Real dumb. When I buy a picasso I own the piece crafted by the man himself. The brush strokes the paint it’s all one of a kind and authentic. It’s physically different from the print.

Not the same with NFTs. The facsimile is the same as the “real thing” in every respect.

NFTs are the future. They aren’t going anywhere.

So pumped to try and get this $1 beeple in a few hours.

Just watched Made You Look the other day. Definitely worth a watch whether you care about NFTs or not- forgery is a fascinating topic.

NFTs solve some provenance issues, but I don't think they can eliminate them entirely. Let's say beeple was actually 10 people (not suggesting this is true, just an example). This should be detectable via forensics, just as with physical forgeries, but... would it be? Owners and creators of forgeries both have strong incentives for the forgery to exist unexposed. There will probably be other unforeseen issues that will arise, just as in any new technology.

OK, this is objectively wrong.

Not really. With ethereum erc-721 tokens, you can see the full history: who minted it in which tx. Artists can trivially provide a digital signature verifying they were in fact the minter, and anyone can observe the history of any tokens they mint, sell, give away, whatever. Even an anonymous artist could prove they created digital work in various ways. Public blockchains like ethereum do solve the provenance issue. Someone can make one that looks the same, but it objectively *IS NOT* the original, and that fact is completely transparent to all.

You may still value their physical work over their digital work and that is okay.

(This isn't an opinion)

How is it objectively wrong?

There's a room in South Carolina that ten people have access to. Every day, a different person is "the artist" and creates a work by beeple. They pick one person to be the public face of beeple and claim all the works are his. How does the blockchain solve this?

A token on a blockchain doesn’t make art authentic. The work and composition itself does. It’s manufactured authenticity instead of genuine authenticity.

I actually think this makes way more sense in the case of topshots than art.

It's explained in the rest of the post...

How does the real world solve this? If there's a group of 10 people that are "beeple", then it is what it is. Even if this was somehow a problem (ie, a popular artist was actually multiple people), it's a strawman based on some contrived situation.

Take a known artist (let's just say Alec Monopoly). He could announce he's selling limited edition digital art, verify what his ethereum address is, mint the tokens, and then sell directly to his fans. Anyone who tries to create a copy of the work could not fake the address that minted them. QED.

(you may not find his real world nor his digital work valuable-- I also don't. And that's okay, but some people do)

What makes it authentic is it is actually from the artist. And the artist can trivially prove that with blockchain.

Just to double-check, the dictionary definition of 'authentic':
1. of undisputed origin; genuine.
"the letter is now accepted as an authentic document"

NFT photography seems like a completely untapped market. I see nothing - just a bit of rarible NSFW pics, and tangentially the topshot gifs. What about an instagram-like NFT project to help the next generation of Ansel Adams type talents fund their careers?

Building a portfolio for NFT Tokens. So far i have narrowed it down to Rarible, GHST, AXIE and DEGO Finance. Might add some Shroom as well. Knowlegable posters, does this seem solid?

Super rare seemed to have a lot of cool stuff. (for lack of a better term). I still don't fully grasp NFTs but I did purchases one just for fun.

Ok, but isn't authenticity meaningless when the image itself is identical in every respect? It's not a forgery or reproduction it's literally the same image from the artist and visually identical in every respect.This is quite different from taking a photo of a Picasso or commissioning a perfect forging of a Picasso; they are not identical and they were not created by artist.

I can see the point to this being used to assign IP and allow one to collect royalties etc., just the same as blockchain can be used to show title in many respects.

So my view is that the ownership itself is the value proposition. Do you think people spend $200MM-450MM on a Pollock or Da Vinci* painting because it looks good on the wall? Are those paintings 200,000-450,000x better than one I could get for $1000? Aguiar summed this up nicely:



*interestingly, the origin of "Salvator Mundi", which fetched the highest price ever for a painting at $450MM, is disputed. It's unknown if it was actually painted by Da Vinci or one of his students. Ethereum fixes this.

