How Twitter Backstabbed Artists and a Defense of NFTs
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 май 2024
- 00:00 Start
21:35 Rebutting "NFTs don't help artists"
30:57 Rebutting "NFTs are money laundering"
43:45 Rebutting statistics that say artists don't make money
52:56 Rebutting "rampant art theft"
1:32:27 Documentation of abuse
2:10:26 Rebutting "NFTs don't help artists in developing countries"
2:41:39 The witch hunt of Seiro Art
4:28:57 Rebutting "NFTs hurt the environment"
4:59:51 Rebutting "NFTs are a scam"
5:43:41 Difference between copyright and NFTs
6:01:07 Why did this happen?
I was going to link the rest of the artists' accounts mentioned here so you can support them. But I don't want to make them an easy target for people who haven't watched the video. I might change it later depending on the reception to the video.
None the less, please pick your favourite and send them a nice message, I think that would go a long way. Even if you just write it in the comments I'll send it through.
I didn't mention him too much, but Kiwi from Uwucrew is a cornerstone of the community. He's not an artist, he's a tech dev, but the amount of times i've seen artists mention him positively and thank him for the help was crazy. Genuinely great person, helped me a lot with this video too.
/ 0xkiwi_
Music:
Melody loop 101 bpm By DaveJF on freesound.org
Melody loop 92 bpm By DaveJF on freesound.org
Secret temple storm by Szegvari on freesound.org 
Кино
I'm not watching an unabridged 8 hour video "in defense of NFTs." I've known Seiro for years and worked with her on projects before, and we're on good terms. She didn't "go missing." She was doing NFTs as a *last resort* financially because of her living situation, and eventually ended up moving to a different country once she gathered these funds. It's unfortunate that she got the backlash she did, but she didn't go about her situation sensibly. Despite some unsavory experiences with other people in a tight-knit gaming community we and many others shared, she had people to rely on for support, and I'm sure many of us would've gladly sent her that financial support that she needed, but she took a lowball way out with NFTs.
I'm not defending the way people responded to her sudden turn for NFTs and change of her entire online persona-I've been there, your reputation gets scarred, the last thing that you need emotionally is for everyone you knew to turn on you-the death threats were so many steps TOO FAR, and totally unreasonable. Being critical of one's moves and trying to hold them accountable ≠ attacking them as a person.
Seiro did have a rocky history with some other people in the Bemani twitter community, and I can't speak on her behalf for this topic, but I will say this: knowing her situation, brashly branding herself as an NFT creator, she was not in a good state of mind. She has since moved on, and for good reason.
Nobody cares about NFTs anymore, and no person that's not already brainwashed by them is sitting through an 8 hour video in defense of them. Congratulations on wasting your time, and don't single out someone who was emotionally in one of the biggest ruts of their life.
By the way, if you can't make a good point in 3 minutes, you can't make a good point in 8 hours. Maybe I'll try watching when your abridged version comes out.
"no person that's not already brainwashed by them is sitting through an 8 hour video in defense of them" you speak like NFTs is a psyops or something lmao
Well, I have no reason not to, so I'll just listen to this 8 hour video on the side. My guess would be, I'll have it finished in a week or so, if I don't drop it along the way.
FYI, I am not brainwashed by NFTs. I just more or less liked Uniquenameosauras' past content, and am very curious what the video is going to cover, since I am not at all familiar with Seiro or this entire situation around her.
Just thought I should inform you, because of the last part of your comment.
I'll keep you updated. Regarding whether I actually finish the video or not.
@@bravado2809 I promise you you can use your time more effectively! Learn to skate, pick up photography, check out Facebook marketplace in your area! Many other things you can do than passively digest this video over the course of a week. Take care!
Gonna mute this thread now-if you take any issue with my response, feel free to block me on any connections you might have me on! If you're reading this, have a great day!
"Skins in games exist and nobody calls those a scam!"
My brother in christ... there was such a backlash on skins in video games being scams that an entire continent drew up legislation on it...
it was a handful of countries and they banned the lootbox mechanic, not the skins themselves. That's why games like League are still available there, they just sell them to you. Or with CSGO because technically you know what you're gonna get the box before hand it's not banned since you still always earn something.
@@servilleta__6075 That does not make skins morally correct either really.
@@charcoalangel7536 Skins aren't morally incorrect still, what are you on about?
@@starcraft2own Sorry I don't think I got my point across. Skins used to be offered for free for completing challenges in games now they are mostly paid only. I'm fine with paid skins in free games like LOL but games like Overwatch 1 that you had to pay money to get in the first place doesn't sit right with me. They don't sit well with a lot of people actually. I hope that cleared my stance up a tiny bit. I was just frustrated by what Servilleta said.
@@servilleta__6075 The skins themselves were the scam because of how unlikely you were to actually get them as an item. It was the same artificial scarcity that this lunatic was talking about. Moreover there was a huge backlash specifically against the CSGO market for items and how people radically artificially inflated their prices for resale. This was huge news both online and in real life. Also there was a huge backlash against Final Fantasy when square floated the idea of NFTs, same with Ghost Recon. He doesn't acknowledge any of those controversies because they instantly debunks his narrative that people only criticize NFTs when it's some lone artist making them and not when a Huge company does it.
0:00 Intro
10:41 Don’t abuse Uniquenameosaurus’s artists because of this video
12:34 Timecodes for major sections of the video
14:17 Basic Explanation of NFTs
16:10 Critique of Folding Ideas’ Video
21:35 Rebutting “NFTs don’t help small artists”
30:57 Rebutting “NFTs are money laundering”
34:26 Continuation of rebutting “NFTs don’t help small artists”
43:45 Rebutting the statistics that say artists don’t make money
52:56 Rebutting “Rampant art theft”
1:06:35 High quality NFT animations do exist
1:10:26 Continuation of rebutting “Rampant art theft”
1:11:04 Continuation of rebutting the statistics that say artists don’t make money
1:32:27 Documentation of the abuse
2:10:26 Rebutting “NFTs don’t help artists in developing countries”
2:15:35 Continuation of the documentation of the abuse
2:41:39 The witch hunt of Seiro Art
2:53:12 Critiquing someone involved in NFTs due to their environmental impact is strange
2:55:19 Abuse towards Seiro because of alleged stealing of art
3:19:30 Seiro’s response and the following abuse
3:28:16 Even more abuse
3:40:02 Further critiques of Ross
3:42:28 More Seiro Abuse
3:53:49 Most Twitter users don’t understand the difficulty of making money as an artist
4:03:50 Examples of artists making more money from NFTs than commissions
4:06:39 Selling NFTs and using cryptocurrencies significantly helps artists in developing countries
4:12:02 Most people don’t understand NFTs and aren’t doing research
4:17:40 Repeat of some previous points
4:28:57 Rebutting “NFTs hurt the environment”
4:59:51 Rebutting “NFTs are a scam”
5:02:33 There are four groups that use NFTs (The first two being scammers and investors)
5:18:19 The third group is hype beasts
5:31:21 The fourth group are collectors
5:43:21 The difference between copyright and NFTs
6:01:07 Why did this happen?
6:07:02 Evidence for why this happened
6:39:21 There is precedent for the left's rhetoric towards NFTs
7:25:32 Leftists on Twitter did this to shut up artists
7:40:06 There is no big conspiracy behind this
7:44:24 Some cool potential uses for NFTs
7:53:20 Outro
god among men
Thank you Leky Dree for time stamping the video. I appreciate the time you gave to do this within like only 4 hours for a 8 hour video that released 5 hours ago. Incredible!
Hallelujah
Not all heroes wear capes.
Chad
Watched all 8 hours
Normally after finishing a video this thorough, I might rewatch it to cement any thoughts or recommend it to friends
I _have_ rewatched individual _segments_ that piqued my interest, but this is too impossible to digest
This really didn't need to be this long and scattered, you kind of just read every single mean tweet you found out loud, repeated yourself a lot and rambled
You could've splashed the tweets on the screen as evidence then moved on to your next argument, stayed more on script, kept that script more focused
As an artist my mind was changed _slightly_ on NFTs, I never saw them as the Antichrist that the Twitter mob makes them out to be and did enough of my own research to see through the environmental argument from the beginning, but didn't feel the need to risk my reputation, time and money for the possible returns and even now that I better understand those potential returns I'd still rather not
If you wanted to bring more attention to the unjust persecution of artists involved with NFTs you'd have presented this in a more digestable manner, either trimming the several hours of unnecessary fluff or breaking it into a series of shorter, more focused videos
As-is, the only people who will watch long enough to have their minds changed on anything are those who either already agreed with you going in or have followed your content long enough and have enough respect for you as a creator as to trust an 8-hour long defense of NFTs isn't a waste of their time (as I did)
The thoroughness of the research is beyond impressive and I believe the things brought up in this video are things that need more attention drawn to them, but this video will change none of the minds that need to be changed for any of these issues to get better
Twitter hated (and still hates) nfts because lots of accounts were hacked and stolen to promote crypto and nfts, most of them belonging to artists.
And not to mention when someone minted and sold pictures from a dead artist.
And yes, despite what the video says, art theft was rampant with nfts. To the point Deviantart implemented a feature to notify users if someone minted and sold their pics as nfts.
have to agree with you here the research is pretty impressive but the the excessive fluff of the video really deters the conversations that could have started around it were it to be far more concise and to the point, as is it's a long (and to be fair a bit enjoyable) video from a youtuber i like but that's about it
This is probably the most well reasoned comment here
Interesting perspective. I still hate nfts and think the criticism this video got , is justified but this video doesn't seem to be that well structured. Overall my opinion is unchanging. Harassment: bad, NFTs : bad, my time: Not wasted.
Edit: fixed so people won't think that ithink the artist should of been harassed. My mistake
Actual constructive criticism, I really appreciate this comment.
Defending NFTs is like defending pyramid schemes, not everyone involved is a bad person but the practice itself is terrible and should be criticized
what's wrong with NFTs?
@@victini248 making GPUs hard to get for a bit
@@victini248 They are basically useless at what people proclaim they do, even if they weren't they are an inefficient solution to the problem they presumably solve.
@@victini248 It's just a huge pile of stupidity and maliciousness in an ouroboros of catastrophe, all built on top of a fundamental structure of functionality that is an environmental disaster, so much so that there's at least one instance of people in the business BUYING A COAL POWER PLANT in order to get the electricity needed to continue the process.
To simplify it down to the absolute most baseline explanation that can possibly be given, the existence of NFTs is intended to serve the purpose of erasing one of the deliberate strengths of digital creations, which is their ability to be seamlessly replicated. They literally re-create the limitations physical objects have that you can't just duplicate them, which is just fundamentally a thing that makes whatever's been tokenized worse, even before you account for any of the implications behind how this is actually accomplished.
Also, the more you know about them, the less sense they make. The jpeg of a monkey is digitally unique? No, that's not how jpegs work, you can copy it with a right click. What's the NFT then? Oh, it's a *LINK* that goes to the jpeg. That's significantly stupider. Oh, actually, *THE LINK ISN'T UNIQUE EITHER.* The link itself can also just be copied. There is literally nothing about them that is actually unique in any way. When the uniqueness is supposed to be the point.
NFTs have found a way to sell *literally nothing* for obscene amounts of money while also fast-tracking the end of the world at the same time.
@@-king-1230 not only that, but they demand HUGE amounts of power to make them work in the blockchain, and when you buy an NFT, all you're really buying (99% of the time) is a URL to an image that can be changed or simply go offline whenever the domain attached to it goes down. Simply put, there's no need for NFTs and the blockchain since all their benefits can be easily replicated without the use of the technologies that brings it's downsides of power usage and the ease of which it enables bad actors.
The idea that you can flex about getting something for value because you "got in early" is entirely the point that Dan Olsen is trying to criticize.
First, that's the whole point of criticizing this as a scam. That speculative nature is more than just Hypebeast mentality. It's not just a secondary market that scalps and upsells. The underlying cryptocurrency is the speculative asset, not just the NFT or the art associated with that NFT.
So when an NFT goes up for auction, it's paid in ETH. But ETH is the speculative asset right? So both the artists, collectors, and scammers all want ETH to be worth as much as possible.
After all, like you said, even the collectors and artists and Hypebeast will find pride if they didn't have to put in "that much" in order to own/make something expensive.
But that requires people to continually buy into this market. Because, as Dan Olsen states, there is no value generation. The price only goes up if it's speculated to be worth more.
So how can it be worth more? For scammers and investment, it's literally a pozi scheme. This is already explored in Dan Olsen's video.
For artists and collectors, they can't make it worth more. Selling NFTs by itself doesn't generate ETH. No, they need other people to want to buy ETH with real cash (whether to use to buy NFTs or to use in other scenarios).
Which again, goes back to my point in my other comment. NFTs require cryptocurrency to become more and more successful. Which involves getting more people into the speculative market. You don't see that with Hypebeast or Art collection (which is all about exclusivity). You do see that with ponzi schemes.
Haven't watched the video, but art can legitimately gain more value if the artist gets more successful. A signature from a band when they have 10 people coming to their concerts will be worth more when they're selling out venues on world tours.
And similarly, cryptocurrencies can gain more utility, adding features that make it more useful to people outside of speculation.
Of course, that's the difficult way to add value, and the easy way is to just create a ponzi scheme, but it isn't inherently destructive.
Dan’s 2 hr video is filled with bad faith explanations and examples including straight up lies about how blockchains , crypto and nfts (including the legitimately crap garbage ones) work.
His video is crafted specifically to appear as a documentary to convince tou of his bad faith arguments presented as the ‘only’ truth.
@@TheLastScoot I totally forgot to mention this so this is my fault. The scam isn't NFTs (solely). In fact that's not even Dan Olsen's full point. The scam is the cryptocurrency themselves.
The idea that Bitcoin or ETH can become more valuable with "added" functionality is both ahistorical and something that would NOT be a good thing. This is covered in Dan Olsen's video but to summarize in two sentences:
- as you acknowledge, the rapid growth in the value of cryptocurrency is not reflective of any added functionality. They still are, and always have been, speculative securities.
- what added functionality wouldn't immediately have terrible consequences? Even if they work, it becomes situation where people are forced to buy cryptocurrency in order to access something (e.g. food, memberships, games, etc.). But since these coins are always deflationary, it means anything starting now is at a disadvantage to anyone joining later. This is a capital B bad idea that simply consolidates wealth over time.
@@kevinz8554 Yeah, I do think they're ludicrously overvalued.
Added functionality would be reducing the carbon footprint, reducing fees, reducing transaction times, providing a system for chargebacks. I tried sending money to a friend overseas through international bank transfer since PayPal isn't feasible to use for me, and it had around $55 in fees and took multiple days. Bitcoin/Ethereum would take hours and about $10 in fees. Worse than transfers within my country, worse than international money transfer services if they get their shit together, but better than the last resort I had to go to.
Also, I forgot the name of them, but there's cryptocurrencies that try to provide P2P storage, servers, and DNS. While it would be better for these things to happen for free through torrents and the like, people aren't always willing to do that. And they claim lower prices than AWS and the like. I'd struggle to call that "added functionality" but that is a utility it could provide.
The things I've listed I don't think have terrible consequences, but they're also very niche. Using them to buy food, pay for memberships, or to handle stuff in games sounds like a terrible idea.
Being deflationary isn't great, but also isn't mandatory, it's just something that most of the popular ones decide to do.
EDIT: To be clear, my opinion (before watching the video) is that NFTs are too expensive to create, too environment-destroying, and too rife with scams/speculation to be worthwhile for either party. This could change from being "stay the fuck away" to "seems dumb and worthless but at least you're not hurting anyone" with time, but it hasn't crossed that barrier yet, and may never actually do so. This sort of thing seems far better to just do without blockchain shit (i.e. adoptables or whatever they're called)
The entire video focuses a bit too much on "actually artists can ma make money" over legitimate proving of nft/crypto are a good service
Speaking as someone who's an artist and anti NFT, my issue with crypto and NFTs are mainly due to a lot of the companies and practices around NFTs mainly but I've always been very much "artists, get your bag, get that paper" because the industry has been giving artists a raw deal for a long time so it's really disheartening to see this behaviour... but given how cliquish the industry tends to be, I'm INCREDIBLY disappointed but not surprised
Could you elaborate on you issues around the companies and practices you eluded to in your comment?
Dude, so far it took you TWO HOURS to essentially say that nft artists are making money and that bullying them is not ok. This could've been structured a lot better
you are expecting a lot from an nft defender lol
@@Bibimbap-cd7tc here's the thing - I was curious to hear out the "other side" of the argument. I don't want this discussion to boil down to "eneftee defender lol", but with the way this video is, just, all over the place, repeats the points, dwells on them for FAR too long... it's hard to even comprehend all of it. He makes great commentary videos, but this one is not one of them lmao
Its a lot more than that
@@Bibimbap-cd7tc That stupid kind of hive mind mentality is a major part of what's wrong with the world. Always be willing to listen to something someone says, even if they have a very different opinion than you. Worst case scenario it's stupid and you can disregard it, but always give it a fair chance first
@@KingOfDarknessAndEvil 🤓
I mean, I do have an issue with your definition of abuse, which seems incredibly vague. You put suicide goading and death threats on the same category as boycotting.
There is also a fundamental difference in viciously attacking an individual and criticizing a group of people for something they do. Saying "All NFT supporters are morons" may be antagonostic, but it's no more abusive than saying "All football fans are idiots". It is fundamentally different from directly targeted harassment off an individual.
This is a fair point. This area of the video was sloppy.
I think that the problem he has with it is that this boycotts and comments you are mencioning are contributing to the harm while not making the distinction clear.
And it reads more like "all america fans are idiots" that "all football fans are idiots" a distinction that seems small but I have seen how it can afect people, specially when directed at a specific person.
5:43:41 I feel like you are missing the plot here. The biggest issue with NFTs is their potential for uncompromising, eternal, unavoidable enforcement of copyright law. Large media corporations are *constantly* trying to get laws passed that limit piracy and strengthen copyright protections. NFTs have the potential to act as the as the ultimate tool for copyright enforcement if they become standardized. This is why so many media corporations and pretty much all of big tech jumped on board with NFTs even when there was so much public outcry.
While on paper, NFTs would be fairly harmless in a world where copyright law has been long since absolished, the potential for abuse is *massive* so long as copyright law still exists.
This!
This is virtually the only good argument against nft's, which is ironically the only point people rarely mention and do not take serious as seen by the "right clicking" jokes.
THIS!
This was my main reason to be against NFTs before this video, although, I don't think this video is trying to refute that this is a problem.
It's a non-issue if artists are using it, but the moment video games use it for micro transactions or streaming services try to use it to lock away content we gotta stop that immediately.
@@Tribow They do that without crypto already, and more effectively given they control access to their content on cenrtalized servers entirely in their control. Right now if you pay for a Netflix subscription...you get a Netflix subscription and that's it? If it was an NFT (I don't see why they would do this nor do I think it's a good idea) at the very least you could sell your subscription to someone else if you didn't want it.
I'm not understanding where this argument is coming from? Are you just assuming it'd be harder to pirate content (it won't be)?
@@Pikayumyums Im gonna admit that I had a bad reading comprehension moment.
The original post is concerned about copyright stuff and my reply took that opinion and completely derailed it into my passionate concerns about how NFTs are used in video games.
So uh, yeah...you're right lol. NFTs wouldn't make copyright issue any worse than it is now really. My concerns were anti-consumer related.
I don't think the main problem that people had with nfts was artists getting paid for original art... In the early days people were actually kind of possitive about that.
The main problem I believe people have is the mass coporate production of images and the abusing of FOMO from corporations in the highly unregulated highly prone to scams crypto space.
I don't know... maybe you rebutted that at some point, I haven't finished the video and might take me a week to do so. I am not someone to comment before finishing, but in this case it appears I am hardly the only one, this video is massive, and I don't think strategically speaking that was the best choice, the people that are looking to smash that dislike button will hardly wait 7 hours to do so. I will sure edit my comment if I eventually come across a substantial rebutal of the main problems I believe people have with nfts.
You are not wrong in the early days people especially artists were excited about the prospect myself included ,then it became ....ugly. It became a game of scam telephone were people who invested in projects legitimately/for profit were rug pulled/influencers sold their followers a scam coin/nft and deleted their socials like nothing happened(looking at you Paul brothers),it became a game of seeing art being destroyed/removed to help give the nft more value,it became seeing your favorite celeb/actor shilling something with.eth using the good will they had for a paycheck.it became a game of social actions/causes being hijacked by griffters to sell art/coins to "support the movement", It became even messy for even successful project like asuzu(the samurai champloo inspired nft)who one of their founders did rug pulls in the past.and all while mint bots were minting/selling tweets.it took alot and I mean alot to sour peoples enthusiasm of nfts well before the environmental impact stuff or stolen art(those are just the most discussed reasons).I like many other artists and those who want to support artists legitimately wanted this to work out ,but man it got ugly.
Corporations do that outside of crypto, that has nothing to do with NFTs really. Scams exist in excess everywhere, you're just not being constantly fed news articles about them and they're easier to avoid in spaces you're more comfortable in compared to using a new technology where the scammer has information asymmetry against you. If you've ever been scammed in an MMO as a kid, it was probably by someone who had more experience than you and who was older.
@@Pikayumyums Is crypto as regulated by goverments as any other currency and banking system?
Don't get me wrong, I get that the system itself is amoral. But the problem is how highly unregulated it is compared with other systems.
Until it gets proper government oversight, as much as regular dollars or regular banking systems, backing it up with real dollars in a centralized system. Then I don't think the scams will stop any time soon. I mean there is a good reason why crypto is used to fund a lot of criminal organizations, it is not that it is criminal by itself. It is that it is free of a lot of regulations of other monetary systems
@@Pikayumyums I think the point your missing is the level of deregulation in the space which makes it far more attractive to bad actors who have no recourse on their actions. Plus factor in the fact that nfts can't even be used in they way they promise (prove of copyright) when they are easily scammed hacked away (see Seth green situation).
@@ziggyzaggyshaggy8312 Not intrinsic to crypto, the "Nigerian Prince" joke became widespread because it was legitimately a rampant issue with the early internet. If you scam someone in crypto you can still face legal action, you're not immune to that just because it was on the blockchain. People have and will continue going to jail and pay fines for being bad actors. Not everyone will get caught, just like how not all bad actors offline get caught either. The problem you're facing is confirmation bias.
Seth Green getting scammed also has nothing to do with copyright, nor do NFTs even promise that. This is, once again, a lie perpetuated by people who don't really know what they're arguing against. Yuga Labs does have a legitimate legal document drafted up by a real life legal team in regards to the licensing rights provided to token holders. Those rights are transferred when you lose ownership of that token. Regardless of whether it was stolen or not, his loss of any licensing rights he had for the associated artwork is within the legal framework of these terms:
www.yuga.com/terms/
Now, can he seek legal action against the person who currently owns it? Maybe, but that's a legal process that he'll have to go through. The person who owns it isn't the person who scammed him, just the person who bought it from the scammer.
