trade in Ethereum and the likes, and Ethereum keeps promising to switch to pos and still hasn't. Also b), it's very obvious that most people involved in cryptomining couldn't care less about the impact they're making, because if there wouldn't have been public outcry because of the energy consumption, everyone would still be mining away happily using pow blockchain and massive amounts of energy, like they did before. Many still do. C), the switching to the less energy-hungry pos blockchain is mostly due to miners having found ways to reduce costs for themselves - i.e. hardware and, of course, energy, so again, let's not make these developments sound like cryptomining and NFTs have suddenly turned 'green'. Because they haven't, the whole process is a needless consumption of energy any which way, and the people who came up with it and profited from it are going to profit from things like this whether they're environment friendly or not, because all they care about is their own gain. Otherwise, why didn't people simply wait to use cryptomining until there were more eco-friendly ways to do it?

  • ioonrxoonioonrxoon Posts: 896

    The great thing about NFTs is you don't have to have anything to do with it. Just go about your day.

     

    Which is precisely the issue for me: When Daz keeps spamming them in every nook and cranny of this site, it's kind of hard to ignore. Apparently they're even more important than their usual daily sales, since they put them above.

    I don't know how other people work, but when you repeatedly shove something I dislike in my face, I don't go: Mmmmh yeah... there must be something there, let's dig in! No, I start disliking them even more.

This discussion has been closed.