One thing I think about a lot is how art is very well known to be fantastic for money laundering because of lax KYC/AML compared to other financial transactions and that leads to higher prices. I think about how that might look wrt NFTs -- can a flexible-base-layer public blockchain like Ethereum with sufficient privacy solutions built on top like Tornado compete with that?
-bearer assets -> good
-condition irrelevant, no need to use 3rd party authenticator @ each xfer of ownership, commission restorations, monitor humidity that can damage the work, etc -> good
-multi-sig based private key security generally more secure than physical security -> good, but also higher chance of unrecoverable loss due to user error = bad
-KYC at fiat gateways -> bad -> but ~irrelevant in a crypto-native economy. How large does crypto have to get in terms of financial infrastructure for it to dominate this use case? How good do privacy solutions need to be? How large could the anonymity set be for high value items? (IDK)

How? It's still just as easy for a famous artist to let someone else do the art and sell it as his own work. Even easier if the digital art takes less craftmanship.

***** crazy how I somewhat agree with two shae and then someone posts the idiotic counterargument and I agree like 4x more than I did before lol

https://enjin.io/software/jumpnet

Scaling solution release date released.

Finally over 1 USD and well deserved.
Gaming focus and bulk mechanics not maybe desirable for ART-related NFT stuff, but still cannot see why ERC-721 would be favored over ERC-1155 technically.

These are the sites that I've found for buying NFT art. Any that I'm missing?

I'm mainly interested in finding some cool artworks that I like aesthetically. I think that this format is especially good for video/animated art and photography.

1) https://foundation.app/artworks -- This is invite only and seems to be generally high quality. E.g. this is awesome imo: https://foundation.app/DevendraBanhart/moonflower-2157. This one is in partnership with an SF gallery: https://foundation.app/ChristineWang...k-jesus-ii-971.

2) https://app.rarible.com/

3) https://opensea.io/collection/art

4) https://mintable.app/

5) https://superrare.co/market -- Seems to be pretty good quality


The sites are a little bit overwhelming because there is so much content. On one hand it's nice that there are such low barriers to minting NFTs and being discovered, but it would also be useful to see a more curated selection. This Twitter account https://mobile.twitter.com/cryptoartinside is tiny, but does some curation/news.

I've seen some cool pieces on zora.co. Seems like it's mostly digital though.

Robots Playing Poker might appeal to someone here:

https://foundation.app/PaulSnijder/r...ing-poker-3349

https://www.nbatopshot.com/ - self explanatory

https://niftygateway.com/ - probably what you're looking for

https://wax.atomichub.io/ - trading card style, lower prices/lower barrier to entry

Expect better curation very soon.

Surprised no one in this thread has mentioned Lukso.

https://medium.com/lukso/luksos-main...n-f68f9ef7039a

Fabian Vogelsteller, one of the better-respected developers who helped on the ERC-20 and ERC-725 standard. Excellent tech, vision, engineering skill, and partnerships.

I created a "piece of art" I will post on Opensea for sale later next week and see how it goes. Its more for educational purposes but it came out really good (In my completely biased opinion) and getting some feedback on it will be interesting and perhaps informative.

Really great post, this has gotten me more intrigued in the space than anything else.

My initial half-baked reaction is that there's something about *art* that drives its valuations so insanely high. Being an art collector (unlike, say, collecting baseball cards) is kind of like buying your way into high society and this is something many people put a huge price tag on. Probably correlated to the reason people will pay $50M for a penthouse with a view of central park when you could find a closeby unit that's 75% as nice for 15% of the price.

If you agree, this has obvious implications for NFT investing I think. Thought this was a great take:

https://twitter.com/strassa2/status/...331693571?s=19

BoostedJ confirming that tweet means a lot, he knows the art world very well

There was some survey I read that I can't find atm that suggested that if artists don't make it big early, they likely never will. So it seems like the two main ways to make money are finding talent early and getting in cheap or finding mispriced higher end things. It seems like "early talent" finds could rocket a lot faster in this new space than in the real world.

On the other hand though, I feel like I'd be at an information disadvantage in the real world and the online NFT world, and think in terms of overall life EV it might make more sense to take the strategy of buying things that one finds aesthetically pleasing and that are reasonably ok value, and actually investing in things one understands better.

Interview with Mike Levy who owns $20 million worth of topshot

https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aH...Q2NTk1NDQ5OTQx