I don't think we should have stopped developing and onboarding more users onto the internet just because viruses and scam emails were rampant in the late 90's and early 00's, and I don't think it was indicative of the internet being a bad technology just because those tricks were possible to pull off using the internet. UIs improved, protections were implemented, user education was ramped up, etc. Those things helped lessen (but not entirely) eliminate those kinds of scams, and the same is happening for crypto with constantly updating software to combat scammers.
honestly, this would be better without the rant about specific twitter comments that take like half the time. Just the main points would have been better
that section feels like 4 hours, and the overlong readings of it... yeah
well, the video is about twitter...
it is important to show proof, to show how hypocrite people were and still are.
i really dont think time was wasted. what a shame
I'm going into this in good faith since I consider you to be a genuine person. That being said, if you don't feel the necessity of an abridged version of this video would you be willing to put timestamps in the description? This is an 8 hour video that has to be watched in chunks so it'd go very far to help viewers keep track and stay organized
For the sake of transparency I only made it to Part Two (Tangent A) before having to put the video aside to focus on my work
A hero among us timestamped it in the comments.
AND a segmented video timeline now! (Currently in the middle of the Seiro Witch Hunt portion of the video)
I finished the whole video now so I'm going to leave my obligatory YT comment that Unique may never read lol. Overall it's a good video laced with (imo) needless repetition for the sake of hammering in certain points. Calling out the ignorance (at best) of these larger youtubers in how they criticized NFTs/NFT artists was well done (for the record, Pan Pizza is an artist, full stop. Made a webcomic and is working on an animated pilot for it). It's been illuminating and reassuring to see that NFTs may not be as destructive to the environment as I previously thought. And the harassment that Seiro and others received was inexcusable. However, I personally disagree with the idea that NFTs having such a bad reputation was a concentrated left wing political movement due to (imo) circumstantial at best evidence of "people that don't like NFTs don't like capitalism". NFTs can and have lifted artists out of poverty, however, they would not have changed Miura's fate or circumstances. He was a meticulous artist with a team of assistants helping to take some of the strain off of him. It was a tragedy brought on by decades of overwork, the effects of which don't disappear because of a tertiary income source. Just look at another mangaka, Eiichiro Oda. Arguably one of the top 5 most successful living mangaka in the industry, who also has a team of assistants helping him. He too is in poor health, but he takes breaks every 3 to 4 weeks in order to recuperate a bit. He can still suffer from a random, tragic aortic dissection if he's not careful. The amount of money an artist brings in isn't going to change that if they're going to work themselves to dust regardless. Although, Hiro Mashima maintains a healthy work life balance to this day after making 2 long running successful series and while currently working on his third. In the end I applaud the work you put into this passion project, truly. But this could've been a series of uploads instead of this bloated video. Here's hoping your comic comes back soon!
@@Beatmaster971 I have to agree that it's not just the anti capitalist crowd but I think there is an argument that many anti capitalists do dislike the idea of art being used for economic gain. Art has always been treated as a means of propaganda by all groups so anti capitalist people obviously dislike it if art becomes more capitalistic as it would thus become hypocritical to use it for propaganda.
I very much sympathize with the amount of harassment that was given towards the artist but I am sure as heck won't ever defend over NFTs. No thanks
Same here
You only made this comment two minutes ago on a 7 hour video. At least let the man make his case dude.
@@ringkunmori I'm fully aware what happened. The artist made her reason why she did it in which I fully understand, I heavily disagree with the harassment that she received even after she explained herself, I simply don't agree with NFTs being the call. It's that simple
@@ringkunmori how about he make his case in a sensible amount of time, so people can actually understand what he means
Im gonna play devil's advocate and say he has a good reason to put that in the title, after all its an 8 hour video
I'll maybe comment after watching it completely (in like 2-3 days lmao) about my thoughts on the video
Harassment is bad but how does a guy who makes a video about wanting to abolish copyright then go on and make a fucking 8 hour defense of NFTs
you didn't watch the video, right? he comments on that here: 5:43:41
It isnt even worth entertaining the thought. NFTs are essentially digital copyright. What a fucking hypocrite
Timestamps shown at 12:40
21:35 Rebutting "NFTs don't help artists" (big or small)
30:57 Rebutting "NFTs are money laundering"
43:45 Rebutting the statistics that say artists don't make money
52:56 Rebutting "Rampant art theft"
1:32:27 Documentation of the abuse
2:10:26 Rebutting "NFTs don't help artists in developing countries"
2:41:39 The witch hunt of Seiro Art
4:28:57 Rebutting "NFTs hurt the environment"
4:59:51 Rebutting "NFTs are a scam"
5:43:41 The difference between copyright and NFTs
6:01:07 Why did this happen?
There shouldn't be any reason why these weren't made chapters for the video but here ya go.
Legend
Commenting so more people see this.
Thanks dude. And yeah I like the video but he should Def add chapters
replying so it gets bumped up
Best comment on the video so far, will watch this video on the weekend once i have the time
I skipped to the environment section, and it's weird how such a large part of argument about the environmental impact was just talking about 1 bad article. I'm still not convinced that the people who ARE using huge computer rigs aren't hurting the environment, even if not everyone is using those. You also compare bitcoin to other industries, but using AC or paper are not the same thing as using bitcoin. Using AC is a necessity. Bitcoin is not. It's a large amount of energy that doesn't need to be spent.
According to Ethereum's website, they currently, yearly consume approximately as much power as Netflix, about as much as the country of the Netherlands, and half as much as RUclips
His rebuttal tries to isolate the costs of processing the transaction as if the proof of work system that the largest blockchains use wasn't responsible for the vast majority of energy costs and hardware demands. That the transaction itself didn't take that much doesn't really make the competition that leads up to it any less wasteful.
The main thing you should take away from this is that if everything NFT related and crypto mining completely disappears, it would do next to nothing in actually protecting the environment.
There are much larger sources of pollution that should be addressed first.
Cars are a great example.
@@Tribow crypto generates energy consumption equivalent to several nations. So it's definitely not next to nothing. It just so happens that there's not just one contributor that produces the majority of carbon emissions, but rather a lot that produce a lot
@@stinkytoby so I should worry more about crypto mining instead of oil companies, car manufacturing, fossil fuel industry, and other billion dollar companies that have been proven to produce several times as much pollution and energy consumption?
It is not nft artists I dislike, it's crypto schemes and how nft's work I dislike. Fucked up how people bully the artists.
Its actually kinda sad, because from what ive seen and heard: its p much that cryptogrifters are basically selling illusions of greatness or convincing free lance artists they can make a living while doing what they love (art) and either they get fucking ponzi and pyramid schemed hard; or if they decline their art gets stolen
Its basically lose or lose despite being sold a win
I am opposed to the artists who spam 80 million identical looking NFTs, but I don't see much issue with real artists using them.
Indeed, I hate NFTs, but not the people who make (legitimate) tokens, nor the people who buy into them (even if they got scammed). My main gripe is that it puts computers to unproductive work going through the crypto stuff.
@@Greg501- Why do you think they got scammed? They purchased something they want, knowing full well what they are getting. Is someone getting scammed when they buy video game skins?
@@Pikayumyums I'm not saying they ALL got scammed, just that SOME of them were scammed, and that I don't hold that against them. It's difficult to word.
Despite the overwhelming twitter abuse, you not removing the concept of these twitter users and the nft and crypto system itself from each other has meant that your arguments for the nft system and/or the crypto structure are completely surface level and very misleading.
The twitter users are 100% in the wrong for this, but the idea that criticism of nfts, crypto or a tech ecosystem are, in this case, entirely valid. The idea that NFTs help the artist is dangerously misleading and extremely dangerous for the livelihoods of internet artists, due to absurdly easy avoidance of royalties, gaping security flaws in every part of the ethereum network and the fact NFT SMART CONTRACTS ARE NOT EVEN A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE MEDIA AND THE TOKEN.
edit: just want to clarify that the "criticism" from the twitter users is not only stupid and malicious but starts an NFT flame war not based in the genuinely terrific flaws in the system, but based on nothing but internet rumour and the seemingly endless loathing for someone being wrong, instead of notifying them of a better system.
A few notes:
-People have stolen art & minted it as NFTs without the original artist's knowledge. & Due to the open nature & lack of regulation within blackchains to make sure that the person who's minting an NFT is the person who actually made it. & Many times, the person who stole it gives the excuse, "Well, you should've made it yourself." Art theft has always been a problem, & NFTs, due to lack of regulation, now monetizes the problem.
-I understand the point that sometimes NFTs are necessary for an artist because of a guaranteed high cost.
- That makes NFTs almost predatory, to a point. You're struggling for money, so you have to turn to something most people hate & is grossly flawed as a concept.
- Despite that, anyone who has a bigger platform will absolutely make more money off of, because more people will buy the NFTs. Because NFTs work similarly to the stock market.
-NFTs aren't necessity a scam, but a lot of them really feel like scams, even if they aren't. Bot accounts, dead links, & an insane price that few people actually have... yeah, that looks like a scam.
- I think the environmental concern over NFTs is less an issue on NFTs themselves, & more on the fact that most countries haven't moved over to better energy sources. I imagine that the servers for NFTs wouldn't be nearly as problematic if the countries they were in used nuclear power.
-All this said, yeah, the harassment campaigns (albeit, it's probably unintentional, & is just the result of a ln echo chamber) are an issue, but that's more of a problem with content creators abusing their platforms, especially on Twitter. I could start listing examples, but we'd be here longer than the length of this video; we all know at least a handful of times where a bunch of big names on Twitter sent their communities, either intentionally or accidentally, to harass someone else. Or even contributed to the dogpiling of someone's personal life being made public.
- This video really could've been 2 hours for your core points being made, & then had a document going over the specifics. An 8 hour video is a work shift, or a healthy amount of sleep.
The environmental cost is probably the part of the video I disagree with most.
Firstly, it doesn't matter how clean the energy you're using is. Unclean energy is widely used, and that clean energy could have been used to offset the unclean energy elsewhere. We don't have infinite clean energy on our hands. We would have found somewhere else to use it. The only way that's a salient point is if the entire world changes to clean energy.
But even then, Energy will always have an impact on the environment, no matter how little it is. Nuclear power plants need mining to get the uranium, transport costs, and require large storage space for depleted material.
It's better than fossil fuels, perhaps by an order of magnitude or more, but it's not completely free. Even pure wind and solar isn't completely free as hardware decay is a real thing, and most electronic waste is non-recyclable.
Not even mentioning the massive amounts of hardware waste produced by the computers themselves.
No matter how friendly the energy, something that uses a country's worth of energy for something most people don't use, has no practical utility, and is arguably harmful without the environmental cost, is pretty terrible.
Not to mention, if the cost of electricity does go down because we have more, they build bigger and bigger machines. People in pursuit of profit will do anything to get more, and their irresponsibility cannot just be offloaded onto people inventing anti climate change devices. The point that what they're doing now is fine because we'll invent technology to make it fine is a terrible point to begin with, but the fact that these people are actively hunting down the places with the cheapest electricity, often deliberately choosing the places with the most damaging energy production on purpose, makes this point dangerous.
The problem with nfts is not what they're doing to add to the environmental load of bitcoin. The problem is that they're granting more legitimacy to and dragging more people into the ecosystem which is bitcoin, and that ecosystem as a whole wastes a large amount of energy, and produces pretty much no utility.
@@DrDrao Bitcoin doesn't have an NFT market and Ethereum is moving to Proof of Stake consensus in 2 weeks (99.95% less energy usage). Sorry you wrote all of that but it's entirely moot. Energy consumption isn't a concern for NFTs, and even before the change the impacts was grossly misrepresented.
@@Pikayumyums You just skipped over the bit with hardware decay, and the bit where I mentioned that lower energy doesn't really matter as they'll just build more and bigger machines.
@@DrDrao Because neither of those points are relevant to Proof of Stake.
@@Pikayumyums Kinda invalidates what you say about proof of stake fixing everything. It'll make things better, sure, but they're still bad.
Can't say I'm ecstatic about a defense of NFTs but I'll listen.
I am, if a cool person has a good reason to defend something inherently bad, i'll listen gladly, even tho if it usually means something worse happened.
@@Popotato7777The argument right now for NFTS is that "Oh there is worse things out there", that doesn't mean what you are doing is any better than it its.
I have had to many of my artist friends have their work stolen by these NFT people stealing their work and selling them as NFTS. So yeah on top of that it harms the planet greatly like cryptocurrency I am not really inclined to ever be supporting it if there is a thing as commisioning artists or buying real life paintinings.
@@markspc1285 Yeah i hate NFTS to death but if someone in need gets a profit from them, and suddenly only *that person* gets harrased from it.
Im more on the side of the victim.
@@Popotato7777 agreed
Wait theres no contradiction between paragraph 1 and 2
Thats just how market boom periods work - the idea that trends boom and trail off, yea the later you enter in the less profit you can make because thats literally how a bigger fool or ponzi scheme works.
"Artists as a total didn't profit" isn't a contradiction with "earlier adopters make more"
You're usually smart but there literally isn't a contradiction
This is the point I got stuck on in the video, makes it really hard to take what he says after that very seriously.
I know he is being serious and it seems like he have studied nfts a lot but at the same time it feels like he is willfully ignoring the most glaring issues that people have with them or treating them as minor problems.
Like the fact that the early adopters have a huge advantage over any later adopters when it comes to minting, and same if you have a lot of money since you don't have to worry about the cost.
Someone with a lot of money can mint hundreds of nfts, which makes the odds of them managing to sell them much higher. And if even one sells it covers the minting cost of several more.
Most artists are not rich, there is some truth to the 'starving artist' stereotype after all.
That means an artist is only gonna mint a few at most. They are also more focused on creating the art themselves, which takes a lot more time than it takes for someone to download any random art piece and then minting it. The more complex and detailed the art is, the longer it takes to make.
The odds of selling 1 out of 3 is smaller than 1 out of 100.
There is also the issue with how even if you take down one stolen nft it can still be minted again somewhere else due to the system being de-centralized and lacking proper protection against minting stolen art to begin with...
The odds are stacked heavily against smaller artists. I have seen multiple artists that I have followed for years on twitter tweet about how one of their art pieces got stolen and turned into a nft. Often multiple times or it happened to multiple pieces over the course of months. This is a HUGE problem and it needs to be taken seriously.
Oh god, I think you'll rile me up enough to make a point-by-point blog response for the first time. My comment already was 2500 letters, and I watched your "art theft" segment and felt an itch to ad another 5000 about research methodology. I'll try to be concise:
1) "I found N artists who got >$1000 without cherrypicking". False. That thing that you did was the definition of cherrypicking. You set up your search conditions (NFT artists, >$1000 profit,
Great response, would love to hear the thoughts on the rest of the video
@@Deadshadow1405 I concur, this is good.
You are the most based person on this comment section
Brilliant stuff, unlike the video. Do report back if you feel up to it!
i have similar issues with other stuff as well and on this.
I do think even the cherrypicked and unproperly researched artist profit bit serves as a case study and weak/moderate evidence in favor of NFTs helping artists, but yeah, that could have been way better done.
Carbon credits and offsets are not effective at protecting the environment at all and are arguable making things worse because they trick people into thinking that something positive is happening. John Oliver recently did an episode on this subject, basically the main problems are that: 1. Offsetting carbon emissions is easily falsifiable in that the entire certification and registration system around carbon offsets is rampant with corruption. 2. They can be done non additively meaning offsets or credits can be purchased for green projects that were already going to happen regardless and 3. That pollution is continually getting worse and worse so we need to be doing more than attempting neutrality to solve the problem.
Nonetheless, it's not ok to cyberbully people into committing suicide and it's fucked that that even needs to be said.
(posted about 2 hours in, my guy why did you make this 8 hours long)
Is that his environmental argument? Wow he really is libertarian huh.
@@kevinz8554 I don't claim to understand his argument yet I haven't finished the video. I was just rebutting a point that he briefly brought up.
As a biology MSc, I can tell you - fuck carbon offsets. The biggest scam in modern times, for real. They don’t accomplish shit other than washing the hands of mass-polluting companies in the eyes of the public and the State. Absolutely abhorrent. We need more Corporate Responsibility demands!!!
I skip ahead to see what his argument was, and I don't think is in very good faith either. If I understand correctly, it is not the transactions that use energy, is the miners that process the transaction that consume energy, increasing the amount of transactions doesn't increase the amount of miners...
But... he kind of completely ignored why the miners were there in the first place... or how there would effectively be more miners if there is more people using crypto.
Like... sure, not any individual transaction is responsible for some precise amount of energy, but if there weren't any crypto transactions, then that energy wouldn't be spent.
Sure the original projection was wrong of 70 Mt of CO2, the better projection is... 16 Mt of C02, that is 16 million tonnes of CO2. That is still horrible, it is not even an order of magnitud smaller. That is like if someone complained about 1 coal burning pipe and someone replied, well it is not as bad as 6 coal burning pipes.
@@kevinz8554 The context is that one of the artists in the video mentioned that they were using carbon credits/offsets to try to balance out the NFT work they were doing, but they still got berated and harassed their audience
19:28 this point doesn't really make sense to me, especially as someone who makes art. An art thief can steal and mint many works, and when one does sell, it can make up for the cost of minting so many works, but an artist might not have access to the same pool of money to mint tons of artworks, so they only mint one or two, and they go unsold. Seems consistent to me, even if it went unsaid in the original video.
additionally, the original video stated that the only people who make money are the ones with existing connections, which would also explain why an art thief might have much more luck than the artist
@@username_123 that is very true. Plus, I really doubt buyers who are about to spend thousands of dollars just not checking whether or not the person who minted owns the artwork. It just doesn't make sense.
@@username_123 cant the thief just mint it again tho?
he talks about it in the video. people who invest in nfts. are more likely to make sure it's from the actual artist. because nfts of stolen art has little to no investment or resell value. also, it's pretty easy to tell if someone did make their own art if they are taking art from a bunch of people. because the art styles wound be inconsistent.
@@username_123 dawg, you're really trying to fool people with that shit? 95% of the time those claims are ignored, and at least with normal art thieving on the internet, the artist doesn't have to see said person making literally tens of thousands off of their work, as it's not as intrinsic monetarily
I think you've made some valid points at the time period I'm at, but I also feel as if this video should be either condensed down into a two hour video or broken apart into multiple separate videos discussing each aspect to its fullest extent. As it stands, with the time schedule me and many others have, it will be difficult to get a whole lot out of this video without it all blurring together. If this isn't an option given your own time schedule, it would be appreciated to leave chapters in the video description so people can find the place they left off at.
Edit: 2022-08-31 Chapters have been added to the video.
I agree so much with this statement. I don't have to guess when you stop talking about something, or when I could skip to the next point just by listening to you talk about another one. Segmenting would also help for analysing your video, be it for criticizing or for agreeing.
The strangest thing is that the video *is* segmented, as can be seen at 12:40.
I guess the chapters have just not been implemented ?
Yeah, I see a lot of the points that he's making, and I think that a version with a lot of the specific pieces of evidence trimmed down or just time stamped for anyone who wants to check the original for context would be great.
Agreed. I'm quite simply, not going to watch this video as 8 hours is just too much for one setting. If it was split up, I'll be able to follow it much better.
Yes the video is long, but it makes a lot off sense as to why it's so long. It's clear Uniquenamosaurus wants this video to be bulletproof, a lot off the "bloat" is from constantly giving more evidence and countering potential counterpoints people could use in response to this video. So I don't think this video could be a lot shorter without just literally being sped up, which you can do in the YT player. Although I do agree video chapters would be good. The video length is more off a symptom off covering every single point and not skipping over anything. It's being extremely thorough.
Normally I don’t complain about video length, but few adults have time to sit through a tv-show length essay about NFTs. Two hours is one thing, that’s about a movie length. This is something else.
As someone who hates NFTs, I want to give this video a chance because I want to evolve my perspective. But I genuinely just don’t have that kind of time.
Yeah, I clicked on this and then realized that It would take me at least 2 days doing nothing but sleep, work, and watching this one single video. Can we get an abriged version that is maybe In the under an hour range?
Well its movie length if watch lord of the rings back to back
"Long man bad."
Hell man I'd be satisfied if he had cut this video into say a 5 part series. This is just too long for a sit through.
2X speed & mashing the 'skip ahead' button anytime there's too many examples. I found it worth the watch.
Just commenting here cause I'm 15 minutes in, wanna stablish some things:
1 - I am against NFTs and I do believe I've made my due diligence when it comes to researching and understanding what it is and what are the negative implications of it, and why I don't like them.
2 - I am a twitter artist with a reasonable audience, so I feel like I have my own opinions shaped by my own experience in that platform, and that also informed my views on NFTs
3 - I didn't engage in any sort of harassment of NFT artists, even though I greatly dislike them NFTs. The most I ever said to a another artist, Lazy Pillow aka Yotam, when he made a video slightly defending NFTs, is that I would stop paying attention if they announced an NFT project.
4 - I do feel like part of my view on this subject has been informed by the largely negative interactions I've had with people on the crypto space, aka people spamming their NFTs on my coments if I as much as mentioned them, big accounts being hacked to promote their crypto currency or NFT project, the list goes on. So this haven't really helped painting the whole thing in a bad light.
Alright, having these things stablished, I hope you appreciate the fact that I'm actually gonna take the time to listen to this mammoth of a video, I really hope you have a good reason for it to be this long, I'll be editing this comment as I progress through it, adding with my own conclusion at the end.
Depending on how well you sell me on this argument, I'll even promote the video on my own art account. It'll have to be a really fucking argument to make me try to convince people to give an 8 hour video a chance btw.
Edit1: 1 hour in, I feel like the arguments against the allegations of money laundry were kinda week and not that well researched, and the video would've been better off not making that point at all. The point made about art theft was a solid one though.
Edit2: Nothing too important, but that moment when you recognize someone who follows you in this video 1:32:53
Edit3: 3 hours in, and I have to say that the harassment that these artists have recieved is actually unaccaptable. I'm relieved that I didn't engage with this behaviour, but it doesn't make it any less disturbed towards the fact that this was completely normalized, and that I, along with many others, just didn't question this.
Edit4: 3 hours and 50 minutes in, aight, I know you're trying to get across how much harassment this artist got, but this part genuinely could've gotten this point across and have been way shorter. After a certain point it genuinely becomes redundant to show every single malicious tweet. I was already sold on your argument regarding the harassment half an hour ago, at this point I'm just wondering for how long you'll take to be done with this point. I genuinely mean well when I say this, if you actually want people who would disagree with you, but who don't have the same patience or avaiable time to listen to your argument as I do, you'll actually be hurting your cause because people will just skip your video.
Edit5: The part regarding the political motivation starts really strong when you're showing evidence of who were the ones propagating the narrative for NFTs, but then you just go on a tangent talking about issues I don't think you have a good grasp on. I don't like Hassan or any of the things he said on those streams, but you start going on a tangent talking about topics that I don't think you have a good grasp on, or that need their own video to be properly discussed, they don't belong in a video about NFTs. So much so that this part alone could be cropped and posted on twitter to make you look bad and disregard the whole video, again, doesn't help that the video is way longer then it needs to be. At this point I'm literally begging you for you to not bring up JK Rowling.
Edit6: Just confirming, that this mid section of the argument was extremely weak, specially since the research done regarding why a certain opinion being held or policy would make people angry(ex: the Roe v Wade reversal), or weather the backlash regarding a certain opinion was strong enough to even be relevant to this argument( refering to Rick Berwick's disagreement with the tweet about ableist language). More so, you yourself talk about how in the case of NFT, having the same political opinions or not is completely irrelevant, because the backlash has nothing to do with your opinion, and more so with the technology you use. This section started very strong and it quickly became a muddled mess.
