This is the funniest use of NFTs I’ve ever read about:
As a self-described “fartpreneur,” however, Matto may have girlbossed a little too close to the sun. On Christmas, she says, she went to the ER with what she describes as heart attack-esque symptoms, which doctors promptly diagnosed as severe gas pain as a result of her diet. Matto’s visit to the ER, which she recounted to a journalist from the U.K. outlet Jam Press, was aggregated across news outlets across the globe, prompting fervent social media debate as to whether Matto’s fart-selling enterprise was a savvy business move or a cultural death rattle resounding from the bowels of late-stage capitalism (pun very much intended). Yet Matto is unruffled by such critiques, and has harnessed her newfound virality into promoting her newest venture: selling fart jar NFTs for 0.05 ETH (a little less than $200) each, though she has significantly reduced sales of her physical fart jars following her ER visit.
I thought the royalty payments were enforced by the contract?
You’re thinking too rationally now. The thing with NFTs is that it’s not rational at all. Try again.
Turns out that the smart contract is a post-it note stapled to the NFT and the marketplace can just ignore what the post-it note says because it’s not legally binding.
What they can’t do is trade with marketplaces that do enforce the contract. Originally it was enforced because if one marketplace stopped enforcing it the marketplace would be cut off from the Echo system but turns out that the 5 big marketplaces just need to agree to drop it and everything is fine.
No see it’s a lot more sophisticated than that. The post-it note is immutable because of maths or something, so what that means is that it’s capital-P Property. And because Property is a magic spell that binds even the old ones, and this spell is unbreakable, I own all these apes.
deleted by creator
Okay, I assume this comment is in defense of crypto contracts or whatever? This is solving a problem that doesn’t exist.
I was exposed to many, many litigation cases in my time working in the legal system. The worst ones happen because contracts aren’t made or are sloppily constructed. I have never, ever, in many years of seeing civil cases go through the office, seen a single example where the problem was that someone had falsified a contract or there was disagreement about what a contract actually says. Contracts change all the time, so making them immutable makes them less useful to both parties.
Also big companies break contracts all the time, and they don’t get away with it by lying about the contents of the contract, they get away with it because they have all the money and all the power.
The same thing with money. Counterfeiting is a tiny problem with almost any currency. The real problem is theft, and the lawless, immutable nature of the blockchain renders theft absolute, with no recourse.
This is the problem with the blockchain in general - immutability solves a nonexistent problem and creates a much worse problem. The no-trust basis of the system attracts grifters because there is no way to take back a bad transaction. The only reason people believe it works is because they somehow believe that documenting transactions immutably will make them bind people, just like some sort of magic spell. That’s just not how the world works.
deleted by creator
You’ve said a lot of words but you still haven’t explained how crypto actually solves these problems.
Once again: laws, including contract law and currency, aren’t magic spells. They don’t have power just because they exist. They require the power of a state to enforce them. Crypto is the same. Just because you’re tracking transactions on a public immutable ledger doesn’t change anything about that.
Now, as an anarchist, I’m not saying that to defend the current system. I am saying the solution is to remove the actual power of the state. Crypto is only attempting to replace tokens of state power, with no attempt to address the power itself.
And yes, I understand how you could in theory make changes to a contract with further ammendments, the thing is that costs transactions. There is no such thing as a modification based purely on consent of the parties. That is a serious problem for their usefulness, which was my actual point.
deleted by creator
Well that’s just bad design, then.
Royalties were not part of the original design.
There is no good design for this. The only design that works is external regulation and laws wich is why we use that for real things that aren’t scams.
Nah the actual limitation is that providing people a way to transfer the token without paying a royalty is essential if you want to give people the option to freely transfer it between their wallets without selling it and paying a royalty. You could write a smart contract that does enforce this but then you would lose the ability to have that free transfer.
Why? It could be enforced in the same way that a BTC transaction is validated, just adding a rule that a wallet, specified as the author, should get a percentage of the trade.
Because the second the rule becomes inconvenient there will be a fork or some kind of bullshit that removes the rule. This has already been done a couple of times when money got stolen from big investors. The thefts followed the rules set up on the blockchain and nothing in those transactions were different from a normal transaction but humans looked at them and said that they weren’t valid and did whatever technical bullshit they needed to do to reverse them.
whatever technical bullshit they needed to do to reverse them
Apparently ultimately this involves hitting the person hiding the encryption keys with a $4 wrench until they provide the keys.
I know that reference.
I disagree, forks can be made but in reality nobody cares, 99.999% still follow the ‘main’ repo. Sometimes shit like that happens (looking at you, Buterik!), but that kinda misses the point that the validation is not implemented optimally.