Edit7(Final Edit): This video has a lot of good points that I've never heard before, that at worst made me reconsider my understand on certain things about NFTs, and at best completely flipped my perspective on some regards. I don't think it'll change much about the public conversation regarding NFTs however, because I don't see people having the same ammount of patience to watch an 8 hours long video, specially when it's one challenging their perspective, I feel like it's reasonable to expect people who are so pationately arguing against NFTs to put the same effort into understanding the counter arguments, but a full 8 hours shift is too much to ask out of anyone, specially considering that it really doesn't need to be this long. Bringing up multiple examples of harassment and artists who had their life changed for the better due to NFTs as evidence of your arguments was a good idea, but you definetely went overboard, it woul've also been a good idea to have someone else read the stuff you're quoting, just to have the video be more palatable, cause listening to the same person talking on the same tone for such a long time, can get really grating. The part about the enviromental impact was an extremely important point, and I have no idea why you sandwiched the harassment segment between the overal rebutal section and the enviromental damage rebutal section of the video, when they could've been all on the same section and it would've made more sense. The part about the politics behind the arguments is very pertinent, because it actually gives a motivation for all the lies that have been spread about NFTs, but you really went off the wall talking about leftists in general, and started talking about black concervatives and trans republicans, when that doesn't belong at all into the conversation, there's a lot of issues that you mention that are extremely controversial and warrant their own discussion, and it's extremely hard to take that part seriously when I don't know where you stand on certain matters( ex: the reasons why Blair White is controversial, the reason why the Roe v Wade reversal is controversial). My point is, a lot of that section shouldn't even be included in this video, cause they open a bunch of can of worms that people will get lost on discussing, when the main topic of this video should be NFTs, plus you're just giving a reason for leftist artist( even ones who might agree with you on NFTs) to dismiss or attack your whole point. That last segment alone is reason enough for me not to signal boost your video on my art account.
Bottom line is, the message you're trying to get out there is very important, but your video has way too many issues as it stand for me to be able to recomend it to people to watch it, there's a lot of repetition, a lot of fluff, and the end there's a lot of stuff that doesn't even belong in this video. If you ever decide in the future to re-make a video on this topic that adresses these criticisms, I'll be more then glad to share them with my audience, regardless of the consequences( I'm not like a huge artists or anything, I have 20k followers). Sorry these last edits took longer to come out, but I literally needed a break from your video before I came back to listen to the rest of it. I'll now rest my brain and listen to a Fauna stream, because her voice is soothing and nice, peace.
based of you to give it a shot
I think we're all just too used to bad things being summarized. I think the fact that he takes so much time to show it, is to truly get the point across. Because the harassment didn't just stop, it kept going. And it is a lot of harassment. The time spent on it is more then just 3 really bad comments and saying there's tons of harassment, it's actually able to convey the feeling. And it's not a good one.
Agree, they are wayyyyy too much redundant tweets, I just skipped that parts when I got the idea
"I do feel like part of my view on this subject has been informed by the largely negative interactions I've had with people on the crypto space" I met a black guy once who was a dick. So all black guys are dicks.
I skipped a majority of the tweets but mostly becauaw they royally pissed me off, and I just keep thinking that if I can't handle a couple of hours of these tweets, what is it like for the people on the nasty end of them and dealing with them for days, months and years on end.
Can't speak for why there's the assistance on showing them so redundantly like this, but that's one way I look at it.
Dude, absolutely nobody who is skeptical or dislikes NFTs is going to sit through an 8 hour video where you defend them. This video desperately needs an abridged version.
Even than NFTs are literally a scam, no one should defend them let alone use them.
Holy fuck I didn’t even realize it was 8 hours. Ain’t no way I’m sitting through a shift at work in defense of fucking nfts
@@Castersvarog
Same same, even 20 mins would be a lot to ask for something that is a scam.
@@aroace7913 i mean, i fucking hate NFT's too, but im watching the thing bc i could be wrong and its important to hear other peoples veiwpoints? idk seems wack
@@dnd402
NFTs are a scam, there is no way around that and the damage they do is immense and thinking they can be somehow good would be the same as believing that fossile fuel companies actually will become green and not destroy the planet for every cent of profit.
Skipping to the question at the end "should we kill this as it's being born" I think yes, NFTs are inextricably tied to crypto and crypto is inextricably tied to web 3, you can't look at any point in a bubble. I don't want a pay for access pass theme park internet. I don't want the systems that the advocates for web 3 praise to be implemented in the day to day web. Can NFTs do good for artists, sure, some of them, but I don't want to be apart of some weird white boy stonks cult in order to make a living. I do not want to work with a highly volatile currency daily. I don't want to foof around with my money for shits and giggles. Maybe you should listen to counter points to crypto.
Just curious, what do you think "Web 3" means? Its a very ambiguous term that means a lot of different things to different people.
For me it means replacing the existing internet with an alternative that is decentralized and privacy-respecting but I'm not sure how common that definition is...
@@zyansheep I would love a decentralized web, but the blockchain isn't the way to get that. Personally I would like a more web 1 style web with low cost personal sites being the focus, with social media's acting as ways to find more independent sites. Web 3 had a focus on blockchain stuff and I don't think a big log of everything that I've ever done I'd very private, but thats just me./nm
@@plagueonhumanity7413 I think the reason a lot of gamers are so against web3 and crypto schemes is because we see the idea of it and know how it actually turns out:
Microtransactions: The Internet
@@zyansheep For me, its microtransactions and the death of moderation or control leading to 4chan, stormfront and kiwifarms becoming the new internet. Why would we want this?
@@plagueonhumanity7413 ZK-rollup chains provide privacy layers. You're committing the sin of killing it before it's born when there are already improvements in the work to fix issues you have with it. They just take time to build out but have good progress made on them. Pay to access is...what we already have? I mean you pay your ISP to post here, correct? Network usage fees will go down over time as the tech improves. Do you know how expensive the internet was in the 90's? How slow and costly it was to send images over the web or host them on servers? To assume it will always be the same is short sighted given the grown rate of technology historically speaking.
BRO, LEAVE KENTARO MIURA OUT OF THIS
From Pewdiepie to Harry Potter to NFTs, how are you so talented and have such interesting content but also have like the WORST takes 😭😭
He's still the same dude maybe you should rethink your stance
Just saying
maybe you're the person in the wrong and have allowed poisonous ideologies to ruin your mind?
Your criticism of the video's contradiction 19:00-21:00 doesn't hold water, Both statements can be true at the same time.
The 1st paragraph states that after the initial NFT boom passed the cost to hire legitimate artists wasn't worth the profit NFT minters were receiving so more and more resorted to stealing artwork rather than hiring artists, and because the market did not even punish NFT minters stealing art until potentially days or even weeks after they've pumped and dumped it gives thieves a high incentive without any reason to not do it.
The 2nd paragraph talks about ETHICAL NFT minters that hire a real artist to help in the creation of NFTs but the project never takes off the ground. The NFT sits there unsold and the artist loses there possibly unpaid depending on the contract negotiated when creating the NFT. The 2nd paragraph even starts with the sentence that a few sellers LEGITIMATE OR OTHERWISE profited, acknowledging that some ethical NFTs did profit but is trying to state that a vast majority of artists attempted to step into the market but walked away with nothing or even less than they began with.
TL;DR NFT art thieves profiting/failing and Legitimate/Ethical NFT creators profiting/failing can and did exist within the NFT marketplace. Both paragraphs can be true because there were NFTs of varying success and failure during and after the NFT boom.
In response to the "claim" at 26:30 I'm fairly certain you two have been talking about different types of NFTs. Your usage of NFTs is a category which was in all likelihood the original intention of NFTs. A labor-intensive piece of unique art sold to consumers which thanks to the digital marketplaces like foundation have a way to showcase, advertise and sell their art on a new platform. Folding Ideas has been talking about a whole other category of NFTs which instead of being unique one-of a kind art pieces are instead a substitute to the stock market with people attempting to look for the next Google or Facebook but instead of a company that produces a product that generates value it is a static piece of art that people expect to somehow increase in value because of artificial scarcity.
This counter-argument makes no sense.
There's no counter, you only proved what the video said.
~ 43:00-2:53:00 Lots of good points and solid evidence about NFT art theft, people abusing artists getting into nfts and nfts benefiting many artists globally. Twitter being incredibly toxic and people violating the principles they espouse is business as usual.
POINT REDACTED CHECK THE EDIT STATEMENT FOR THE REASON:
~3:10:00-3:13:00 I also agree that it was irresponsible of Ross to label Seiro as a thief without research or evidence( I blame mob mentality confirming a bias here "if this many people are saying it they can't all be wrong hurr durr") I don't know how much responsibility you can assign him through signaling the fanbase that it is "acceptable" to harass when although he labeled akairiot as the "real" artist he tried to redirect attention to akairiot instead of sending hate to seiro. Rebeltaxi doesn't get this consideration though he directly calls attention to seiro exclusively.
edit: saw evidence of ross' tweet 3:18:22 specifically labeling it as stealing. This whole point is null and void move on please.
Please, for the love of God, change that title. The struggle of NFT artists does not represent the struggles of all artists, most artists not even wanting to associate with NFT artists.
They are just people trying to make a living like any other Twitter artist, but there are ways you can make money without participating in a scam.
How and why would it be a scam? It's a market with buyers. Artist lists a product, buyers buy it if they're willing. At what point does anyone get scammed?
@@Pikayumyums ultimately the marketplace is a scam because it misrepresents what you are buying. NFT'S are sold as if they give you ownership over an artwork but they don't. You cannot buy the NFT of an artwork and start filling copyright take down notices of other people using the artwork. Similarly if you purchase and NFT to use the artwork for a commercial project, there is nothing stopping the original creator from disregarding the NFT and suing for for using thier artwork. At no point do you buy anything except the token on the block chain which has no actual relation to the artwork except for a link to it.
@@everythingisscience658 This is where the definition gets jumbled actually.
Yes, what you are buying is not the art itself. You are essentially buying a trading card that features the art on it.
If your intent is to buy the art and you're sold a trading card, that's a scam.
But what if the buyer is fully aware that they're buying a trading card? Is that a scam? Not at all.
So it's only a scam if the buyer believed they were buying the art. This can't be applied to every NFT transaction.
@@Pikayumyums It becomes a scam when you're being tricked into thinking that your piece is one of a kind, when you're told that it can be turned around and sold for way more than you bought it for. That's the main reason for why anybody buys NFTs, and rarely is the return ever as great as they were tricked into believing.
Uniquenameosaurus tries to paint it out as those people being in the minority, and that this is benieficial for artists that skip the middle man and sell their own art on the market for however much, portraying a lot of the community as being wholesome, buying the art just for the sake of its beauty or love for the artist. Even if this were true and if the majority of people were buying the art for the sake of the art, that doesn't take away how grossly overinflated the art is often being sold for. If you want to give $2000 dollars to your favorite artist, you can do that. Better yet, you could commission them for something worth $2000 dollars, without having to fascilitate and encourage a toxic industry.
The only reason why you would maybe want to shell so much money to have it on the Blockchain is to say you own it, and Uniquenameosaurus, ironically, has already made multiple videos on the flaws of humans owning intellectual concepts, with digital art frankly being no different.
Most people are intelligient enough to realize "Why would I want to pay thousands of dollars for just a hyperlink to the original art, a thing that I can just rightclick and download at it's original pixel ratio," with the only way you could ever convince someone to do that is by promising a large return, that is when it becomes a scam.
For the love of god watch the video before commenting
While it's truly disgusting that people were cyberbullied by an appaling and ignorant mob which clearly barely even knew what NFTs are, this video fails to convince me that NFTs are a good thing. I honestly don't understand why you chose to talk about these two things at the same time. The point of this video should have simply been: stop being such horrible human beings, if someone decides to mint NFTs it doesn't necessarily mean they are cryptobros, pump and dump, money laundering, etc scammers. I feel like this message is a bit lost.
About NFTs themselves, especially crypto art (which is what this video is about), I'm a computer science student who spent an entire year dealing with this blockchain stuff. I was initially very enthusiastic about this technology, but as time went by I became more and more disillusioned with it. Blockchains barely even work as a way to exchange tokens (which is what they were invented for), finding other sensible and functional applications for these networks is ridicolously difficult. Art NFTs just don't work as they're intended to. They're unable to represent actual ownership of the underlying assets, they do not grant any real world rights, they just are not useful to own. That's what I don't understand: why should I ever want to buy one of those art NFTs? I like to explain what crypto art is by calling those kind of NFTs "cryptographic autographs". That's what they are, their "value" comes from the fact that they originate from someone which is somewhat notorious (for example, because they made a nice drawing). And what autographs are good for is for flexing and for financial speculation. Btw, I honestly don't know any actual NFT collectors. However, I can assure you that almost anyone involved in this space is OBSESSED with money, they really do only talk about the line going up and down. Almost nobody cares about the actual utility ot the system, it's really just a matter of buying so that you can resell at higher prices. It's not a revolution, it's not wealth redistribution, It's a bubble. And while it's a really toxic enviroment (I'm really glad I got out of it), it's worth understanding that most of those involved are not scammers or bad people: they are vulnerable (in many different ways) people, which might end up getting hurt. That includes the persons you discussed. While it's nice that they're getting paid loads of money, they're selling useless assets to people that most likely just believe that some day they'll be able to profit off of it. And if those artists keep their savings on-chain, they might end up with nothing at all when the bubble bursts. It's a system which exists only to enable senseless profits through financial speculation.
Also, no, money laundering on blockchains is absolutely possible: you can use blockchains which are more focused on privacy or simply use a tumbler (there are many on each platform).
No, blockchains are extremely slow, unless you are willing to pay really high fees, so that block producers will prioritize your transaction. What that artist was talking about is the Binance chain, which is a "permissioned" blockchain managed by one of the bigger crypto exchanges. It's basically an extremely centralized system and that's why it performs so well and why it costs so little. It just defeats the whole purpose and it's an example of what I mean when I say that people don't even actually care about the technology itself.
Yes, PoW blockchains hurt the environment. The fact that miners might be using renewables is not an excuse. That energy could be used for something much more useful that would otherwise require fossil fuels. If there was really that much green energy floating around, we would probably be in a much better place environment-wise. The problem is not the waste of energy by itself, it's that the system which that energy powers is useless.
I get that some artists might be really struggling financially, and I agree that asking for donations, working harder or something like that is not the solution. However, that's a really big systemic problem (especially in those countries which lack adequate welfare measures) which honestly goes well beyond artists doing commissions. I'm sorry to say, but blockchains will not lift people out of poverty.
Well said, especially the part about artists keeping their money on the blockchain. That is not safe at all, especially if you're in a precarious financial situation.
good rebuttal.
Completely agree. I've made tons of research on how this blockchain thing works, and although the tech sounds good, my gut feeling is always telling me that its a paradise that's too good to be true. Not to mention how complicated Ethereum is to learn about, and has more points where it can fail compared to Bitcoin.
Part of me loves the idea of cryptocurrency and what it can do...but I always feel uncomfortable using it.
@@thepuzzlemaster64 yeah, I really wanted blockchains to be as convenient, revolutionary, disruptive, etc as they are advertised to be. That's the reason it took so long for me to leave that stuff behind: I was basically in denial about the lack of sense of it all. I took a course (I'm technically an NFT owner, I guess, they sent me an NFT which is supposed to be some kind of diploma lol), I read books and papers, I even built my own toy blockchain. Btw, coding that proof-of-work stuff by yourself really makes you understand what sick amount of wasted processing goes into the blocks production process. I even wanted to write my thesis on a project which I would have liked to build on one of those networks.
Finally, I came to the conclusion that mass adoption of these platforms would be basically impossible without centralizing the system to some degree, that blockchains already are kind of centralized (there are very few big miners which actually count and most of the coins are controlled by an handful of people anyway) and that the technology really isn't that useful anyway (it's an invention looking for use cases, it has been for the last 13 years).
I think that Bitcoin, in the beginning, was really interesting as a technical (and maybe even social) experiment. However, it was allegedly designed by ONE person without any peer reviews (Satoshi Nakamoto even actively ignored criticisms of their ideas). While it is ingenious, it's not that well thought out, it has intrinsic limitations which were also inherited by subsequent projects such as Ethereum.
I'm not even talking about the fact that blockchains are basically tailored made to fit the libertarian agenda (most cryptobros are libertarians), which I absolutely do not agree with.
I’ve been involved in blockchains in one way or another since 2012 Back in 2014 I thought : ‘maybe it just is too complex to work.. and here we are. It would be a massive act of hubris to think you have it all figured out and that your personal disillusionment has any bearing on the viability of the technology.
There are thousands of old articles on how dumb the iphone idea was or how apple would fail with the ipad or numerous other complete wiffs from intelligent and otherwise educated people.
Edit: Got to ~4 hours in. Now that I've gotten through the harassment stuff, yeah that's the most convincing part of the video up to that point and it's harrowing to see they go through the works when it comes to Twitter cancelations. I think the tag "Twitter Backstabbed Artists" is somewhat misleading here since when I hear/see that I think Twitter *the company* was supportive of it, not the community AND I think they were initially supportive of NFTS, not that they supported points that NFTs help in. I think a tag like "Twitter Community's Double Standard with Artists and NFTs" would have fit your point slightly better and not have given me an improper first impression of what angle your points were going to take.
Also some of you're harassment points use the same tweet multiple times like half an hour between them. I did a double take each time that happened suspecting I accidentally rewinded the video but it turns out I didn't. It also made me really suspicious that NFT artist harassment was that ubiquitous since you need to repeat the same exact tweet multiple times or made me suspect you were intentionally or unintentionally doing it to pad out run time. It would have helped using said tweets once in the point where it made sense to use them, rather than just reusing them in whatever argument seems most relevant.
Edit 2 at 6 hours in: Your arguments to the appeal to NFTs in 'Rebutting "NFTs are a Scam" ' feel really weak. I'm constantly left asking "Yeah, and?" and not getting anything super convincing. Maybe it's a more subjective thing. Also you throw around "authentication" in this segment like that one guy in the Princess Bride throws around "inconceivable", and Inigo Montoya's reaction to it was mine as well.
Also the link dying argument is for when the company storing the NFTs _goes out of business_ and can no longer maintain that NFT, not if some technological error means the NFT is gone but the company can maintain it. We're talking if that NFT has the longevity of something like the Mona Lisa (500 years) which survived multiple vandals and thefts. I have a comment in the reply thread that I researched in like and hour or two that went in to depth way more than you even did about the ways NFT markets store their tokens. So, I'm sorry I have to be this disingenuous when I write this, but you are misunderstanding the argument and making it way simpler to rebut than it actually is and, in this argument, are doing what you are criticizing Folding Ideas for when you call them out for not doing enough research.
Edit 3 at 7 hours in: Stopping here cause most of your talking points were more 'leftist political agenda' and less about NFTs. I don't know if the next hour was like that but if it is, I didn't miss much. As someone who stepped into college around the same time as the political polarization of the USA and got out of it once I realized it was turning into a two minute hate, that segment really reminds me of those really up their own ass political commentary channels going full schizo about how some movie/game is evidence of a hostile political takeover in all the worst ways. Only your voice isn't so full of snark it degrades the video since you at least have some respect for the people you're talking about. It could've ended like 20 minutes in on a good conclusion but you dragged the point on for wayyyyy too long discussing things that weren't even tangentially related to NFTs, occasionally mentioning them because ????. You already proved to me there's a political reasoning behind this about 20 minutes in and you didn't need to beat it into me for another hour but this time about race. If you ever redo this video please COMPLETELY rework your ending so it's solely focused on NFTs and not extrapolating it into some extravagant political hit piece.
Leaving the rest below for posterity, with a few edits.
Haven't watched the entirety of the video (it's almost 8 hours long) but I already get the vibe that this is more inspired by the fact that selling an NFT is treated like a 'Star of David' for an artist than anything inherently about NFT technology. I think it would have benefitted from a focus on why artists make the difficult and oftentimes reputationally destructive choice to mint their works rather than sell merch or do commissions. THEN you could've talked about why NFT art theft is just as frequent as any other market, how NFT artists make money, etc. as points as to why these artists make the move. All this you could prove as a point as to why the hate against these artists is either overblown or undeserved. Would have taken maybe an hour and a half of screen-time instead of eight.
In this video, though, it feels like your point is too muddied at the start in trying to convince me that NFTs are good. Personally, I already decided NFTs were bad on the sole reason that what's stored in them is not the art you bid for, but only a pointer to it. The environmental point did not matter to me because it's an issue with the fact we burn coal for power, which is gradually being phased out as battery technology improves and allows us to store more energy for longer periods of time which was and still is a big issue with sustainable electricity, and the power consumption required to mint and transact, which will likely be worked on and improved upon as NFT markets try to compete by reducing their energy costs in order to have larger profit margins. I don't need to be convinced NFTs are good for artists, but that NFTs are good for the person bidding.
VERY good points here. Put a lot in to words that I couldn't manage to
I feel like it's partly due to burn out. If an artist can make passive income on an NFT versus doing a hundred commissions, why wouldnt they
@@tempesttossed6029 Being an NFT artist sounds like it would burn you out harder than doing hundreds of commissions would, unless you do commissions for certain tastes. You'd be spending more mental energy dealing with people with a dead set vendetta against you all while having to constantly double, triple, and quadruple check your account to make sure it doesn't have any PII (personally identifiable information) or anything that links to accounts that have PII. All this while still needing to draw. Commissions are a slog but at least at the end of the day you'd be worrying more about your actual craft rather than Twitter mob ethics.
Unless you get a Wonderbread commission. That'd be way more stressful than minting an NFT.
@@Pokemonmovemaster To top that off you also have to make sure your wallet doesn't get some malware bombed into it in a less obvious way than a hyperlink would be, otherwise all the money you just gained disappears along with any minted NFTs you happen to still own. Similar things can happen outside crypto, but with banks you do get some legal protection at least.
@@Pokemonmovemaster
>Personally, I already decided NFTs were bad on the sole reason that what's stored in them is not the art you bid for, but only a pointer to it.
I take an issue with this, indeed the NFT is not the art itself. It's an authentication, he get into it when he talks about the reasons people buy NFTs. It's like buying an original Van Gogh. What makes it valuable is not that it looks the original painting, it's that it has a certificate that guarantees you it is indeed *THE* original, otherwise recreations would be just as expensive. You'd be able to make a scanned print of the painting as a wallpaper and sell it for millions. Its a pretty solid argument to be honest.
>Being an NFT artist sounds like it would burn you out harder than doing hundreds of commissions would, unless you do commissions for certain tastes. You'd be spending more mental energy dealing with people with a dead set vendetta against you
That's not an issue with NFTs though, that's an issue with the Anti-NFT people harassing artists. As for the issue of PII, that's already basic internet safety. Even without NFTs shipers have doxxed people a brought the harrassment to the real world. A girl was given a cookie with nails or glass in it for having a certain ship.
Uniquenameasuarus just gonna throw up a 8 hour video with no time stamps.
18:40 I'm not sure I see the contradiction, or at least that there necessarily is one purely from what was said.
If I buy a lottery ticket, there is the potential of an extremely high payoff and some people do win. Hence, if the concept of lottery was just introduced and people had not wizened up to it, it wouldn't be surprising for a lot of people to buy lottery tickets, or forge/steal them if we want to try to make the metaphor works with minting nfts from stolen art.
It doesn't change the fact that most people are negatively impacted by participating in the lottery, only losing the cost of their tickets without any gain to show.
So yeah, I don't actually know much about the nft ecosystem and if that is the case here, but an absolute plague of art theft caused by the potential of extremely high payoff is not necessarily incompatible with the fact that most people are just wasting money on it because it could be that very few people (including thiefs) actually enjoy the payoff.
There isn't tho. The lottery is guaranteed to eventually have a winner because they keep running it until there's a winner.
If you'd watched the video, you'd know that art theft isn't profitable.
@@Rowan_A_Boat I still question his methodology, because often it was just him looking through to see which schemes he could find that were profitable which, isn't really a good survey of the profitability of the endeavour, as one could very well imagine that one scammer or group of scammers may very well just make tons of scams and see which ones stick, if they have the finances. One might also be able to argue that it might be an economy of scale thing, where on theif has stolen a buttload of art and is more likely to make even or a profit off that buttload without doing any of the work? idk
.. economies of scale might be the wrong word, but i hope it's clear what i mean.
I haven't watched very far into the video because, really? Seven hours? But I just wanted to fact check the "NFTs help small artists" claim.
Did you know, that apparently foundation app thing has a top 100 list? Yeah... we can see the breadth and depth of these claims pretty easily.
The #1 supporter on the entire site has spent about 2.5k eth on a little over 800 artists. At #100, they have supported 60 artists with around 91 eth. Some of the top supporters in this list have spent as little as 8 eth to get in the top 100 supporters on the whole site.
Top creators has over 2k eth from one NFT sold, but that was the outlier. The person who has sold the most NFTs has a collection similar to Bored Apes and has sold 169 NFTs for around 806 eth total. Down at the bottom of the TOP 100 of all creators has sold 44 for 23 eth. It's tasteful modeling pictures that they take a lot of. In terms of total sales, the #100 place has sold 25 images for 64 eth. 64 eth seems like a lot at first, but it's a very steep drop from the top of the list, and there's no telling if beyond the top 100 it stays remotely as high.
To me at least, this paints a very different picture, of a bunch of people pumping money into this marketplace to keep it alive, to continue the ponzi scheme, which was touched on in the Folding Ideas video you've spoken ill of. Obviously this isn't a perfect assessment, but cherry picking 25 people who make beautiful art isn't really the same thing as "helping all artists" and also saying the Folding Ideas video is bad because he says ALL artists hate NFTs is very similar to when you claimed that "the other HALF" of artists actually like NFTs lol
Dude, watch the last hour of this video, the guy just gives up on the idea of having actual arguments and starts calling anyone who doesnt like NFTs a "radical leftist", to the point that he has a meltdown and starts saying "radical leftist" every 30 seconds, the guy is just, SO MAD.
@@educprof2160 oh God, I'll have to go check it out... 😔
to say that the top collectors on foundation are "pumping this marketplace to keep it alive" is ignorant. people dont go to foundation to flip nfts or make money, or speculate on a market, they go there because they want to collect real art and the money goes directly to the artist. Its also funny you quantify 8 eth as 'little'. The collector in question spent 8 eth over the course of a year, taking into account eth price fluctuations, thats 1k a month *more or less* spent on directly supporting artists for a year.
Also this collector doesnt even show up on the list unless you use certain sorting options... If you sort by Total Spent, you can see the top collector has actually spent 3,330 eth, with the number 100# spot dropping down to 70 ETH. The leaderboard is pretty tight at the end in terms of amount spent, so you can almost certainly assume beyond this top 100 the numbers will be decently high. Unless you think 70 eth is small amount of money? lol.
Not to mention many collectors and artists alike have issues with foundation itself, its not like we want to keep it alive its just the best option for crypto people interested in collecting artworks and using crypto as the medium to do it.
But i guess giving artist thousands of dollars, supporting their vision and the art they truly want to create is a ponzi lmao
@@Tzill You can take the nose off we already had enough clowning in the video.
@@educprof2160 Question, how you would define your political stances?
"harassment bad, there for NFT good"
*"NFT neutral, there for harassment bad"
fixed
@@Grigori7 the video literally calls NFTs potentially revolutionary, how in the fuck is that "neutral"?
Regardless of my sympathy for this artist and my sething hatred of NFTs, I cannot watch an 8 hour video. I rly want to hear your points on this, but this is unreasonable. Please consider making it more concise or putting time stamps on the video.
Still love your content but this feels like a lot of effort that not enough people are gonna see.
Edit: sorry, didn't see the time staps at ~12 mins. I was hoping for a breakdown in the description, but that's on me for commenting quickly. Thanks all.
Won't be surprised if twitter users will only take one glance and wait for some big twitter user to "summarize" it as being "local man defends nft. Block and blacklist" mumbojumbo. I feel the same way and currently gonna try to watch it till the very end but hoo boy, this video needs time stamps that's for sure
@@-king-1230 I mean he did like 5m in?
He did put some timestamps, they're just in the video like 12 minutes in
@@randomstuff9005 it's 12:47. It would be more convenient for it if it was on the description
I get what you're saying, but honestly you don't know if the video is concise or not. A video being concise doesn't need to be less than an alloted amount of time to be concise, i've seen videos less than 20 minutes that were not concise at all.
If he needs near 8 hours to cover this topic properly then he should use it and shortening will only hurt his point.
I get being passionate about a situation and getting carried away with it, but this is a mess of a video.
My biggest point is just, it seems like you don't have a script for this and it's making this boarder line unwatchable. The repetition is annoying and all your points are becoming very muddled.
My second point is that, blending your critique of online harassment with NFT defence is not working.
If what's getting you pissed is how this artist was treated then why isn't that just the focus?
it seems a little disingenuous to me. I've made it about 15min in and you've barely explained what actually happened to the artist but have defined what an NFT is and also started critiquing Dan's NFT video.
if you care about the artist and the kind of harassment people are getting, make a video about that instead. and also make that video something people could actually watch, digest and share.
Because the reason the artist is getting hate is because of misinformation perpetuated by people like Dan. Striking down the inaccuracies in it makes room for people to realize that there's no reason to even have harassed in the first place. But the video certainly overstayed its welcome, I'm not listening to all of it. Dan's video is too long as well.
@@Pikayumyums Any reasonable person knows this kind of harassment is unacceptable regardless of their position on nfts. You don’t need to defend nfts to get people to realize this was bad and that maybe they should keep an eye out for nft artists who are getting harassed, as shown by the amount of people in the comments who still don’t like nfts, but are very happy this artist is ok and agree no one should go through this. Calling attention to the harassment could have been this video and understanding why nfts can be helpful to artists could have been the next video. The first would get widespread attention about the harassment so people can push back against it and the second could have the debates about if his defense was good or not
@@alliew31 Considering how many people's response to Seiro's twitlonger about her harassment was "fucked up that happened to you but" i can see why he felt the need to try and get people to see his POV on NFTs and how fucked up it was to ruin this girl's life over something thats way overblown.
@@alliew31 because without debunking the misinfo about nfts these people will just not understand why what they have done is morally wrong
I'm went into this tryng to be open-minded. However, let's talk about some of the issues. I am 5 hours in at the time of writing this.
1. This should be split into two separate videos at the very least. One video just discussing the harassment against artists, and one video highlighting your counter arguments against NFTs. Putting both in one video is very clearly detracting from your main points with the artist harassment from the information I can gather reading the comments. If your videos were separated it would've been much easier to unite your community to be decent human beings and stop abusing, harassing, and bashing others.
2. One of your big arguments was that "artists make money from NFTs." I have nothing to say about this, people claiming they don't were very clearly misinformed, I think you spent waaaaaaaay too much time on it.
3. Your counter arguments are very poorly structured, I had a hard time understanding just what exactly you were trying to say, but I got the general gist of it. You stated your thesis and took far, faaaar too long to back it up with actual sources. You tried to address some very specific arguments/problems with NFTs, sure, but the you didn't say anything about the main issue of them. That being, "what's the point?"
Questions:
If it's for the artists, what's stopping us from just having an dedicated artistry marketplace with no confusing/shady business going on in the background?
Why does this need to be tied to cryptocurrency?
What even is the point of an NFT?
If you're just buying art, why can't we actually just buy the art?
People will say you're buying a spot on the blockchain, but what does that even do?
What about all of the game companies that have attempted to lock content behind NFTs?
If you can't explain any sort of practicality behind NFTs besides "they make money" then I see no reason for them to exist. The business becomes especially dirty when you realize how many people are making thousands with just ai-generated art. People are literally paying thousands for art randomly generated by a program. They are countless people who are in this just for the money and never cared one bit about art.
I would include timestamps/specific points in this video in this comment, but since you didn't leave any I'm not going to rewatch the entire video again to find what I'm looking for. Also, I'm not going to be petty and unsubscribe from you, these are just your opinions after all. However, this video could've been GREATLY improved.
I've also seen quite a lot of hateful comments, don't take them too hard.
NFT's don't exist for any reason in particular, it's a technology that has gained traction and is simply popular right now. Why does it need to be tied to crypto? Well, because that's where you can make easy money right now.. Buying the actual art is a different thing entirely, and is disconnected from the community of people who invest/buy/collect NFT's.
But I do agree with your previous points.
And I also dislike NFT's because they seem ridiculous and are often just used for speculative gambling.
If you assume that NFTs work well because they are decentralised, which most of the pro-NFT crowd seems to agree with, then using crypto is the optimal choice as crypto by design is decentralised.
@@crimsonvale7337 what's the real strength of being decentralized there are still huge power players gatekeeping interaction with the system so you're not skirting the problems of power accumulating and corruption seems like another case of libertarians finding out why people do things the way they do because they still think capitalism is worth anything
1 It probably could've been a series of 20 videos, but after finishing the whole thing, I think it definitely works better as one director's cut. Timestamps would help tho, yeah.
2 You say that, but even though he he was so extremely thorough about it, there will still be ppl in the comments saying how he's "just wrong " with no actual rebuttal.
3 His counter arguments aren't immaculate, but they're better than you seem to think.
Answers: (from the video... wait that sounds condescending & like, I do mean it that way, but also it's an 8hr video, so I don't really blame you for missing it, but also I definitely do)
"If it's for the artists, what's stopping us from just having an dedicated artistry marketplace with no confusing/shady business going on in the background?"
Where a legitimate business succeeds, shady businesses will try to emulate it. The video talks about this with hypebeasts & counterfeits. If you want to make your own space, feel free to learn to code.
"Why does this need to be tied to cryptocurrency?"
Because you can't buy oil & canvas digitally?
"What even is the point of an NFT?"
That you can't funge the token.
"If you're just buying art, why can't we actually just buy the art?"
Because you can't buy oil & canvas digitally, & even if you could, some ppl only make digital art lmao
"People will say you're buying a spot on the blockchain, but what does that even do?"
It means your jpeg is decentralized instead of company contingent. If the valve servers shut down tomorrow, ppl's tf2 hats are probably gone forever. That's not an issue for blockchain, because nobody can unilaterally decide to kill the fun for everyone else.
"What about all of the game companies that have attempted to lock content behind NFTs?"
Those game companies seem genuinely retarded idk if that's anywhere in the vid.
@@alevanderBatman The entire stock market is "speculative gambling". It's not inherently bad just because bad things can be done with it.
So jumping ahead to the idea of whether or not NFT is a scam - I have no idea why you would say it can't be "objectively" determined. You say it's all conjecture, but also acknowledge that it highly depends on the "mass" - whether there are more NFTs that are scams or genuinely good projects. That can be absolutely be measured - it's a function of the size of the market. Which cryptocurrency and which NFT projects are the most successful? What is their net worth? Etc. Etc. That can be absolutely measured.
Nor do I understand your fixation of NFTs as a piece of art. Not all NFTs even feature art. In fact, the earliest and most high profile NFTs were related to tweets, memes, or even just other concepts. There's no requirement that the growth in NFTs need to be correlated to the growth of artists, even NFT artists. But the growth of NFT artists requires NFTs (and the underlying cryptocurrency) to remain successful. Which is only possible if it continues to be speculated higher and higher (you yourself acknowledge that they are definitely speculative assets).
This is definitely a situation where you're missing the forest for the trees. Even if some artists can make money or find success in this market, doesn't make it a good thing. There are other legitimate concerns.
I am about 20mins in and I am not sure if the "Line goes up" guy is as thoughoughly debunked as you are making it out to be.
From paragraph 1: '[NFT marketplace has] an irrational pricing culture where the mean buyer is easily flattered & not particularly discerning' . From paragraph 2: 'Instead there was a closed market dealing in casino chips where the primary winners were those already connected, who already had the means to get the attention of the whales & the media.'
Both paragraphs seem to speak to the (fickle) nature of the marketplace. The idea being communicated seems to be that an art dealer who only deals with gullible millionaires can make a lot of money selling stolen art. Wheras a talented artist who sells their paintings on the street could be loosing money.
So can the exact same product get drastically different outcomes? Yes! Particularly if the marketplace is not well regulated and those trading in that marketplace are not particularly discerning.
yeah except the people trading in this market *are* extremely discerning. Scammers and art thieves almost never make any sales, if ever. Extremely hard pressed to find any examples of stolen artwork thats had an actual sale as an nft.
Also like scammers aren't putting in the same amount of labor into creating the nft. If you spend 100 hours on an artwork and turn it into an not and it sells at 1 dollar, and a scammer spends 1 hour making an not and it sells for the same price; the artist has lost and the scammer hasn't.
@@Tzill That's how speculative markets work, discerning investors make money and undiscerning investors loose. While more undiscerning investors survive in a boom the bust wipes out malinvestment.
@@randommodnar7141 This presupposes the conclusion that the scammer is successful. If I change the numbers around to 20 hours and 1000$ and the scammer still uses one hour to earn 1000$ both win. The scammee looses and this promotes being a discernable buyer.
@@JohnSmith-ox3gy trust me i understand how markets work. When it comes to nfts there's completely different markets for different things. My point was that art theft doesnt happen nearly as often as people are making it out to happen, because people in the nft space collecting art are extremely discerning compared to the average investor. FoldingIdeas just wants to find as many reasons as he cannn to call anyone who buys an nft a gambler or stupid.
You also have to look at it from the point of view of someone who likes collecting. Many many people aren't involved in nfts just to try to flip and make a profit. Lots of people including myself just want to collect art from our favorite artists and support their journey. So no, were not all here to speculate and make money.
I mean, isn't the end goal of NFTs to create a even more copyright, DRM digital space? If anyone, i didn't think you of all people would try to defend such a future.
EditEdit: I was pointed to around 5:43:40 for this point to be addressed. It's just a bad, uninformed comparison to compare shinies to NFTs. The people making the NFTs want the NFTs to function as a copyright, and for their holders to be able to license out the IP.
You can't do scarcity in digital space (without end user DRM), and NFTs aren't a magical solution. A personal message of thanks from a creator is a more unique thing than an NFT.
So NFTs are either (as they are in reality) a failure, and is literally in no way superior to hosting an image on a site (because that's what it is, NFTs are a LINK to a jpeg on a server), or (in the horrible web3 dystopia, where) they are just the copyright system all over again. Neither is a good argument.
I look forward to a condensed, or at least organized video, because i ain't going to spend 8 hours giving myself an aneurysm listening to such an uninformed take.
Like artists already have better tools, a 5 minute quick comic thanking big contributors is literally more unique than selling an NFT. The biggest NFT marketplace has seen a 90% decline in volume this year. If it were truly so good, how come all the volume is just speculators dumping onto people?
Edit: To elaborate, the stated end goal of a lot Web3/NFT "projects" is to allow the holders of said NFTs to become copyright holders, and become digital middlemen. Now the part that's even worse than the normal copyright system is that at time of writing each of these digital receipts release tonnes of CO2 to be minted.
The CO2 thing can be fixed. I think the idea behind it being better than copyright is that it can actually help smaller creators. As opposed to normal copyright, which primarily helps corporations, and there's no way for the small creators to utilize the system.
@@godlyvex5543
The idea that it helps creators is stupid. NFTs are a digital receipt, it's like the copyright registration, except it's not backed by the 700lb gorilla that is the US government. NFTs also have no validation, there's artists whose works are minted and sold on NFT marketplaces despite them not having any participation. So even if you're proposing a hyper DRM future that only works in the imaginations of the dented cryptobro, it still will end up in such a way that artists might have their art stolen to be minted, or even existing NFTs re-minted, since again, chains do no validations, and NFTs are just digitsl receipts.
Also, can the energy waste be solved? PoS isn't the saviour of Eth, it's the death knell. A deflationary currency was stupid enough, but a deflationary currency that explicitly pays dividends to holders is somehow stupider.
@@godlyvex5543 No it doesn't. A sizable number of small creators had to deal with issues of other unrelated people ripping-off their work and selling it through NFTs without giving them one cent.
Ironically they could only fight back because of copyright, sending DMCA takedown. That is, if the platforms cared to respect them, since a lot of artists don't have the legal backing to make them stick.
NFTs are only good for those who have the money and knowhow to mint, buy and sell them: to investors and speculators, not to artists who simply want to make their art and get fairly compensated for it.
@@twilightvulpine So you don't think that small artists can make money off of NFTs?
he says he goes into why hes doing this video even though hes an intellectual property abolitionist around 5 hour 43min 40secs mark
4:28:50 this is a MASSIVE strawman. It really feels like you're taking your frustration over the unnecessary abuse someone got (which is, to be clear, very awful and was totally unnecessary), and then turning that to mean that those people are the same ones who are saying that "the world is going to blow up tomorrow."
No one is saying that. No one ever has. And just because 20 people on Twitter said it, doesn't mean that that is the general consensus of everyone.
I know you are just doing it as slang, but Im constantly hearing you refer to people that you have seen on Twitter as just "Twitter", as if everyone on Twitter is this collective conscious whose opinions move together. That absolutely not true. You seem to be combining the algorithmic nature of Twitter trends with your own confirmation bias to assume that you can somehow assign a timeline to EVERYONE's belief system. That is simply untrue. If you were to go on Twitter and find even A THOUSAND people who are all saying the same thing, you STILL cannot say that "this is what Twitter thinks." That is fundamentally not how people work.
Even Twitter's search function is algorithmic. It's returning what it thinks YOU are looking for. If you and I were to search the same thing at the same time, we would not get the same results.
Look, I feel your emotions, I feel your passions, and I appreciate that you are willing to stand up for what you believe in. But I really think that this grand conspiracy that people have just come out to get any artist who mints nft's is something that you really need to, forgive me if this comes off as rude, go outside and touch some grass before thinking about again.
Most people do not give a shit about NFTs. Most people who watched ANY of the videos you are mentioning just watched the video and then went on about their lives.
Loon at the last 40 min. Of the video, the guy just gives up and calls anyone who disagrees with him a "radical leftist who are too closed minded because they hate capitalism", he doesnt want to make a real discution happen, he just wants to pretend he is better than anyone else.
This entire video is full of strawmen and weird attacks, taking parts out of context, and just a lot of arguments that comes from passion rather than sense and ends up a bit flat. Having now (finally) finished the video, it feels like this was originally to be a video about how some artists he cared about had been really hurt by twitter witch hunts (twitter going on witch hunts? Who'd-a-thunk it.) but ended up being a defense of crupto instead of a defense of artists.
There are points here, especially those against witch hunts and harrasment, all things worth condeming, but there is quantity over quality here that isn't helped by a script that seems to have large chunks being run on sentences and train of thoughts, adding onto "i told you this is how it is so it must be how it is" arguments and a lot of bad faith being shown, capped of by setting up the dismissal of any point or argument against him being from... I'm not even sure it's just some nebulous "leftists" or just straight up accusing people of communism, but it sure isn't a good look and leaves this really sour note on it all. And if the previous version of the video was even worse as he implies, I can only imagine what a mess that would have been to slog through.
I get that he's mad. I'm also mad about the level of abuse these artists have gotten when they haven't truly commited a crime, crimes which the crypto space is rampant with but not commited by all crypto users. I'm also mad about all these witch hunters and people who cheers over people's missery, I'm also mad about twitter culture, just like he is. But him being mad is just an explanation, not an excuse, for what is arguably a rather poorly made video and a poorly made defense of NFTs. I'm also not a fan of the opposition boiling down to some nebulous hivemind he calls "twitter". Nobody threw anyone under a buss, artists aren't some collective and people aren't a hivemind. Still no excuse for the harrasement, but you get it.
I've like Uniquenameosaurus in the past, and there are still points from old videos I strongly agree with, but this one made me lose a lot of respect for him. I expected something like this from Crypto Bros., not from him. And I definitely expected something of higher quality than this.
@rodoet001 really well put. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Mate, I'm 2 hours in and all you've said is "harassing artists is bad" and "artists can make money off NFTs". At the very least, as a person who refuses to use twitter it's informative to hear about some of the things you are pointing out.
While I appreciate how calling out the harassment levied upon people on twitter is a good thing, it's just getting mind melting how little of substance you are saying. People don't need to hear you give out 25 examples of artists who made money off of NFTs, 5 would suffice, and I do stand corrected about them losing the artists money.
You have also yet to refute the central idea that they are A) superfluous and/or B) shady, as the main idea of digital art being backed by "blockchain" or whatever is just people using a new technology with hype around it, as a centralised system would work just as well, backed by a currency that doesn't fluctuate as badly as ETH. The images still need to be hosted on a centralised server as the NFT itself is not actually an individual file, I can't remember if you've pointed this out thus far in the video because you've simply put too much irrelevant information and everything is hard to keep track of.
I maintain that it is shady because I would like to know why there's suddenly so much more money available to artists that commissions or other more traditional forms of monetization just couldn't get access to, and as of 2:13:42 you haven't given much context to that.
Other than that, it's nice to hear the argument's other side, and hear exactly how artists can make money off NFTs.
there's more money because the people collecting already made loads of money trading crypto. Even commissions are paid higher in the NFT space, with some going for 1-3 eth each commission --- just to get something that they probably can't ever sell on secondary markets.
@@AE-bm3ki but i think there's a point to be made that by engaging with NFTs you alienate an audience that also might not be able to engage with them
@@whatisfzeroanymore2nd But why does that have to be the case? Crab bucket mentality? It's like not supporting your favorite musician anymore when they get a record deal. Hating them because they've found success with a different crowd seems petty. That's the stigma that videos like this are trying to eliminate. There's such an unnecessary kneejerk reaction to it, you'd think the artist came out as a serial killer or something.
Whether or not it's superfluous is an opinion, not a fact. I find it superfluous that people spent thousands of dollars on mobile gachapon games which are essentially the same thing with much more limited functionality, but I'm also mature enough to understand that just because it's not my cup of tea doesn't make it objectively bad.
A centralized system doesn't work the same way blockchain does - your wallet is essentially your digital identity that you take with you independent of whatever platform you use. It serves as a publicly auditable and immutable record of your history on the network. It allows for interoperability in ways that centralized servers have difficulty with - an easy example being token gated VIP access to artist's chatrooms. Patreon has a model for this where you can connect your Discord account, but you're limited to whatever platforms Patreon allows you to connect to. With an NFT, you don't have that limitation since any platform that wants to provide this functionality to you simply needs to look into your wallet and check for ownership of the tokens needed to access exclusive content or chatrooms. There are plenty of other examples but that's probably the easiest one to get across. The difference between a fax machine and email seems small to someone who doesn't understand the internet, that's what's happening here.
I'm not sure what you mean by "backed by a currency that fluctuates as badly as ETH." The NFTs aren't backed by ETH. If you mean artists are paid in ETH for their work, then you'll be happy to know that ETH can be converted into USD tokens instantaneously without any risks and artists can even request payment in USD on the Ethereum network if they so wish (most collectors would oblige).
The images don't have to be hosted on centralized servers, in fact most of the ones shown in this video are hosted on IPFS which is a decenrtalized storage solution. The NFT itself isn't a file, correct it's a token, but the image itself is indeed just a single file attached to that token as metadata. The NFT lives on the blockchain, the image is usually hosted on another decentralized storage network because it's currently expensive to upload data on-chain (just like data was expensive to host on servers in the early internet days, technology advances gradually).
Your final point on believing it's shady that people "suddenly" have more money isn't really compelling. People have more money than you, they've been buying art traditionally before you were born for large amounts. Not all of those purchases are savory, but ultimately most collectors are just people who want to buy things they enjoy. Most of these collectors are already wealthy from various other means and just want to use their wealth to support artists. They're a new and typically younger crowd of people so are more likely to enjoy the arts you do.
@@Pikayumyums Because at that point engaging with NFTs requires that the audience engage with NFTs, and thus engage with cryptocurrencies. And cryptocurrencies are a massive fucking scam in practice.
Yeah I’m with the others here, I’m gonna have to skip this one. Typically I’d be happy to hear out the other side of these debates but a not-brilliantly structured 8 hour video on this is too much. Of what I’ve tried to watch so far a lot of these points you contradict yourself or don’t make sense (potentially due to the way the video is structured?) with a few valid points scattered here or there.
I’m not gonna pretend I’m not biased in my opinion on nfts. As someone who’s own art has been stolen and used without their consent as an nft despite me being pretty vocal about disliking them I’m going to be anti-nft no matter what. That being said, someone being anti-nft doesn’t mean they immediately approve of harassment of artists who take part in them, which is something I think people need to remember
Creating scarcity out of nothing will never do anything for us in the long term. If you want to support artists there are other ways to do so such as with commissions etc, nfts is not the way to go about it. Being a professional artist is fucking difficult, having to create a social media presence while being fucked over by every new update on social media sites, but we need to tackle the root problem here to help us artists - nfts aren’t going to do that.
Harassment of anyone (especially to the degree seen here) is horrific and should not happen. But that doesn’t mean NFTs are okay either. As another person mentioned NFTs are like mlms, the people who take part in them aren’t inherently bad but have been preyed upon by a corrupt scheme. We need to focus on helping those people in the long-term so that they never have to take part in those schemes in the first place.
He make a big deal near the end about how the voice of a minority of artists who profit form NFT's are being harrased and ignored by leftists, but while harrassment is never the solution he does in this video seem to ignore artists like you who are against NFT'S. Just because people from groups that are part of the argument disagree doesn't mean the argument is invalid.
@@everythingisscience658 But he mentions artist like that? What are you talking about.
I won’t rebuttal as the opinion above is not interested in discussion but I’ll give a second artist opinion. I’m an artist who has done many commissions on a relatively small internet presence and I have watched the video and I have been convinced it is, at the current date, worthwhile for some artists. Shady stuff happens all of the time in regular commissioning or auctioning. I saw all of the same anti NFT stuff as every other artist and I feel bad for established artists dealing with AI competition or theft. I saw the length of the video and thought “at least this will be a thorough investigation “ and now I have new information to consider and research for myself. Commission is good practice for me but it is ultimately unfulfilling as I work closely to specifications, draw many thumbnails and concepts only for the least interesting to be picked, while the client is happy I have no desire to show off the art and unless it’s a popular character it doesn’t get much engagement. I’ve designated it a “skill issue” but for many small freelance artists the future of only making money by playing the algorithm and doing commission work is bleak and unfulfilling. NFT will still have this issue since it is the same as any marketplace but the idea of selling like it is a physical gallery piece is a lot more promising.
So while I'm a fan of long form content, maybe splitting the vid into a series would make it digestible. I get it's a heated and unpopular topic but 8 hours will never retain enough attention for anyone to absorb your message.
But from where I am (+-2hours), I can agree that NFTs definitely helped plenty of small creators, but there is no way in hell the space can be sustainable (against my judgement, I'll dedicate a few days to go the whole thing if you address it). The space lacked any regulation or oversight. It was already being overrun by high profile scams and rug pulls. Even if the community backlash is misguided, it was inevitable. NFT's might have been good for artists, but it's very good for grifters. The toxic cryptobros owned the NFT narrative and torrents of scams and bad press polluted the entire space. Outside of the art field , everyone remembers shopping carts of GPUs for farming, Save the kids or crypto used for CP.
It also would have been very good for corporates that were waiting to jump on this and flood the market with crappy mass produced 0 effort NFTs. Nobody wanted a future where everyone had to maintain hundreds of corporate NFT's across crappy platforms. We already saw it with Ubisoft and the NBA and Konami and Doritos and countless others. NFT's were being pushed as gambling lightly disguised as financial investments.
And to top it all off, what if USDT or ETH or BTC up and crash to 0 tomorrow (just like the untouchable Safemoon or LUNA)? What happens to all those artists who didn't cash out. What happens to the NFT if the ETH chain is broken as computing power improves? From a technology point of view, there's a very good reason why companies and government are so hesitant to invest in even secure internal blockchains.
The harassment is unacceptable. Treatment of artists need to change. Most anonymous social spaces are cesspools of reactionary dogpiling. There are people who really want to attack an 'other' despite their signed virtue. Legit artists should have been given the benefit of the doubt and their was a massive double standard.
What you've proven (to me at least) so far is that there are not only amazingly talented artists and people that more than happy to support them. But most importantly, there's no platform for artists to effectively and sustainably sell their works.
And lastly, while this may sound horrible, I believe a big reason why someone would spend these amounts on digital art is because they believe that they can get a profit off it in the future. And everyone knows they most probably won't. And that's what makes the entire NFT space a scam.
The industry is brutal. I saw it and gave up early. I don't have even a hint of a solution that would enforce equity between artists and those profit from their work. Art is necessary and unique and engaging but is also unprofitable and infinitely replicated and ubiquitous. I'd love to live in a world where anyone could endlessly manifest their vision without fear of poverty but we have this world and it sucks for 99% of us.
Keep watching.
At about 5 hours in he talks about NFT's and why they aren't scams.
Okay so I'm finally at the end of the video, I'm a leftist (quite radical) and an artist, I don't talk a lot about politics online most of my activism is irl, I find online arguments useless in the sense or it's not efficient to convince people at the opposite of a real discussion.
NFT are just an extension of speculative market with some more drawbacks. And as it is I treat it as such, blame the system and those capable of influencing it not the individual especially the vulnerable one. So as you said I never blamed (irl, I never talked about this subject online) any artist who did make profit or pretend they never existed.
The biggest problem I have with this whole thing is the marketing of this product. It's mostly based on survivor bias although it pretends to be a viable outcome for the majority. It should be presented as it is, sonething that can work but is more the exception than the rule. I've personally seen many people close to me get into crypto and losing what they invested ( fortunately it wasn't too much). It's irresponsible of this community to present it as an easy way to make money.
I would have a lot of things to react to but the video is 8 hours so I obviously don't have the time for it, I will only address one more point. The leftists hypocrisy, it's real and I won't deny it except in my opinion the cause seeem to be much different from what your hypothesis, it's just unexamined bias, a youtuber will get less shit than an artist, it's simple, you've seen the face of the first, you've hear him talk you'll have more easily empathy for him than someone you just mostly knows by internet posts (I'm trying to explain, not excuse it) and it can be the same way with minorities. Although it's not the same as disagreeing with said minority, I personally think the left shot itself in the foot with that whole "minority voices matter most" because while it's important to hear those voices to know most views in a question, an opinion is not more valuable because of the person who said it. A politician can have anti LGBT policies and still have some members of this community supporting them ( often because of their other interests or social biases) it doesn't make his policies less anti LGBT.
To conclude, I disagree with a lot of this video but I'm glad I listened to it, harassment is bad, you should always check your own biases and let's try to create a slightly better world.
Have a nice day.
You say that you want to change the outlook on NFTs, but do you really think a 7-hour-long video is going to do that ? Personally, I like long videos, but it's a huge barrier to entry for most people.
The part about the abuse thrown at NFT creators could have been wayy more concise. You didn't need to show everything, it gets super boring after a while. Also, it takes like 10 minutes from the start of the video for the first actual arguments to come out, before that it just sounds like you're ranting. There's no way anyone who doesn't already like your content is sitting through that knowing that they are potentially facing 7 more hours of that.
I'm writing this 2 hours in, I hope it gets better.
Agreed. I usually like long videos, but a long video defending something I'm staunchly against is crossing the line for me.
@@TuesdaysArt The interesting sections are [rebutting "NFTs don't help artists in developing countries"], [rebutting "NFTs hurt the environment"], [rebutting "NFTs are a scam"].
I think those are worth a watch.
Awareness videos can't be 8 hours. This isn't something that can be shared easily. Especially on a controversial subject. This needed to be broken up into something digestible. I am sorry you spent all this time and effort into making this, but you are shooting yourself in the foot. If you actually want to start a conversation, it should begin with a reasonable starting point.
There are timestamps now.
@@tempesttossed6029 That doesn't really matter. Internet conversion is all about being spreadable. If his goal is to inform as many people as possible then he has still failed. He could have the greatest argument ever conceived but that does matter. People will see "a Defense of NFTs" and 8 hours and won't click.
The video should have been 40 minutes, and not have included "Defense of NFTs" in the title.
Then he makes a few follow-up videos with the additional information.
It isn't my job to sort through his video for topics I want to hear about. Its his job to present them to me in a digestible way.
Yes it's long but that's because he provides a ton of evidence to back up his claims. Would be nice to have if it was shorter but I prefer the evidence personally.
@@boldmenace708 gotta kinda agree with OP, a meet half way solution might be to make a much shorter digestible video that presents the vital info and maybe link to this video as a "if you want more info/proof" thing
Yeah I agree it would have been wayyyy better to split this up into multiple parts
I'm gonna watch this fully before leaving a comment to reply my full thoughts, but currently so I don't forget: I think you're connecting two things that don't need to be connected. There are two arguments that can be made here, and one I can fully agree with being anti-harassment of artists/creators. The other I don't think has any legs to stand on, and only really downplays the importance of the first making others able to throwaway the entire video/argument because you are defending NFTs, which many have already spread awareness of how they are scam-filled, laundering-filled, environmentally damaging processes who only make the rich richer and are *designed* for the people who engage with it to lose money.
Artist hatred and harassment to the point of abuse and no one stepping in to care about it, especially when larger creators push the narrative to harass said artist, is terrible. Absolutely actions taken towards them that pushed boundaries to make the artist feel unsafe and mentally unwell for months on end to a large magnitude from a large group of individuals would fuck up anyone, and I'm really glad you are talking about it. This is an issue with social media and the internet and culture in general where when a group believes they have the moral high ground they enact an "us vs. them" mentality, dehumanizing the people who they deem as the "them" group. But that's hugely reductive, can be incredibly volatile and harmful to both individuals and the space as a whole, and just honestly makes everything much worse by escalation. I mean, it's simple to do and I think many are inclined to do it or are even encouraged, but people need to step back and realized the effects of their actions.
Just to be clear, that previous paragraph was not a statement saying those who "do wrong" should be exempt from criticism. But harassment is not criticism. Threats are not criticism. Dehumanization is not criticism. Do people who purchase, design, sell, draw, or perpetuate the ideas that NFTs are okay deserve criticism? I would personally say so. But they should still be treated as human. Don't go out of your way to bully, harass, or threaten people who you disagree with... ever.
The problem that I'm having, and that a lot of people will have when seeing this video as well as just the title, is the second argument however. Making arguments about how artists can "make a living off of NFTs" or how people in a certain group of NFT creators are "genuinely good people" comes off as a bit... tone-deaf. Especially with the statement of "calling out" artists and previous friends for their shitty behavior. Like, sure you can be a "good person" to quite a few of your close friends or anyone really on the surface. You could even just be a genuinely amazing person with little to no flaws at all (even though the ideas of "good" and "bad" are relative and based on prior criteria yourself and others have been prescribed through your upbringing, but I digress). I don't personally think each individual cop, politician, or CEO of a company is a horrible evil satan-spawn who only enjoys eating babies and has no one who they care about or cares about them; the point is their actions and their effects, whether intentional or unintentional, through ignorance or through deliberate malice, perpetuate a system that causes others (mainly those who are the people on the bottom of the economic ladder) harm. Look at any economic bubble perpetuated by capitalism ever, the rich only get richer and the lower to middle-class who "buy-in" always lose. NFTs are just this idea, but way more blatant, thus almost impossible for anyone interacting in the space to feign ignorance.
I personally think you should have made this about the former argument, the problem with a macro-audience being toxic to a single artist to the point of their life being in danger for self-harm or suicide. How the idea that individuals played a part in this who have a large platform, and how they should be held responsible and apologize and actively prevent things like this from happening again. I think that would have made a much better message and video without the defense of NFTs, which in many people's eyes spoils the entire video.
You seemingly hit the Nail on the head.
I love most of your message but why shouldn't we dehumanize at least only the most ridiculously evil overlords that deliberately spread misery simply because they can? Is it because "we must be better than them" or similar cliche phrases? Like, some clueless NFT defender could realize shit's actually worse than he initially thought and choose to find another get-rich-quick hustle out of sheer disgust. But unlike him another figure, think a Luciferian that sells crack in poor neighborhoods would only invest more into NFTs upon realizing that. Even bad guys deserve sympathy, but they're outdone by monsters that have long abandoned their humanity. I believe we should never drop our guards, they'd want more than anything for us to doubt they exist.
Once you get near the end of the video (I skipped ahead) you will find that he actually disregards the idea that capitalism is a system that disinfranchises minorities. By using the words of a famous black capitalist he asserts that systems like capitalism are far more effective than politics to lift minority groups out of poverty.
Your first argument is against the idea of NFTs not being profitable for artists. Weird thing to start on as I feel almost no one believes the people making the things aren't making money, otherwise... why would anyone make them and it be such a buzzword for creators, investors, and artists?
I think the problem most people have isn't that the artists are making money. You even said before most people in the twitter space (although I don't know how much stock I'd put into a social media platform of multitudes of millions of users who are all different individual people who interact with different things and thus aren't an amalgamation of one person or group) are pro-artist, pushing for more payment, better work environments, unionization, etc. Now we *could* say that all this support is performative in the space for fake brownie points and likes on Twitter, and I wouldn't really doubt it, but in my opinion the truth is you can be pro-artist and also be anti-nft.
In fact, it's very easy to want someone to be treated fairly and paid more in the space they work in yet not engage in spaces that pay better but harm or are morally compromising. If you saw your friend/family was being underpaid in their workplace and were doing fantastic underappreciated work in a volatile environment, you would want them to be getting more money yeah? So if they joined the human trafficking ring, that would be fine, because they're getting paid a lot more! Obviously it's not *that* serious, but you get the point. A lot of people want Japanese animators and mangaka to be paid more and have less stressful jobs that don't make them die from overworking to hit a crunch, that doesn't mean they think all animators and mangaka are good people who always deserve the personal success they gain when their actions are morally reprehensible (i.e. Nobuhiro Watsuki).
Even the video you are stating has a contradiction... doesn't seem to contradict in my eyes? Problem A is that people can steal and use art they don't own, mint it, and make profit off of it on a massive scale to those willing to buy them. Problem B is that artists can't make as much profits as they are promised because the buyers/sellers are often in a closed loop due to less people buying in.
These aren't... mutually exclusive to me? Like, they can both exist. In fact, the things you're stating about artists having more of a platform to sell their own art, while true, kind of... don't negate the idea that people can easily scam others with no repercussions? As long as your scam works once out of the hundreds of times you try it, it's a profit, because you didn't make the thing you are selling and you are probably doing this thousands of times over if not in groups of thousands of people with alternate accounts. The space, inherently because *anyone can upload there without proof of authenticity of ownership*, makes authenticity of the art itself difficult without access to the things that break the whole idea of why it's supposed to be decentralized imo.
Also, the way you're talking about it "it took me five minutes!", "intentionally lying", "destroy arguments", etc. just sounds like... you're being the person who is trying to act morally or intellectually superior. But truthfully your answers are coming off as super questionable. Like, I'm sorry I know I'm not either, but you're not a genius or a freedom fighter for pointing out things that might be construed as vague at worst.
"The worst attack on artists I've ever seen" bruh. This sounds so privileged haha I'm sorry. Interact with any artist of color who posts darker-skinned characters to promote representation, please. Although also terrible and the absolute worst of the space, those artists get death threats and slurs thrown at them on a daily basis. Even look at the artists working in morally compromising corporations who receive the same (albeit more than likely to a lesser extent due to it not being as racially-charged hate). I think this is something that should be talked about. I just wish you would have made the video about this specifically, not trying to "debunk" NFT hate.
@@everythingisscience658 I also got to that part, it was so weird because his entire argument is "this black economist agrees with me, therefore you are wrong".
(It's possible I missed/forgot something important in this nearly 8 hour video, so if I did, let me know)
Overall, I think you made some great points in this video, but I do have a few critiques:
1.
I don't think you have a complete grasp of why it is that people dislike NFTs. People don't see them as a way to sell art in any capacity, people see them as a plain scam, and the artists who deal in them as not only artists, but scam artists as well. If you were to replace every mention of NFTs among the (perhaps too many) tweets you showed, the harassment becomes, not more charitable or reasonable, but more understandable (not in a sympathetic way). People have absolutely no sympathy for scammers, regardless of their financial status. Even if it is your only option to make a living, scamming people is seen as "selling your soul".
I know you understand that people think NFTs are scams, but I don't think you get why. NFTs _are_ just collectables, but they are not the same thing as any other collectable merchandise. It's not just because they are digital rather than physical, it's more that on top of being digital, it's that there is no objective grounds upon which you can say that you even own the thing you paid for, because you didn't _actually_ buy the art, you bought the art's URL.
NFTs don't really correspond to any unique ownership of art, because anyone else can see the art just as well as you can. Owning a physical collectable comes with many unique things that might not matter much, but are at least objective qualities of owning a physical collectible. For example, you can see a painting you own from any angle you want in infinite resolution. The same thing cannot be said for NFTs, as anyone can see the art in just as much detail as you can. The only thing gained from buying NFTs is either the ability to sell them or functions in other media designed specifically to support usage of NFTs.
I believe that the comparison to hypebeasts/collectors or to cs:go skins somewhat falls flat as a defense of NFTs, because it only really functions to liken NFT collectors to any other kind of collector. What you fail to get is that people *also* don't like any of those other things. The popular opinion as far as I'm aware is that collectors are people who waste money on pointless things with no real function, hypebeasts especially because of the culture surrounding them, and that microtransactions are the devil, and should never be included in any video game ever (I'm genuinely surprised how little flack Valve has gotten for the microtransactions in their games). Fortnite is a combination of microtransactions on top of hypebeast culture, and it is seen by a lot of people as one of the most cringe-inducing things in existence.
The part where you show that one person was both against NFTs and also against harassing people for making them encapsulates what I think you don't understand. What I believe they were saying is that it's okay for someone to do (what they believe to be) a scam if they have no other way of making money.
2.
I feel like some of the things you said were criticisms made in bad faith. I don't think it makes sense to claim someone to be a "liar" for the reasons you do in this video, If I were to assume the worst I would say that you were being intentionally inflammatory, but I think you just said something kind of stupid and failed to validate it.
It's weird to claim that Ludwig in particular is lying on the grounds that there was no way he could have known that the artist he commissioned was making NFTs, as I don't think it's that unlikely that he saw some art, went "aw cool!" and commissioned a piece for his outro without thinking too much of it.
3.
The pacing in the video was a little wack. It would have been much better to get all of your debunking out of the way first before you started describing the harassment, because what I was thinking throughout the video was something along the lines of "okay, I get that people were harassed but when is he going to defend NFTs?". The stories of artists being harassed would have been much more effective if you had already explained all the reasons why people were wrong to think this.
For most of the video it really feels like you are just glossing over the scam aspect until you make a sort of half-rebuttal 5 hours in, after which it feels more like you just don't quite get it.
You spent way too much time showing evidence and reading it in its entirety, making the whole video kind of just feel like it is lacking focus.
-------------
ok at this point I have been writing for a while and the video is fading from memory so I might have had other criticisms but I forgot them thanks
You didn't buy the art nor a link to the art, you bought a token. The problem is, that concept is difficult to explain to people who don't know the first thing about how Blockchain functions and the role tokens play in their ecosystems.
So the misnomers "just a link" and "digital receipts" were born as a very lazy and incorrect way of describing what's happening. It sounds like a scam because you were lied to about what's actually being bought. NFT collectors know what they're buying, and are willing to pay for it. There's no scam involved with someone willingly purchasing tokenized artwork from an artist they want to support.
Just because 'people see them as scams' it doesn't mean they are, that's the whole point. "it's justifiable if my made up belief if correct but I'm also jot going to put any effort into finding out if it's correct and just assume I'm right about everything despite knowing very little about this subject", not a great reason to harras someone any amount much less to the level of death threats and forcing them off a platform for months due to mental health
Yeah the majority of people think collectibles are a waste of money. A lot of people also think buying physical books are a waste of money (and some of those people think audiobooks should replace all books). Everyone thinks everything they aren’t into is a waste of money. I don’t think a poster is a waste of money since I like having my walls covered, but I think designer brands are a waste of money because the department store stuff looks nice enough for me. Pretending like nfts are the only niche market is wrong
@@Pikayumyums Genuinely asking, what is the value given by those tokens?
Even buying digital art (music, artwork, movie files, etc.) can have value when it allows access to content which is otherwise unavailable legally or only available in lower quality. Even if it can be pirated the artist is still selling the option of consuming the media without engaging with shady sites and engaging it in a fully legal way.
If an artists was "selling" an artwork that was publically, conviniently available at full quality, then the only reason to buy it would be as a donation to the artist, in which case the value is supporting art that you like, which subsequently has no relation whatsoever to the "product" being sold. In a similar fashion, it seems NFTs (or at least specifically tokenized artwork) don't actually provide value other than the fact that you paid for them.
The frequent opinion on NFTs is that while if an artist can make money using them that's great, but they in themselves have no value other than to sell them to another person in a higher price. Anger comes when people claim they have some special value they do not possess, or that they will have much value in the future, for opaque or unstated reasons. Then, this is seen as a scam.
That being said, I'll admit I may be missing something, What is, in your opinion, a good reason to buy NFTs (excluding potential growth and the mere concept of having paid for them and therefore "owning" the token)?
@@alliew31 The point is this:
- Physical Books provide a certain ability to experience prose, which is distinct from audiobooks or ebooks. Some people find physical books more convient to read, or easier to process, or faster to go through; thus it provides them with value
- Posters can provide aesthetic pleasure, be a form of self expression, and make a room more pleasant to be in. They also prevent having to watch empty walls, which some people find aesthetically displeasing, Thus they provide value.
- Designer brands can also provide asthetic pleasure and self-expression. Thus they provide value.
Even most collectibles provide some unique physical experience, and some provide some fuller unique experiences (such as special cards used in a game or cars driven with). They often provide some special sense of history and of course, self expression.
What is the value of NFTs? To *any* potential buyers?
Popular conception is that they provide no value beyond the fact that they were bought.
It may be that like collectibles it provides a sense of history or self expression, but it is considered that the same sense can be achieved by simply viewing or downloading the actual file being tokenized; that that file would even provide greater value, because it is closer to the art itself (containing it, and not being some record of buying a token related to it).
Buying specifically a token is considered to provide no farther value, and the nature of crypto-currencies makes this market often insecure and prone to scams (even discounting other particulars of the technology - it has no central authority and is centered around anonymity, so it's very hard to actually do something about hauxes or abuse). Thus they are considered value-less in the best case and scams in the worst case.
As an MtG player, while artificial scarcity IS very much a part of the game, it is NOT what appeals to most players. It is very much something that keeps people from getting invested into the game if the person or their playgroup isn't okay with Proxys. That being said, you did use Pokémon trading cards while talking about it and those do seem to be much more of a collector's piece than a game piece where this is applied to.
As a Pokemon player I can heavily confirm that holding onto a shiny piece of cardboard that few have possession of is very satisfying
Yeah, there's a little satisfaction if you happen to be one of those lucky people who opens good stuff or got into collecting early, but for most of us MTG players it's much more about the game itself. Shiny trinkets can be fun but at the end of the day, if you never play (by choice not circumstances) you're just an investor.
People who play MtG tend to actually play the card game. Pokémon hast so many iterations and a lot of people will buy a card pack because of them. Someone might be collecting because of the video game or the anime but hasn’t used them in a game since elementary school. Especially with Pokémon go allowing people to play against their friends to kill time without lugging around a deck, they’ve really become a collectible item like baseball cards as opposed to MtG.
Not sure if it’s still a good comparison to nfts though since someone isn’t going to take a picture of the shiny they saw at the store print it out and put it in a case to display in their office, but someone will take a screenshot of an nft for their pfp or screensaver.
@@alliew31 to counter that point, there are tons of fake cards of rare cards you can buy on eBay right now
@@Blinkehyo ok but rarity isnt the only apeal, i say that the biggest factor is that those card are made from apopular IP, and that there is an already stablished community in which to share it.
Literally survivorship bias - yeah people who lose aren't as vocal no shit
This is a great point. Stuff like NFT'S and capitalism litterally cannot be argued for anadotically because for the small percentage that succeeded there is obvious benifit to claiming the system works. He makes a big stink later into the video about how leftests cover over people who are from disadvantaged communities that befifitted from the capatalist system but the very fact that there are so few people from marganalised groups making this argument goes in some way to show that survivorship bias is altering thier perspective.
Additionally he posites this is only a thing the left does but the right actually needs to prop up figures from marganalised grotthat succeed dispite any systemic discrimination because it furthers the argument that the current system will fix everything.
This ^^^
I don't see what you mean? His examples are to dispel the idea that NFTs are not helpful to artists, which he clearly demonstrated imo.
You could argue that it's not helping them enough to matter, but you can't assert that unless you have conducted good research with huge samples of data.
In the absence of that we have to approach things with intellectual humility and not assume we know all there is to know and be open to having our worldview changed, and for me his points definitely did some of that.
I've watched the whole thing (well, I skipped some of the abuse parts because it was getting too much for me) and it seems like NFTs are a legit way for artists to monetize their art similar to any other avenue they have, and dismissing that without a good reason is doing noone any favors
@@novagate19 People who lose their speech can't talk. Money is speech (Citizens United v. FEC).
@@osakanone that case ruled that spending money on political advertising is a form of free speech. It didn’t rule that it is the only form of speech.
I'm gonna steal all the NFTs.
@@Kilospan5941 Control C begs the differ
@@Kilospan5941 You are correct, nobody can steal the link incoded to these NFTs. But they can absolutely copy the images that come with NFTs. I think when crypto bros complain about people "stealing their NFTs", they are under the wrong assumption they paid and now own the image that came with them, they don't. What they own is a specific link that can't be duplicated. Basically, it's not the same as if you commissioned an artist to draw you a picture and now, you own the copyrights to that picture.
@@dork7546
>I think when crypto bros complain about people "stealing their NFTs", they are under the wrong assumption they paid and now own the image that came with them, they don't.
You know they're making fun of you when you do this, right? Nobody seriously believes this. They actually prefer when you save and repost their images because it's like spreading brand awareness. A good example of this is Bored Apes. Everyone knows them, even outside of NFTs. There's a reason for that - it's smart marketing.
You can't copy the NFT. The NFT is what's important. The metadata attached to it isn't. The image may as well be text as far as anyone is concerned (some NFTs quite literally are just text).
@@Pikayumyums Then why did Bored Ape get butthurt when people like Saberspark called their cartoon shit? Wouldn't they be happy he spread awareness of their brand if they really thought all publicity is good publicity?
5:37:10 this guy made the "NFTs are just like the mona lisa" arguement with an straight face, this guy cant understand something as simple as historical and cultural value.
PLEASE
5 seconds later he makes a similar point that you can't refute
Ok so I've come back to say some more things:
-NFTs may not make as much enviromental damage as other industries, I recognize that, but the fact that they still use a considerable amount of energy such that they leave a carbon foort print comparable to Hong kong is pretty worrysome and worth criticizing. Also the whole "well you guys are consuming more energy than NFTS" is a very weak excuse.
-I do undertsand the whole idea of NFTs being a form of flexing, and I have nothing against flexing although I also don't care about it. But even so, aren't there better ways to flex on people? I can atleast understand the idea behind buying a collector jacket that you can then show off to your peers. But how do you show off your NFT since you don´t even own the image, just the receipt sayin you "own it"? There is no tangible way to say you own it. Even with like having portraits of your nfts, isn´t having a portrait of artwork that you commisioned the same thing? so where is the difference other than I payed with crypto for one. Then again I don´t get flexing or collector culture so maybe i'm missing something.
-Even if it might be like bootlickers and what not I don´t feel like it applies, cause with bootlickers they create a close enough replica of the original product that you then have to pay for, whereas rightclick is literally copying the exact same image pixel per pixel for free. At that point, there is literally nothing making my rightclicked NFT more valuable than the one someone else payed for. Actually the paid one might actually be less desireable because people will freely rightclick instead of paying since its so easy to just get the exact same image. At least bootlickers put some effort into making the replica so there is still some value based on that. At that point, if everyone can just get an NFT, then NFT's have no value whatsoever since they aren't actually "scarce". The only scarce thing is the code that acts as receipt, but not the image itself,and the image is the main thing NFTs want to sell.
-If some of the most popular and succesful NFTs are low effort, copy paste drawings that are not that pleasing to the eye (like Bored ape or Veefriends), then what insentive do professional artist have to put any effort into their NFTs? if shitty drawings that look like they were made by 5-year olds can earn as much if not more than a professional artist spending hours on their work. Then wouldn´t that mean that effort of these artists are for nought? This seems to incentivise less artistic, creative art and more cheap, lazy, copypaste kind off art that NFTs are notorious for. Because NFTs only have money going for them, and this can kill any creative dreams future artist have for NFTs.
-The main victim of NFTs is not the artist themselves, is the buyers who buy into NFTs thinking they can make a profit. Because NFTs are basically a speculative market, NFTs end up becoming a massive hot potato games where you don't want to be the last one holding the damm thing. This is why whenever a big youtuber or celebrity announces an NFT collection they have to hype it up ,so that gullible people buy into it .because as soon as those hype trains stop, the value and all the money put into the NFT go down, rendering it worthless. This is a big reason why people don't like NFTs .Because yeah, you as the artist make a crap ton of money but at the cost of people who don't know any better or blindly believe in NFTs without thinking of the consequences.
-Just beacuse you own an NFT, dosen´t mean you own the rights to anything the NFT may represent. Look for the people who taught they owned Dune just because they bought Dune NFTs. I know you are an IP abolitionist but come on.
-If you just want to be a part of a communty, there are better ways to join one that NFTs. You know something? Jack Black is very big into FNAF, which means that if you are in the FNAF community, you also are in the same community as Jack Black. Same applies to other celebrities with their likes, NFTs are nothing special in that regard other than you need an entry fee to enter in the form of an NFT, Which make them more annoying an option than just any other community.
-Just because Anti-NFT people can be just as bad as pro-NFT people, dosen´t mean I won´t criticise and point out the falacies in NFTs because some bad actors might pop up. I won´t go to the point of harrasing artist but that won´t change my views on NFTs as a whole. I am not completely Anti-NFT nor Pro-NFT, I just judge things as how I see them and poeple shouldn´t be discourage from doing that. Even if bad actors might pop up, there is nothing I can do about that except distance myself from them because I don't agree with harrrasement. Its the Internet what can you do?
-the whole "You have just been fed lies" " You don´t know the truth of NFTs" is a very common excuse from NFT bros, so you aren´t exactly breaking new ground by repeating their words. Especially after plenty of people have come out with valid proof that NFTs do have some major issues, with proof, and Nft people have also been caught lying about their stuff . The peple watching you video aren´t dumb, and you being so aggresive to the audience makes it seem like you see your audience as less inteligent than you.
-Finally, NFT bros will try to put NFTs into everything, even areas that weren´t intended for NFT. In gaming, plenty of people have pointed out how NFTs would ruin gaming in a lot of ways due to their nature, as well as people believeng is just so easy to put and item from one game to the other with nfts, when thats not how game engines work. And in animation is a similar story. These areas want nothing to do with NFTs, but NFT bros keep trying to push into them. You seem to not realize this, which is also a big reason people hate NFT.
Alright that is all I wanted to say, I will say you did change the way I saw certain issues like scams, the pricing of minting or the communties behind some of these NFTs. But I'm still not convinced enough on Nfts and I still believe they need to be more refined if they are to be usable. I don't condone harrasement or lambasting of artist who just want to have a live. But Nfts are still not something I will support in their current state, And hey I'de be happy to disagrre. Maybe I am a fool but this is what currently believ in full-heartly.
That is ist for my comments on this video, sorry for the essay. There were a lot of things I had to get out.
Regarding 4:Dude have you seen the profits of his examples? Even if bored ape costed 999999999999 billion dollars you wouldn't complain about your high effort drawing being sold for more than Unique's paycheck for doing youtube videos lol
NFTs don't "leave a carbon foot print comparable to Hong kong", securing blockchains does, NFTs just happen to be something built on blockchains. Using this as a condemnation for NFTs, you could say for literally any other industry. The print industry has a massive carbon footprint, do we yell art artists that sell prints? So does the fashion industry, etc etc... It has been shown that even the video game industry uses more electricity than crypto mining. Why use carbon footprint against one industry but not the others? Real reason is just that you don't like crypto.
When someone buys an expensive painting from a well known artist, if there is no certificate of authenticity that comes with that painting, then there's no way to prove it is real, and the painting loses almost all of its meaning. NFTs allow us to do this digitally with digital artworks and assets, if you don't see value in that, then you're just being thick headed.
@@jwaggaman What NFTs try to accomplish is antithetical to how digital things work, infinite and perfect replication of art, data, and code is the meat of it. The claimed functionality of NFTs the opposite of and damaging to that. We did not go this far with technology to turn back and artificially impose the limitations of physical objects. If you want to support an artist, the patreon format and commissions are infinitely more useful. The only issue is they do not require a wasteful, slow, and unscalable blockchain where reversing transactions is impossible.
And keep in mind the blockchain is inefficient and lacking, compared to visa. Sure, I cannot yell at NFT artists for that, but that does not change the fact the blockchain is inferior. And I honestly don't get your point about the video game industry using more energy than crypto mining, considering the two do entirely different things.
@@pmester228 Just to pick on this a bit because it sounds like you have a misunderstanding of what an NFT actually is -The 'claimed functionality" of NFTs are as a data construct on a blockchain.
This is like hating the CD just because you think only Sony uses it for selling dead artists music in perpetuity. CDs can and are used for tons more than audio, you can burn ANY data to a CD if it will fit on the disk.. (Yes this is an intentionally old example) Do you see the parallel? NFTs can hold ANY data (not just goofy art) regardless of what it is or what the use is but it is a small amount of data. Hence why the basic art use case is almost always a reference URL/URI to a larger data thing on another storage medium.
The more interesting stuff involves Zkproofs to validate private data without reading it and allowing someone else to verify that using the NFT - or to encode a readable contract with a transparent history - or to provide a digital identity that can verify if someone is real and unique without revealing who they are and trusting a third party to keep that data safe... etc etc.
Comparing visa to *any* blockchain misses the point. Visa is a centralized privileged megacorp that gets to tax the living shit out of every merchant on earth and the general public have no idea because the fees are obscured from the users.
Visas payment facilitation is simpler because they get to say what happens, only them. Thats why it's 'efficient'. If you include the massive company behind visa, its employees, and global operations.. heck the entire traditional financial system? Yeah. Bitcoin in particular starts to look way less inefficient considering everything you can do with it without the support or approval of entire nations.
Just stop to think whenever you hear some ridiculous statement like 'blockchain is inefficient' to ask what they *actually and specifically* mean by that. Do you really think this supposedly grossly inefficient system got any traction whatsoever if it was truly that bad? Maybe, just maybe its a bit more complicated and nuanced than "blockchain slow" ?
@@pmester228 People like owning stuff, though. And they like being able to say that something belongs to them, it's just human nature. Owning digital stuff, and actually being able to self custody it, was impossible before blockchain. It is an important step in the development of digitization. And all the digital stuff that NFTs are proxies for can still be infinitely replicated, anyways. The only thing that can't be is the token that represents ownership of it. So that ethos of "how digital things work" is still very much alive.
I agree that comparing energy use of gaming vs that of crypto mining is silly, as like you said, they are two entirely different things. But my point is, why is no one vilifying the one industry and not the other? And its obviously because they just don't like or understand blockchains, and are willing to let the energy use of the other industries slide because they like them.
Saying that visa is more efficient really depends on how you're measuring that efficiency. Also, the major problem with visa is that you can't actually self custody any of the assets on their network, and you can also be censored and gated from the network at the will of the network provider.
I complete understand your anger, and sympathize with both you and all of the artist that have received any kind of abuse for making NFT's, it is not the appropriate response, nor can think of a situation that it would be. But that aside, what do you want to accomplish with video? do you want to let of steam and express your anger to the world? That is absolutely fine. But do you want to inform people about the topic of NFT's? Do you want to talk about specific trends of toxic actions? Do you want to call out specific people who you believe have done wrong? if so, choose ONE of those. To me, it looks like, right now, this video is trying to accomplish a bunch of different things that all warrant a great deal of discussion, but as an result of this it accomplishes very little, because almost no one will have the proper motivation to spend a full work day watching a video that seems to be meant for people who don't already agree with you. I truly have a great deal of respect for you, but another thing I respect, is my time, and I will not spend it on watching 8 hours (again, a full work day) of something when I don't even fully know what it is trying to accomplish. Do you want to inform people who you believe are misinformed? Then make a video of 2 maybe even 3 hour long video calmly explaining your arguments, instead of what seems to be 8 hours speaking with passionate hate to the very people you are trying to convince. (sorry if I made some mistakes, still learning to write properly in English)
You're absolutely right.
Your English is very good! And this has to be the comment i agreed with the most, i really respect him for making this video and going against the popular opinion, and im also a big fan of long-form content, its a HUGE difference when the long-form content is 3-4 hours long, than to 8 hours long, "line goes up: NFTS" are a huge example of this.
That line goes up video also goes about more pressing issues about nfts, the rampant hacking, how smart contracts work, the more technical stuff and not the ethical stuff
My thoughts exactly.
@@Ozdical Interesting, so are you saying that the technical stuff in Line Goes Up makes up for the lies and inaccuracies it has in other aspects?
@@enrymion9681 its a lot easier to make people understand your point of view when you explain what those 'lies and inaccuracies' are, NOT starting your comment with "interesting," and continuing in a condescending tone.
Either way im not interested in explaining my point of view to someone who, by the looks of it, isnt open to changing their opinion.
Careful on how you phrase things if you want to stay respectful.
Not replying to you after this comment.
This guy compared NFTs with hypebeast and thought "yeah, this will make people who hate NFTs understand why they are good", and then didnt even mention anything positive from this comparison 💀
ONE
5:27:04
Not the own you think it is, bud.
@@magnolia4493 oh wow, i can "feel special" by owning a piece of digital media....... impresive? Isnt it better to buy something PHYSICAL if i want to stand out for materialistic reasons? Like a rolex, a jacked, an expensive PC/phone, etc.? Why do it with NFTs when there are century old alternatives?
@@educprof2160 5:36:28
Almost like the 8 hour video addresses immediate rebuttals...
@@magnolia4493 dude, i saw the entire video, all the "positive things" NFTs have to offer arent unique, there are already century old alternatives for collectables, why invest in a new technology that does nothing new or interesting?
Not to mention, you cant have a new sustainable market about a thing which value is totally dependent in speculation, this isnt me talking shit, just look at 99% of crypto projects, almost none of them survive more than 2 years.
7:06:01 the his point about how there are minorities with non leftist perspectives are valid and the way these people try and disregard thier existence or ethics completely is a travesty. But the portion of successful black capatalists do not make systemic racism false. Just because there are some disabled people with thick skin doesn't make abilist retoric any less hurt full. The same way the small minority of successful NFT artists do not automatically make the arguments of anit-NFT artists false. All of these things need NON-ANECDOTAL, statistical research to prove one way or the other
I think based on the critiques of his methodology both in this video, and in his videos on intellectual property, which are ones that I actually quite like, he would need a more rigorous education on how to conduct studies and how legitimate research informs belief. goddamn do I hate that modern schooling teaches statistics in fuckin college mostly.
I'm about 3/4 through the video so I feel like I can express some thoughts about the video.
I was an avid NFT-hater and a big fan of the Folding Ideas video (and still am to a certain extent) but I will admit that many of the points you've raised here have forced me to reconsider some of my opinions and adopt a more nuanced take. I'd like to believe that I would've never supported the vile hatred that NFT-artists were subjected to but I've never been on twitter so I can only speculate on that.
I still think the NFT space is a questionable marketplace (for similar reasons as the hypebeast culture and everything else you talked about but there are other reasons as well that are specific to NFTs and crypto) but when it comes to artists, my thoughts are kind of similar to RUclipsrs making sponsorship deals with companies I don't like. I might hate the system that forces artists to revert to such measures but I would never fault the individual that feels like they have to take these steps in order to sustain themselves.
In that sense, I think this is an important video to watch for everyone that has as much of a dislike for NFTs as I do (which seems to be almost everyone.)
My main issue with it so far however (besides the absolutes insane and unnecessary length) is that you're attributing a lot of the bad practices to intentional maliciousness. I kind of get it with Ross and RebelTaxi (although I'm a fan of both as well) since what they did was pretty shitty but when when it comes to Dan Olson I genuinely believe that he considers NFTs (if widely adopted) to be harmful to society and outside of the specific case of freelance artists, I agree with him.
He definitely misrepresented some things in his video and it's totally fair to criticize him for it but I feel like in a 2 hour in depth look into a very complicated topic there are bound to be some inconsistencies that crop up. To attribute these to purposeful manipulation of facts seems a bit like a stretch to me and makes it a lot harder for him to respond to this video honestly.
I know what it feels like to think you're in a sea of unreasonableness and trying to stand by what you truly believe is really difficult in such a situation. I respect you a lot for having the courage to stand up for your friends when you feel like they're treated unfairly and I sincerely hope you didn't ruin your career with this move. I wish you and all of the artists you've mentioned the absolute best and that the hate will eventually die down and you can live off of the things you truly love the most.
I wholeheartedly agree with your comment and have nothing to add to it
Still a fan of Folding Ideas? Never too late to stop liking a man who saved TONS of CP on his computer and got away with it.
@@alexrexaros9837 proof?
@@dachel683 no response lmao
@@cuntman7411 lmfao.
Still haven't heard an argument for nft utility superior to just paying people through cash app or something instead
They're just recipes, even if you got a legitimate proof of purchase they can choose to ignore it rather than honor the deal
A citizen's word should be enough in a high trust society, but we can't have that for many reasons
Wish I kept a time stamp but he did bring up how one artist lived in a country that had recently lost access to PayPal, but they didn't have to worry about it since they they had already been doing nfts instead of standard commisions. But uh, you have reminded me that other services like cash app exist so maybe even that minor impact wasn't as much as I thought
It states in the video that small time artists can make around a thousand usd from selling 1 NFT
How many commissioners are ready to pay a small artist 1k for a commission?
Doesn't matter if they can just be paid directly through cash app, it's more beneficial for the artist to sell their art as an NFT.
Dude I trust you a lot on what you say, and your previous stuff has really changed my opinions on some things. But im 5 minutes in to a video that claims to defend NFTs, which i am strictly against, and just realized it's 8 fucking hours long.
Im sure you'll make some case here that's convincing. But its going to take a long ass time to watch this video. I really think you should make something separate that cuts down your argument to a reasonable length.
Doesn't look good mate. Skipped around and many points seem pretty wack.
It's a bit of a loose-loose scenario. Make a short video, and people will misinterpret your claims and make cheap replies. Make a long, detailed video with lots of evidence and people will not watch it
Basically the first 1.5 hours is showing how NFTs actually do help artists and providing many examples and rebutting many counter-arguments to those.
Highlights include: art theft via NFTs is not that much worse than it is normally, many examples of small artists of all backgrounds "making it" through NFTs (and showing a way to look into these stuff yourself which suggests that he's not cherry picking and this is another legitimate avenue), NFT art enthusiasts are more like HYPEbeasts than scammers (I think that was this section?)
The next 3 hours is just showing how much genuinely horrifying abuse artists get for making NFTs / not condemning NFTs / etc. (in one example the artist having made an NFT once, stopping because of backlash, yet that not helping their case at all) which tbh I skipped most of because it was getting too much for me.
Then about half an hour of a more nuanced take on the effects of NFTs / crypto on the environment. Turns out as with many things in science it's not as pop-sci media depicts it to be and there are genuine disputes among experts on how much NFTs affect climate change, in particular the dooms-day predictions are based off shoddy science at best and heavy bias at the worst. Most important takeaway is that the energy cost of crypto is not due to transactions (as is often implied) and is instead due to hashrates and the puzzles the computer try to solve while mining, so more people using NFTs has next to no direct effect on climate change, only the miners affect it (not to demonize miners either, there is a section on that as well).
Then there is a segment on his ideology being a copyright abolitionist yet supporting NFTs. Basically the issues with copyright restricting art and promoting consumer abuse don't exist with NFTs because the owner only has ownership over a meta-element and are paying strictly for that (the non-fungible, "official ownership" stuff).
The final section is him pretty much venting and trying to make sense of all this (or maybe my mind was just tuned out at this point). He kinda soapboxes (arguably appropriate after all that he shows throughout the video) about how people claim to care about artists, yet hypocritically tear them down when they try to further their career through NFTs and draws parallels with other social issues... with a tinge of politics in there (trust me it makes more sense if you're watching the whole thing; it is 8 hours after all).
At 12:38 he makes a contents list that splits the video into 11 much more digestable parts, I have no idea why he didn't use youtube's chapter function to propperly split it and instead went with a dinky list 12 minutes in, but I guess it's better than nothing.
Some sections are about condemning the harassment of artists who delve into NFT stuff, some sections are about refuting the omnipresence of scams, art theft, and abuse, and some are about refuting arguments about the immorality of fueling the industry, such as the ecological impact.
I strongly despised NFTs and wanted to cut ties with anyone who delved in them even if I considered they did it out of ignorance instead of bad intentions, but after watching specially 21:35 and 4:28:57 , I can tolerate the existence of the NFT industry. I don't like it, and I still dislike vehement cryptobros, but I do not consider that small artists who mint their own work as NFTs to be doing something reprehensible or inexcusable. Or at least something *undeniably* reprehensible.
Skimmed through some of the points at 2x speed and... Honestly you're not missing much, he gives the same excuses some NFT bros give every time you talk about how bad NFTs are.... A lot of these points have already been debunked, and the rest that haven't don't really outweigh the bad aspects inherent to NFTs
The only legitimately good point can be summed up as "harrasment bad", which is obviously true, but just because someone working on an NFT got harassed doesn't mean that suddenly NFTs are good...
Around the 19 minute mark. What folding ideas was saying was it was the people who were already in the nft market that would steal the artwork, knew how to market it in the nft spaces as they were already established minters, and could make a profit while the artist if they tried would likely be an outsider to the market and it would fail to gather any steam.
AH, he does address that, but claims they wouldn't risk their reputation. 1) they can do it anonymously, not relying on their trusted name but general experience and 2) I fully about I can't back this point up, but from all I've heard of the nft space, their isn't massive concern over stolen artwork, so it might not affect their bottom line if they do just use their name.
Yeah. Whoever has the better connections in the cryptospace is the person who makes the money. Scammer, Original artist, or otherwise.
You either choose focusing on cryptobros who don't actually care about your artwork, or literally everyone else.
@@Hifuutorian That isn't true. Collectors look for authenticity. Someone uploading artwork anonymously has no validation that they were the original creator, so there's 0 market for those NFTs. They're free to upload the art if they want, like how anyone can upload to imgur, but the reality is collectors aren't buying those.
Collectors want to support artists. They verify before they buy. Some exclusively stick to platforms like Foundation (seiro used this) which have a pre-screening and vetting process to approve artists before they can list any work on the platform.
Claims like this and OPs are harmful because people will just read and blindly believe that's the case when it's not. For something that's supposedly such a widespread issue, there aren't many examples anyone can point to.
@@Hifuutorian art thieves dont get the chance to make connections in the space, so it rarely happens. if you watched the video you'd know this lol
@@Tzill "art thieves dont get the chance to make connections in the space," Hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha. It happens all the fucking time.
The video is full of shit and cherrypicked at several points.
This feels way too emotionally charged, drawn out, and alot of the arguments made don't really hold water. I'm not as succinct as the other people are in the comments so I won't go into them, but I genuinely feel like I just wasted 8 hours that could've been summed up with "something bad happened to an artist that did nfts therefore anti nft people are bad, therefore nfts good actually" at least thats what I got out of this after 8 hours
ty for the summation kek
What about the political stuff
Did you watch the whole video or did you skip around it like this comments lack of relevant information imply?
@@amentco8445 I watched the whole video in 3 days
@@amentco8445 watched the whole vid, and i have no interest in losing anymore braincells to something like this than i already have. Also the political stuff is weird, the whole blaming the left thing for dogging on people sorta is correct but it sorta implies that it's exclusively leftists that do that and that's just disingenuous.
I am against digital ownership because there is no meaning in owning something that can be infinitely replicated, Without IP laws to prevent the replication.
Which I’m against for reasons explained in two of my favourite videos ever uploaded you should pirate anime 1&2
I think it's meant to be the digital equivalent of being the one in possession of the original physical piece. Like how there are countless reprints of the Mona Lisa, but only one museum that has the original chunk of colorful wood. I think people who get offended by copying an NFT are missing the point. I don't think the premise is meant to be video games style DRM, I think it's meant to feel like an art auction for existing digital pieces. It would be strange if you weren't allowed to own a copy of art someone owns the rights to, because redistribution is the primary way rights holders for media profit in the first place.
Though it isn't a good look when the first thing that comes to mind when you think of something is, "all it's most outspoken supporters fundamentally misunderstand what it is."
@@AltName7 but the purchaser of an NFT is not buying the rights to the artwork the artist gets to keep them. There is no way to fit a legally binding contract on the block chain. Legal egel made a great video about this
@@AltName7 I get that, but I don't see how it works digitally. At least with paintings like Mona Lisa, you can show it off. You can hang it for others (or just yourself) to view. Digital doesn't work like that, not without getting into a whole other (or two) issues involving digitizing our lives. At best, it'd be a wallpaper on a screen or you'd print it out to make it physical.
There's just something about physical vs digital that feels different.
@@everythingisscience658 needing the contract to be legally binding would imply you need state recognition for you to own something, and if that’s the argument, it’s again missing the point.
@@weridplusho I can also do these things with a physical copy of the Mona Lisa (make it a forgery if it adds to it) yet, I bet people would still prefer the original. It’s really not a leap in logic to go from “The original copy of a physical object has more value than the latter ones” and “therefore primacy can be seen as a valuable trait of a given object (and, in these people’s case, regardless of the context)”.
My brother in christ are you okay.
This video length is my entire work day breaks included.
So Geoff took back his statements on piracy, and now Uniquenameosaurus is into crypto bullshit.
My my, how the tables turn.
lol this is the type of video I’d expect from the guy that writes “better” endings to things
Okay, I skipped past the first half of the video, not because I don't respect these artist struggles with the endless harassment machine that is the internet, but because all I care about as far as this video goes is the logistics of you defense. And you know what, yeah, you bring up a fantastic point, the power usage of crypto shouldn't necessarily increase by transaction number. That being said, I'm confused. Maybe I missed it, but I don't really get how describing low end rigs making successful solutions describes why the power usage of all Miners is expected to be lower than the assumed amount (corrected for hashrate). As a person who is into gaming, I know that while these GPUs are running constantly, they do not have a heavy load, and likely aren't building a ton of heat individually. For that reason, a quick fan swap and a lot of these could be sold good as new (theoretically). But together its, a lot, especially for these farms. Most people aren't running a giant farm, but most people don't seem to be running PC thumbdrives either, and the heat doesn't just go away... so AC... is partially factored into the cost to run these GPUs a decent amount of the time, not just the power the PCs are pulling. But going back to the used market, and the GPU shortage, Nvidias surge of profits. You talk about how much power is needed to run other industries, but those GPUs have precious metals and silicon that need to be mined, processed, manufactured. There's waste, they're shipped on cargo ships that are one of the worst source of emissions currently, and their packaging creates waste as well. These products serve their purpose for gaming rigs, artist production, server use, and mining is a new industry that it falls into. Now you've demonstrated yourself that a rig specifically engineered for mining pulls good hashes with little effort, and companies like Nvidia have tried to make mining specific cards, but still, the biggest cards built for gaming get used to edge out every little bit of performance. GPU companies ramp up production for the increased demand, significantly higher than its original target demographic, and then they are dumped, resold to recoup the investment once the market dips or to upgrade, much faster than your average artist or gamer. Do all of them get sold? Do they see new life in a 14 year olds computer to play Apex? Will they get repaired if they're broke? Do their manufacturers even still produce schematics for their products anymore? This isn't me saying you're wrong, the environmental cost of crypto is only questionable if you don't consider it a useful industry, but they're so low on the totem pole of industry emissions we need to crack down on.
I continued watching until you mentioned Hype Beast. I wanted to see how you felt about 'The Buyers' of NFTs, if you had a perspective about the people who buy actually singularly produced art, the people who buy the generated art and avatars, and the personalities of the people who would rather spend 20,000 on a random piece that caught their eye over a 400 dollar, completely custom commission.
I spent 140 dollars on a statue, a high production statue featuring a wolf from a 15 year old video game. It is beautiful, but it holds no intrinsic value, much less now that I have opened it. Sure its technically limited, but there are thousands like it. It holds sentimental and aesthetic value to me. It was expensive... not nearly as expensive as Square Enix's 11,000 dollar Magitek armor statue. Similar statues of size, materials, and paintwork cost a third of that on the high end. It will never be worth it to me, it is a blatantly overpriced piece, but it will sell, people will buy it. I pity them in spite of the fact that they are getting a brilliantly crafted piece of memorabilia and decor. But I don't think this is an entirely fair comparison to Avatar NFTs, or generated art. No, your comparison to Hype Beast and their clothing seems more apt. But it is not a defense. The fact that people pay 20 times the price for a shirt that was sewn in the same sweat shop as a Kohls tee isn't a great thing, its not a great culture to encourage young earners into, and it promotes blatant classism while filling the pockets of some of the worst people in the fashion industry, because they didn't spend anything to make that. And much like NFTs, a lot of the art and design work for these 'premium' products are a random assemblage of existing elements, or outright stolen from other artist. None of the artist you talked about are thieves, and I'm sure they aren't scummy like the executives of fashion brands... but I'm sorry. People being happy spending a ton of money to collect digital art doesn't suddenly make me think the majority of the industry is ethical, it doesn't stop me from ridiculing people for spending 14k on a profile pic just because I know theres a culture or fandom behind it. I play Genshin, I'm happy MiHoYo is finding success in it... I still don't think its a great thing that so many whales are propping up the games finances by spending 10k to get all the fancy 5 star characters every year. NFTs as a concept isn't inherently bad, I don't think a piece being produced digitally makes the desire to "own the source" less valid... but I've always thought high priced modern art was a sham, even the physical pieces in every modern art museum. It had little to do with the fact that 'modern artist' make shitpost that instantly sell for 10k based purely on clout and the buyers desire to launder money, though now that I think about it that could apply to a lot of NFTs. I'm glad artist are getting paid what they're worth when the system works, from lowballed 40 dollar commissions to 1000 dollar modern tapestries, but shouting 'this dude made a quarter mil in just a year making NFTs heavily *inspired* by Cowboy Beebop' will make me think, "wow, who are the suckers who bought that?"
None of the artist you talked about deserve the blatant harassment, they make fantastic art and deserve to be paid. Now maybe you mention this at some point earlier or later, but would these pieces have sold like this in any other market, in any other time, to any other type of person than the people who 'collect' digital goods. Is that healthy for the artist or the buyers? They're so, so, so many artist in the world, and the algorithms that should be getting us to our potential buyers and comissioners fail us. Be it an extremely popular artist using their existing pull to get people into making a crypto wallet and setting their exorbitant price for this 'one of a kind' purchase, or an artist starving not only for fair pricing, but for attention overall, minting a legion of quick but nice looking thumbnails profile shots to jump on the craze... Its just another avenue for getting your name out above the rest and capitalize on an infantile market. On top of that, Web3 and the current implementation of crypto is dissatisfactory to me personally, not for emissions, but for completing its end goals of security, anonymity, and perpetuity. Its not more secure than industry standards (at least for law abiding citizens), its functionally not anonymous as companies tie more an more services directly to your wallet, and lastly... NFTs create a major service issue similar to the EShops of console gaming past and unlisted steam games. The blockchain never lies and never stops, but the people who made that rad game NFT might just deny service after a while, and at that point all you have on the block chain is the receipt for a product that can no longer be accessed.
Your comment is similar to one I've responded to earlier in the first part, which mentioned the fact that the cards used will eventually be e-waste due to extreme use of them. But yours goes much more in depth and also tackles the classicism of Hypebeast culture. Very well written 👏👏👏
"wow, who are the suckers who bought that?"
I know where the sentiment comes from, everyone's been there, but come on. What a cheap argument.
We all draw the line of what is acceptable just above whatever we do ourselves. You are "that sucker who bought that" 140 dollar statue to me.
Think about it, I wouldn't even accept it if you were gifting it to me and paid for shipping.
I think you summed up most of my problems with the video as well.
@@albaricoqueblanco4675 he doesn't go into that but other tech youtubers have.
Basically, 100% uptime on a graphics card mining crypto will see a 1% decrease in effectiveness after 5 years and that's after we round up the amount and that's within the margin of error.
There's data to suggest constant mining doesn't negatively effect the card and currently no data to suggest it does.
Basically anything you've been told about crypto is just a lie based entirely on how people THINK stuff works.
"The fact that people pay 20 times the price for a shirt that was sewn in the same sweat shop as a Kohls tee isn't a great thing, its not a great culture to encourage young earners into, and it promotes blatant classism while filling the pockets of some of the worst people in the fashion industry, because they didn't spend anything to make that." Is an interesting point but makes me wonder what do you think people with so much disposable income should spend it on? Also wouldn't you say that NFTs are an improvement in that the product people "waste" their money on is most likely more ethically produced and possibly even made by good and decent people.
I want to give you the benefit of doubt and watch this video but you seriously can't expect someone to sit down and listen to your argument for eight hours straight and I have a hard time imagining you thought many people would, but after watching a couple minutes it seems like this is something you really believe in and I'm left with the big question of why you would do this? It's a horrible way of getting your point across and with a topic as derisive as NFT's you surely know that slapping it in the title is only going to gain you ire - even the people like me who want to hear you out are put off by the length so most of it's going to go unheard.
What is the point of a video like this?
I really hope you cut this video down into something more digestible or at the very least convert it into something readable because posting this video as it is now can only do harm.
Having an angry tone also makes an 8 hr video hard to listen to.
The point of the video is that NFTs are not a bad as people think they are and that TOO MANY PEOPLE (this 8 hour video has ALOT of receipts) are unjustifiably cvnts about it.
I'm glad he's angry about it, considering how these artists were/are treated, it'd be strange if he wasn't.
Sounds like a you problem. Cope and seethe lul
The point is to dispell the misconceptions that trigger people hard enough to form mobs against innocent artists. And there are a lot of inaccuracies spread around to dismantle. Though this video definitely needs to be structured better. That Line Goes Up video is also pretty long (not as long) but is the source of so many falsehoods that it caused lasting damage.
I'm almost half convinced its so long since it makes it less likely for someone to want to sit down and critique all the talking points to multiple topics, which means moving the goalpost will be remarkably easy if needed.
Regardless of any defense made, reasonable or not, this video is now doomed to be essentially irrelevant upon release because this is a dead and continually dying market.
Yeah, as i read through the comments the big thought in my mind is, "man, this is a terrible time to suggest anything crypto is a good idea."
It isn't dying. Crypto's market fluctuates constantly. That's just how it is. It's not like stock prices.
@@Stinkoman87 Why do you think so? Because Kotaku told you? Crypto and NFTs are doing fine. Globally, the economy worldwide is experiencing pains and crypto markets aren't immune to that. Your favorite reporters will be happy to make an article when prices fall but then coincidentally avoid to follow up when prices double a month later.
Unless you'd like to argue that Japan is dead because the yen crashed, or Europe is dead because the Euro crashed, or China is dead because the Yuan crashed, etc etc.
@@Tribow dude, look at the top 10-20 crypto currencies 3 years ago, and now look at how many of them HAVENT lost 90% of the value or more.
@@Pikayumyums look crypto simp, i dont know if you remember, but crypto-jerk like you were circlejerking arround the idea of "Crypto will replace the dolar and revolutionise the economy" for almost a decade, but now when the economy starts to stuggle the so called "revolution" turned out to be NOTHING, cut the copium dude, you lost, go and cry in front of your wasted money.
This video:
- Bullying & harassment bad (true)
- Twitter mob mentality bad (TRUE!!!)
- Artists could make money through nfts (true (question mark?))
- Therefore, nfts & crypto good (???)
Artist can live off of their art and have creative freedom? but nfts aren't good.
No, they should sell at a lower cost and do exactly the piece of art I want >:(
like you're not the Christian church commissioning the sixteenth chapel, and I doubt some artists make the environment worse than Coca-Cola or Nestlé does in a month ffs
@@servilleta__6075 Well, then let's wait to the point when due to market demand your health insurance company puts your medical history on a blockchain, just like the founders of Etherium intended :D
@@user-xq3vt3co7r What market wants people's medical history? to do what even? know what medicine to advertise to me?? you're talking about some dystopian future but I'm seeing no path to it.
No artist should make money from nfts they're dangerous to the environment
I honestly haven't heard that many people claiming that you wouldn't make money with NFTs anyway. They usually just say that people that already have a platform have it way easier. Just like in the typical ways of making money as an artist. Also NFTs screwed over many small artists whose pieces were minted without their knowledge and permissions. These small artists then didn't get enough attention or credibility to stop the theft.
I am only one hour in but I feel like either I am not the target audience or you misinterpreted what the typical opinions around NFTs are.
NFTs were often proclaimed to be the great equalizer giving smaller artists a new, better playing field while it's just the same old except people realising that they can buy existing pieces instead of commissioning and there being a platform specifically for buying and browsing art.
That's it. The blockchain concept is just a farce and is duking many people into believing that this is some form of investment.
A platform without the NFT bs that was just a marketplace for art could have done the same thing without all the lies. But fewer non-art people would have joined it
Cynical Reviews got a 1-hour vid that is sure to make your blood boil
NFTs are just another way the rich get even richer
Exactly. He frames artists that make money from NFT'S as 'starving artists' who lifted themselves out of poverty. And while I can accept it can rarely occur, artists with a platform large enough to make significant profits selling NFT'S to thier community are most likely spoilt for choice. Logically the same people who pay for the NFT of an artwork solely to help the artist and not to try and use it as an investment good (a practice we see failing) would also sponsor thier patrion or purchase artworks directly (which is a much better deal for the consumer anyway as purchasing directly allows for real ownership)
Watch the full video. He explains everything.
@@everythingisscience658 Watch the video, stop leveling criticisms this isn't constructive. Don't turn off your brain just because it's an hot button issue.
Slight correction: I think you mean cryptocurrencies, not "blockchain" (at least from the perspective of the technical definition)
maybe a vid that's shorter form to give a brief overview would be a good lead in to this? just putting it out there, 8 hours is a work shift...
hey, so, this is definitely a problem with both groups, but please don't conflate leftists and liberals? generally they're two separate groups which strongly disagree and usually dislike eachother.
Well, this video aged well. The NFT being 'a big thing for artists' or, well, a thing anybody talked about in general, died as soon as the bubble of the shitty ape recolors popped, because it was all a giant pump and dump scheme, and nobody in the sphere that actually had money and resources to invest ever gave a single shit about internet artists.
i'd bother to watch the video if NFTs weren't inherently against your concept of abolishing copyright.
They aren’t though. Copyright is a legal prohibition against unauthorized copying. NFTs are digital tokens with artificial scarcity. Absent copyright laws, you could absolutely still have NFTs; they are irrelevant to each other.
I would actually watch the video before complaining about something he literally discusses
NFTs aren't against abolishing copyright at all. In fact many NFT projects are CC0 and utilize the provenance of the blockchain to prove the source of an IP easily.
"NFTs are good for the artists that get into them"
Yes, so are the Nigerians getting into various scams. THat does not mean they do immoral acts.
I dont think that its fair to compare artists desperate to make money off their work to scammers who do not create any form of art.
@@penjamin1479 And neither did he. Try again
Who is scamming who? I see this parroted a lot but nobody actually can define what the scam being performed is.
@@OhNoTheFace did you not read the comment? Lol.
@@penjamin1479 "Desperate"
Piss off. Every person can start flipping burgers if they are "desperate" to make money. This is just the drug dealer's defense for their immoral actions. Nikola Tesla dug ditches, and Arnold Schwarzenegger worked in construction, but those scummy artists doing honest work is somehow inconceivable?
1:03:37 That's not 200k, that's 200. Some countries use commas for periods, so if the total amount of money was 420 dollars and 69 cents, they'd write it as 420,69 instead of how we would with 420.69. Only real mistake I've noticed so far in watching the video
interesting that you say my thought process behind my stance and actions are "excuses" but never show what those were in the discussions we had in DMs. Everyone just has to take your word for it I guess.
1) having a few conversations and being mutuals on twitter did not make us "friends". Your view of our relationship was one sided and you don't know me as much as you think you do from what is available on twitter.
2) the right click save jokes are in no way in a similar wavelength of "attack" on the artist. Art comparison is bad because it undermines the time and effort taken into making the piece. right click saving undermines the business practice, which I feel is totally fair game.
3) you say I am propagating a lie, but that was my genuine belief and understanding. maybe you dont believe me on that, but that's the best I have for you. Even if some of what I've learned about NFTs over time may contradict what I know about them before, I still am critical of them. It is not out of a lack of understanding, it is a difference in what is believed to be the right thing to do.
4) retracting my support is not "punishing artists" it's voting with my wallet, as someone who believes in capitalism like you should fully understand is well within my right. Whatever the case may be, I dont want to support it. That is my right as a consumer and me calling for a rally behind that is not much different from a reviewer or critic of a product rallying for people to spend their money elsewhere that they feel is more deserving. NFT artists are not owed my money or support, and that's also something I told you in DMs that you conveniently left out of your video when discussing me.
5) I said "jack shit" about FFXIV doing NFTs because the 14th entry specifically - the only one I am invested in - did not. It was 7, which is an entirely different game, one that I have no investment or interest in, which I also stand against even if you don't see me publicly denouncing it every day. If a tweet condemning the practice from a company who's product I enjoy is what's needed as proof, I would have no issues making one when it becomes relevant. As of now, the 3 main IPs my channel is based on - D&D, FFXIV, and Monster Hunter, have not been involed with NFTs. and if they did, I would happily publicly denounce them and stop supporting them financially. and hell maybe they have somewhere that I may have missed, I dont keep up with literally every news piece from or about the companies of which products I consume. But hey, if they did, I would have no problem voicing my disapproval.
But then should I be obligated to denounce every single video game that DOES? even games that I have never made content for? where does my responsibility end when it comes to what I should us my platform for? You use my lack of coverage on it in my content as evidence, but I am not obligated to make any kind of content I dont want, and that sort of content is not what I am interested in covering on my channel. That is not the brand of my channel. I also didnt do coverage of WotC and how it still employs people who have abused their power, but that's still a bad thing that clearly should not happen. I'm not obligated to turn my entire social media platform into a loudspeaker for issues in the world, even if that's what YOU want me to turn it into. I will help where I can, but I also want to do things that *I* want to do.
and that goes for all the other examples of you saying that people "let it slide" when it comes to hate and death threats. Maybe people didnt see it, or maybe it goes without saying that that's obviously wrong, but they are not obligated to speak out about anything they dont feel like filling their entire day replying to unreasonable people, or posting on social media anything aside from what they want to post on social media to distract from things that make them upset. Yes, death threats are wrong. I'm not about to spend all day saying "death threats are wrong"
It's okay to not be convinced of my position but you are extending this beyond that and misrepresenting me and my views.
I believe you were right about piracy. I do not believe you are right about this issue.
Crap Guide to NFTs when?
damn
You're more than welcome to publicise the DMs if you think I'm being misleading. But if I recall, what you've written here isn't any different from what you said to me. I'm not going to give detailed accounts of things you've said in private, I leave it up to you if you want to publicise that after.
At any rate, these arguments are as unconvincing now as they were then. They're just explanations and justifications to explain your choices. Which is not good enough at this point, you need evidence.
You literally spoke against an artist getting into NFTs and then 4 days later posted a meme claiming NFTs aren't made by independent artists. The logical assumption would be that that was a lie.
All you needed to do to get me to reconsider this call out was to show me a single public statement prior to me calling you out, acknowledging any level of nuance on this topic. Sasponella, Coffeezilla, Someordinarygamer and Solar Sands were all capable of this despite being overall critical of NFTs.
I didn't expect the world from you, I expected you to be fair, and open minded.
As for not being friends, fair. I guess I misinterpreted. But none the less, 'I' saw you as a friend and I'm disappointed in you. There's a Gobbo plushie on my shelf that makes me very sad to look at now.
@@Uniquenameosaurus "jocat says hes against destruction of democracy yet he didn't say shit about the January 6th coup on the capital, I donno man I would just like some consistency" -you
Wow crazy how the guy that made a point of portraying parasocial relations with artists as a good thing in this video would have a parasocial relationship with someone. I didn't see this one coming from the person that made an 8 hour video raging because an artist he totally doesn't have a parasocial relationship with stopped making NFT's to move country.
Every new thing I learn about this guy just makes him seem more and more pathetic.
I haven't watched this video yet, but I will, and I'll watch all 8 hours. You've changed my mind on subjects before. But I do have to say that you're probably the last person I expected to be making this video, as NFTs feel antithetical to public domain creation, and they'll inevitably be used to create DRM that's probably as close to unbreakable as we can possibly get.
You're a good dude though who's done nothing but follow his heart. I'm going into this video disagreeing with it, but I'll keep an open mind.
I don't think DRM is necessarily bad - I think it's just bad in the hands of huge corporations that have the money and power to abuse it.
@@godlyvex5543 if you allow it, it will be abused by them. It's that simple.
Same.
Pretty much on the same boat as you. Watched a whole bunch of the video, manly the refutals on scams and the energy cost of crypto and NFTs, and while I still don't like the crypto nor NFT industry, I no longer consider that a small artist minting NFTs for profit is morally reprehensible, not nearly as strongly at least. The idea still makes me uncomfortable but not as to cut all ties with an artist I know if they do it, y'know?
@@kevinz8554 I feel like a system that everyone can abuse is better than a system that only huge corporations can abuse. Not by much, but still marginally.
Sure the fundamental economics of nfts is immoral but people who aren't rich already can maybe sometimes make money off it so it's good, much like how anti homelessness benchs are good because they atleast work as chairs
I don't think that comparison really works at all? Anti-homeless benches are a worse version of an existing thing, but is less useful. NFTs are like a version of copyright that smaller creators can actually utilize.
@@godlyvex5543 yes and this RUclipser has made an amazing series of videos on how copyright allow select groups to dominate an industry and quickly become anticompetitive.
I think it's more like road tax. The road should hypothetically help everyone but a large road system will always favour the richer people in cars while anybody who can't afford it is left behind. Small artists cannot leverage thier name to produce NFT's worth more than minting fees. This is because an NFT is decoupled from the quality of the art and instead exists entirely on the speculative value of the artist.
@@everythingisscience658 You really think that small creators can dominate an industry with just art? That just isn't how it works. Just because a system can be misused by some doesn't mean it shouldn't exist for everyone. Copyright is bad because it disproportionately helps corporations, and doesn't really help the small guys. This does, so it's at least somewhat better.
@@everythingisscience658 You're only thinking about it through the lens of investing and cryptocurrency. It doesn't necessarily have to be about that. Anyway, uniquenameosaurus in the video says that "people think that small artists can't make money from NFTs, but they're wrong" and it seems like the comments are split between "no, they can't" and "obviously they can, everyone already knows that NFTs make a lot of money". It seems like there isn't a clear consensus among you guys.
5:45:28 you can bet if Nintendo tried to sell me shiny Pokemon, trying to make a profit on thier imposed scarcity, not only would there be a massive backlash but a lot of people including me would hack shiny Pokemon into my game. An NFT is trying to SELL me an artificial scarcity.
Also funny thing is, Nintendo already does the scarce shiny shit LOL, I don't recall if there's an example with money involved, but you bet I can most likely find one
@@albaricoqueblanco4675 They literally do, "get all 100000 Pokemon in home (the monthly service to just have your Pokemon there and nothing else) and get special Magearna" that you can't have in any game because we won't code it lol, only in home
or like with mythical Pokemon "get this cool op Pokemon for a limited time" that you won't be able to use competitively and breaks the game design but oh well sucks to suck
@@servilleta__6075 Except for that one time they allowed Legendaries and Mythicals in Gen 6
@@aaa1e2r3 or right now with gen 8, they kinda ruined my point lol
I mostly disagree from the 6 hours mark onward, so the last part with the political rants. You started generalizing the left for the actions of the loud ones the same way the left generalizes the right for the action of the loud ones. You also started implying things like, if you support black people then you can't say they shouldn't be allowed to work if they didn't vaccinate for a pandemic that was taking the world by storm. This has nothing to do with the actress being black, it has to do with sanitary reasons, white tenis players also got shit for that, and many other kinds of people as well, and the fact that prozd says all cops are bastard has even less to do with those points. That's just just attempting to assign all those ideas and political positions to be these hypocrites that in reality don't support anything, when they are completely different issues.
You also say that leftists don't defend people, they defend policies, but that goes for all political spectrums, not just the left. But just because you disagree in political policies with a black person, that doesn't mean you secretly hate all black people. There are extremists of course, but then again, there are extremists in every political spectrum, and you said this yourself.
I agree that part of the left has a weird hate fetish towards NFTs though, but I'd argue it comes from not understanding them completely, or just early association with hyper capitalism from far leftists spewing that idea around. Not from this conspiracy theory that all leftists are going to backstab you the moment you disagree with them.
NFTs just became this target to express hatred towards the idea of capitalism, and some people didn't stop to think if that was the right call, and that maybe the problem aren't NFTs but other things capitalism enables, leading to this extreme uncalled for mob hate towards it and anyone participating in them.
The rest of the video I agree with. Except for the energy consumption thing, the fact that it's not per transaction, doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about it. Just, like you said, don't blame artists for it.
All in all, we should support people trying to flourish in the messed up systems we live in, not blaming them for using said systems. Yes, the world could be a better place for everyone to survive not being exploited, but the reallity is that that future isn't here yet, we are stuck with what we have, and while we must strife to fix what's broken, we also must understand that everyone has to survive in some way, and, in the ocean of horrible things you can do to survive that would harm society, I don't think selling NFTs is one of them.
Thanks for the video, it was interesting to watch, I honestly was surprised with your political stance, didn't expect for you to be a capitalist. But it's always nice to see the world from other prespective and think about your own ideas through those lenses.
Hey man April Fool's Day was 5 months ago
I love you man, but cmon. It will take me a week to fully digest it. And I'm not sure that I want to spend 8 hours of my life on some petty nft artist drama. Sorry
RUclips has a 2x speed modifier. Still 4 hours but that’s probably more bearable.
Its not worth it anyway, they dont seem to understand the issue very well and are just being an angry contrarian
@@RJPalmer he also has a meltdown at the end of the video where he just calls anyone who dissagrees with him "a radical leftist", not even kidding, just watch from hour 6 onwards.
he made a shorter version
@@godlyvex5543 nice
Admittedly not finished, but I feel like it's worth noting that a lot of people who spend exorbitant amounts of money on things like NFTS are not actually wealthy people with thousands to throw away, but people with gambling addictions that don't actually have the money. An artist selling to them isn't necessarily scummy on the artists behalf, they have no idea who actually can afford their art and who's going into credit card debt. But acting like all the people who spend a lot on NFTs can afford to do so is disingenuous.
Okay but can you prove that?
Wouldn't any high risk investment have the same issue?
@@guanglaikangyi6054 How is gambling any different from a high risk investment? With the investment you can see market trends and try to predict them somewhat, with nfts you can't really do the same thing, the market is way to volatile to even try (well, was, since now is kinda dead)
You're talking about different markets. Those people aren't the ones looking to support artists via NFTs, they're the ones falling for their favorite TikToker telling them they can make money off something they don't even understand, which honestly has the same outcome as blindly following an influencer's stock trading advice. Though it's true not everyone buying art NFTs is rich either, buy they're rich "enough" that they can pay a premium for art.
@@Vatiaure NFTs are a market just like any other. There are other volatile markets out there, none of which are considered gambling. Considering NFTs gambling is a big stretch.
Also, condemning investments with unpredictable results to protect those susceptible to gambling is the same as condemning alcohol for people abusing it. At some point, you have to consider personal responsibility, otherwise everything is bound to be problematic.
Your argument around 19:24 is a pretty big misunderstanding. The point is it’s harder for artists themselves to make money in the market because most artists don’t have the same knowledge of the crypto market. Someone who knows a lot about selling this shit to crypto traders is gonna make more than are artist who knows how to sell prints at a convention, in the market of crypto.
The idea that NFTs being profitable for the artist means that an artist’s decision to get into NFTs is above criticism is laughable.
In fact, a big reason people are so vitriolic when this happens is _because_ the artist chose short-term profitability over maintaining the good-will of their core fanbase.
Cryptobros are actively making every space they try to be a part of worse, and calling that out is not harassment.
Do some people go too with hating on the individual artist? Sure. But that’s true of literally every internet controversy ever. Trying to disregard all criticism and concerns about a topic because a couple of the MANY people championing that cause happened to be deranged is disingenuous at best.
If youtubers and big twitter accounts are responsible for this artist’s harassment because they publicly criticized the direction she chose to take her career in, does that not mean you’re responsible for any harassment the people who made High Guardian Spice received? The idea that a figure is responsible for the actions of each and every single member of their audience is, again, disingenuous at best.
Moreover, anyone who has ever even heard of NFTs knows they get a vitriolic response from everyone other than cryptobros. There is no chance on this earth Seiro didn’t see this coming. Some people will gladly take that kind of hate in exchange for the profits, which is what she chose to do. Maybe she realized she couldn’t take it? IDK, but she made her choice.
yeah you didnt watch the video
"Short term profitability over the good-will of their core fanbase." You can have both at the same time. The problem comes when the two conflict with each other (See most of EA Sports). If the fanbase doesn't understand, doesn't seek to understand and doesn't contribute, that is no excuse to cater to them. Imagine pandering to the worst voter blocks imaginable (take your pick), for example.
Also, knowing what you're getting into doesn't make the situation any worse. "You should have known what part of the city you were going into." "You should've known that you were dressed provocatively." It's their decision, and the fault of the actions of others lies squarely in those who perform the action.
@@trygveplaustrum4634 In this case, you absolutely cannot have both. You can either appeal to cryptobros, or appeal to literally everyone else. The two are mutually-exclusive.
And what I mean by "she saw it coming" wasn’t that anyone who committed genuinely harmful action should be absolved of guilt. What I mean is that if you jump headfirst into a tank of hungry sharks, I’m not exactly going to feel too shocked or upset when the inevitable happens. Is it wrong of the sharks to bite a person? Sure. But what other outcome was there going to be?
@@Tribow Got 30 minutes in, I’m not devoting 8 hours of my life to a guy making absurd and fallacious points because he’s mad.
If you have any particular timestamps that you believe somehow refute what I’ve said then I would like to see them.
It didn't take long for people with actual experience to point out that NFT's was never made as being a valid form of art to begin with either. NFT's was mostly a push to try to popularize Crypto and bring more liquidity into an incredibly inflated market, a fact most tech savvy people who wasn't on the crypto train was more than happy to point out.
Even then, I saw a lot of artists ask their community on whether they wanted them to do nft's or not, with most people I follow seeing the negative reaction and choosing not to.
Still doesn't justify targeted harrasment, but as is clearly the case anything unpopular in any way ends up attracts a lot of harrasment on twitter (sometimes even for things that aren't choices, such as being trans). Hate campaigns is never a good thing, but ending up at the end of one when you have a sort of significant presence online and actively makes bad PR choices doesn't seem incredibly out of line.
Harassment is bad - agree
This makes nfts good - wtf man
you definitely have not watched the video
@@godlyvex5543 is it their fault that unique can't form a coherent argument in a reasonable amount of time?
wtf man. wtf Zach. Are you saving the environment here? Do you justify bullying the suicidal by thinking your some sort of hero? NFTs are stupid, but people like you take it too far. Leave it at disliking something.
@@godlyvex5543 It's easy to judge people for not being interested in watching 8 hours of video. Just because it's long, it doesn't mean it's correct.
He didn't say nft's were good in the video, he said much of the criticism towards it is either overblown, or outright misinformation and none of it justifies the reaction people normally have towards the topic. The fact that people react this purely from the title bolsters the video's point.
tl;dw seiro got popular as an artist and decided to make nfts bc she needed money which ended up alienating her old following which consisted of rhythm game enthusiasts and fans of her art but since the bubble popped on nfts, she just stopped making them. she's not missing lmao
Shouldn't had made nfts in the first place
@@klonoafan2012 i agree but she wasn't in a good state emotionally or mentally and was using the nft money to move to a new country. there were people in the communities she was in who were more than willing to support her financially but what's done is done and she's moved on
Thank you
I hope that something in this video will atleast convince me in some capacity but
I'm sorry to hear what happened to your friend but a 8 hour angry video isn't going to convince much of anyone on the nft front, most people here would prefer to paying an artist to simply exist or just straight up buy a high resolution JPG than buy a NFT, as atleast the artist would be more likely to produce content that a buyer/investor would benefit from.
The real forward of artists getting into making money is people investmenting in them for producing content, selling High res versions of their pieces, and the most lucrative of all selling physical things like merchandise of their designs, or selling comic books and other things.
The real tragedy is
1.that most places in the west do not have something like a comiket type thing for artists to sell their physical stuff un abated and easily
2.that the current condition of the western internet is completely fueled by witch hunts and controversy, people dissatisfied with their life or societal conditions are now venting that anger by attacking and harassing just about anyone they can get the slimmest excuse
One could say the Real problem here for (you) unique is less people's hate of NFTs and more just finding out face first how absolutely loony and rabid the internet will be over even the slightest make believe infractions and not only that but how many people in different corners actually MONETIZE AND PROFIT off of [insert witch hunts of the day here]
Unfortunately said problem is more of a massive societal and human nature problem caused by many people's anger and sense of hopeless in the world.
I'm honestly shocked this is your first time seeing something like this you must have gotten super lucky but Twitter regularly flips on a dime to harass the fuck out of artists over literally anything until they leave or kill themselves I thought most people knew about this type of stuff and went along with it for fear of being the next target, but it seems alot of people just plain don't know about it
People aren't investing in the artists to produce content, they're just paying them for their work and encouraging them to create more. 1/1 art NFTs are an entirely different market and demographic than project based NFTs. Collectors aren't usually expecting to make any money from 1/1 art of smaller artists, and even most large artists have a very illiquid or nonexistent secondary market so it's not very lucrative. The video gives examples of artists who despite having large followings were struggling to pay bills because "most people" didn't give them any funds to continue producing art.
Conventions are one way to sell art, but they also have high costs associated with printing materials, travel expenses, taking up time to apply and set up your booth, etc. It's not easy, and it's harder to make decent returns from. Selling your artwork online is much more efficient and captures a much larger audience. That being said you can always...do both? There are NFT artists that actually go to art alleys as well to sell stuff. It's not mutually exclusive, NFTs just provide additional options to monetize your work. It's not restrictive, though the anti-NFT crowd tries their best to make it restrictive by shunning people and mobbing against them for even trying to expand their reach.
@@Pikayumyums I think there are still people who believe any nft will be worth a fortune one day.That’s the only reason why these are so expensive. I more so prefer physical art work to digital because it’s easier to fix digital work than physical so it feels much more of a captured moment. Don’t get me wrong both require a ton of (different) skills and should be respected. Scanning a painting for mass production is going to change it and people only repaint van goughs with oil paints because they want to practice the technique or because they’re making a forgery. The original is fundamentally different than the copies so people are willing to pay millions for them, which is why they are worth so much. Any small town artist is getting paid about as much as commission for their originals. Nfts mean you have the paper to something easily mass produced. Sure you have the paper, but what does that matter if everyone else has an image that is completely indistinguishable from yours and someone has already shown that the to tokens are fungible (because humans can do anything they put their mind into) so what happens if someone else claims to have your certificate. This is why prints have the artists signature written on the back so that a copy can be distinguished from an original.
I think paying over a thousand dollars for a piece seems ridiculous. Unless there’s bidding because someone is famous, I think nfts costing ~300 (or the same as your most expensive commission) makes more sense. It is an original, but the commission are exactly what the buyer wants while the nft is what the artist felt like drawing. Maybe if you want to commission an nft it’s 200 more. With the pricing of nfts it seems to a cynical outsider like the artist wants the hundreds of thousands for their work which I doubt is the case for >90%. Selling something you made for a print also as an nft makes sense unless they have a need to keep the original since a copy is usually fine (because once again they’re the same). The problem is this volatile market where people are throwing money into crappy drawings for the lols
And if an artist isn’t able to get enough work to pay their bills then they need a part time job. If they don’t have time because they’re always drawing then they need to raise their prices or open a patreon so that those who want them to work on more art can support them. If they are working a part time job and still don’t have enough for bills then that’s why we need to vote for people who will keep ceos from hogging the wealth by forcing them to pay their fair share of taxes. The answer is not nfts
Edited because accidentally hit enter before finished
@@alliew31 Good comment, though I was surprised you ended it with "The answer is not nfts" when to me you seemed to be saying that, outside of you personally not seeing value in digital collectibles, NFTs are great since instead of being forced to draw whatever fetish stuff they aren't into artists get paid for making what they actually want to draw.
Though something I'd point out, as someone who hasn't done any research on the topic, aren't the ridiculous prices mostly a result of multiple people bidding on the NFT instead of artist setting the base price high(or after multiple instances of that adjusting the price to better match the demand)?
@@enrymion9681 this is addressed in the video the high prices are indeed from bidding or adjusting to meet demand
Harrassment is bad, nfts are still shit
Translation: I'll make zero effort to condemn harassment of artists who decide to do NFTs but I'll say harassment is bad to save face and pretend I'm a good person while everyone is looking.
@@MatheusNiisama heavy libertarian energy
Did you actually watch the video or did you just came here to leave a comment
@@Siennarchist also what is that supposed to mean
@@Siennarchist god what a stupid answer
Should the artist get harassed NO but should the artist have done NFTS for a quick buck NO. The artist could of did alternative art work such as doing commissions for companies/clients. Or worked towards another art career. There is no reason today to do NFTS unless you just want money the fast way; and if you mean it or not cause harm to the environment.
Why? Even if (obviously I haven't watched the video yet as you haven't as it's been up for
@@erickvorpahl1501
The way things work in crypto space, is that every "project" is at best a rugpull, at worst a scam. I can see the assumption where people assume the artist is part of the "team" that mints the NFTs they dump. Now i'm not defending these guys, but i can see their logic.
@@anivicuno9473 but that ain't how it works. The artist makes art, mints it(turns it into NFT), and someone buys the NFT from them in return for crypto, which gets converted to cash. I don't see the scam in 2 consenting adults making such an exchange
@@starlord1521 The NFT marketplace doesn't contain anything, is the point. The NFT is not the actual image, digital images can be copied infinitely, and if it is ownership of the image, this is directly counter to his nonbelief in copyright. If the NFT market actually sells nothing, then why are people buying it? They could've just as easily used cashapp. The reason is because NFTs are commonly and vastly used for art "investment", which is basically an arguably worse form of gambling, like the stock market. It's not a scam if you understand all of that, it just makes you stupid for buying such a volatile investment that's worth nothing but the hype it's printed on. The reason it's a scam is because there's no logical reason to invest your money into it. There's no use case or purchasing motivation where it couldn't be a scam.
@@234fddesa Nobody says the NFT is the actual image but people who don't understand what NFTs are. It's like someone arguing that emails don't exist because you aren't sending physical paper. It's just a nonsensical argument to even begin with.
Art based NFTs have no volatility because there is virtually no secondary market for them. People don't buy those for profit, they tend to spend their profits on them. Go see for yourself how few secondary sales there are on art platforms like Foundation. There are very few instances of 1/1 art having enough demand to yield easy profit. There are more liquid and efficient markets in crypto to try warning from than art collection.
There were so, so, so many better ways to break up your thoughts into individual videos, and you know this. Genuinely this video was the worst way to make your thoughts about such an obviously complicated subject understood by a broader audience. 8 hours, longwinded, homogeneously structured throughout. I don't even mind the self-righteousness and hot takes, this format was just a horrible decision.
Or you just feel like you don't have enough time to watch an 8 hour video. I mean I'm two hours in, without a break, and have yet to not understand something even with the looser structering and big tangents. So far everything felt like it had to go together in this single Video. But since I'm only 2 hours in, I will see for myself. Good day.
@@oligerspanier6936 When a video is 8 hours of homogeneous rambling and intermittent screencaps/clips, you're going to lose track of the arguments being made no matter how good you think you are. This isn't even audio-friendly since there's so much visual content and references. I will not waste my time watching and rewatching segments to break down an 8 hour video for myself because the creator chose to be exceptionally lazy in formatting while overzealous in editing
Edit: I see this is a criticism being levied at the creator from most of the comments, so if you're enjoying it or finding time to enjoy it, you are the exception for powering through an objectively terrible format
@@ausiidnd You are probably right when it comes to the fact that I have more time then most other people to watch this. But I must say that you are overly critical. Although I can see that this is my opinion and as you said yourself, I don't have a problem of time in my hands. Which leads to my opinion. Good day.
@@ausiidnd To be fair: "Long bad" is a common criticism of any content and its not exactly a fair one. For instance people are suggested to watch the Folding Ideas video he brings up at the start which is
A. Awful
and
B. 3 hours as well
While I understand 8 hours is a long time, if you acknowledge issues are super complex then maybe if you aren't willing to put in that 8 hours you shouldn't talk about them?
Every NFT hate video is bare minimum an hour long and for tons of people an hour is way too long for something they simply don't care enough about.
@@MizuhanaVT Long is not bad. I will gladly watch a *two hour Dan Olsen video about NFTs being a grift. I'll also gladly watch eight one-hour videos that are part of a broader series on NFTs being good and artist harassment being bad. I'm not criticizing the length of time necessary to relay the content so much as I'm criticizing the comparative lack of structure, conciseness, argumentative cohesion, and accessibility of discussion between that Dan Olsen video and this 8 hour long mess dropped with no chapters and a screenshot of timestamps written in Notepad shown 12 minutes into it (and still not posted in the description)
I listened to about 80 minutes and decided this video wasn't worth the effort of fully dissecting, skipped around to get the gist of the various points, then made my criticisms about the primary deterring reason for me known. As for the actual argument, it sucks that artists are getting harassed for entering the cryptocurrency/NFT market, especially when they often come from struggling backgrounds in a gig economy that doesn't reward hard work nearly as much as it rewards getting lucky. I think defending NFTs on the basis of supporting the few small artists making bank off of a ponzi scheme is ridiculous, though.
Maybe instead of gatekeeping participation in the arguments around NFTs you could accept that this video could've been split up or cut down in length or formatted differently or released as a series or *anything* to make the arguments easier to digest and address. Like even if I wanted to rebut a point he made in this video, I'd have to write an essay just to address 1/8th of his arguments. It just isn't feasible and replaces more detailed conversations about his perspective in favor of generalizations and incomplete counterarguments due to the sheer volume of content concentrated in one video, as demonstrated by the end of my previous paragraph.
Mindboggling how the same person who has railed against copyright and IP law in the past to extol the virtues of privacy is now trying to defend one of the worst incarnations of it possible.
Also, how has he said absolutely nothing about the HBO situation? That feels like it should have been right up his alley.
@@Hifuutorian to be fair thats probably coming next. it only happened a week ago
@@MakenaForest Even on twitter he hasn't said anything about it IIRC. I don't know, it's kind of just bizarre to me.
Are you going to actually watch even part of it before making a judgement or are you just going to villainize him? There are timestamps at the 12 minute mark. He's just trying to combat some weird misinformation and toxic behavior found in both people who are against NFTs [Like me] and who support them.
@@ZeroTookTheKids He's combatting "misinformation" by using misinformation