I hope you are aware that you went from “this can’t be broken” to “I trust that people wouldn’t break it” to “sometimes they do break it but it’s not that often” in a very short comment.
The protocol doesn’t support covenants like that in smart contracts. It has been discussed a lot but not implemented.
It gets complicated fast.
You can easily end up with A gifting B a million and then B sending A the NFT for free, potentially with a trusted escrow service in between to make sure both of these actually happen. The NFT marketplaces are essentially already acting as escrow, so this isn’t weird.
Only thing you could probably enforce is that moving something from one key to another requires a fee to be paid to the original artist, but that’d also trigger if A wants to move their assets to a different key (eg in or out of some hardware wallet, online wallet or marketplace). And if A and B trust each other strongly they can simply share the key.
Or they set up a multisig wallet, each creating one keypair directly on approved (tamper resistant) hardware wallet models, transfer it to the multisig wallet, and now control of the collection of multisig wallets means you control the token.
So now you trade it by trading the set of hardware wallets. Validated by each original participant including results from an audit of the key generation procedure with the hardware wallet.
No trace on the blockchain, and the trust model is more robust than simply taking the word for it as one of them share the private key claiming they did not keep their own copy.
Basically the transfer function on an erc721 interface (nft) cannot have enforced royalty payment otherwise it wouldn’t support people transferring the token outside of a sale. Theoretically you could use some kind of interface standard or write up a different contract where users are forced to pay a royalty on any kind of transfer but then there wouldn’t be a way to transfer it without paying the royalty and basically no nft trading platforms would support it because under the hood you have to transfer them the token so they can sell it on your behalf once a buyer is found.
FYI not trying to shill funny pictures but I do know a bit of solidity so maybe someone here is actually curious about the limitation.
Thank you. This is what I wanted to know!
The whole “web3” bs has always just been a shabby scam, and people fell for it
Even the name “web3” is stupid. Isn’t it supposed to be the next step after “web 2.0?” Shouldn’t it then be “web 3.0?” They couldn’t even include a space between web and 3!
There actually is a Web 3.0, and it predates the cryptocurrency-oriented conceptualisation of “Web3” by quite some time.
Web 3.0 is otherwise known as the Semantic Web, a set of standards developed by the W3C for formally representing (meta)data and relationships between entities on the internet, and for facilitating the machine-reading and exchange thereof.
Did they though? It might be my filter bubble, but whenever I saw web3 being pushed I saw a small refraction of responses of people who also thought it was a great idea (typical salesbros - so a good idea for others to do, just not for themselves). But the vast majority of people reject it for being a scam.
So how many people fell for it, really?
More than 0, which is all the comment said.
If we’re just going for semantics, don’t you mean more than 1 for them to qualify as “people”?
Damn it lol
Have a good weekend ;)
deleted by creator
Did the average person/average internet user fall for it? No.
Did the people who fell for it get sucked into what was basically a cult that sucked the money out of a decent amount of people? Yeah.
The numbers for some of these scam projects were honestly insane.
I don’t think it’s even possible to calculate how much real money was lost to this stuff.
Huh…so does web3 actually mean anything then?
Yeah, I have only a little sympathy for the people who got pulled into the get rich quick scheme, particularly younger people who hit some money only to get caught in what was basically a gambling addiction.
I have way more sympathy for their friends and family who either tried to financially support them when they hit rock bottom, or those who got scammed or stolen from just to pump more money into this bubble.
Ah, probably my filter bubble then.
I’d like to read more about this, do you know of any specific cases?
If you have time, I would suggest CoffeeZilla on YouTube. He basically just get into crypto scam, which isn’t hard to find these days. One specific case I would look at is the influencers taking on pretty much any scam projects to get money. The series is with Oompaville. A great watch.
deleted by creator
Ik the technology is useful, but selling shit I can screen shot is fucking pointless. If you want to buy shit from the artist, just buy their shit.
What you’re buying when you purchase an NFT is a link to a website. That link shows the image. If the link ever breaks because the website goes down or out of business, it’s pretty worthless. I would have thought the implementation would be based on something more enduring like the actual content and not a link.
Storing a full JPEG on the blockchain would be way too expensive. It’s not a bulk data storage system.
There are alternatives like storing a hash of some sort
A hash still isn’t the file itself. I think that the ones that use ipfs even have a hash in the URL.
deleted by creator
It sure sounds like that wasn’t a feature of NFTs, but a feature of OpenSea
Does anyone know a wallet that actively unsupports nfts? I need to use it
How do I too sell pngs for butloads of money?
OnlyFans
Theres like… less than 1% of the user base who earn “buttloads of money”
Buttloads. Yes.
Not money.
I mean, it was just a joke lol.
Ask Chris Roberts about this, he knows a way.
I thought the whole point of NFTs and the blockchain is that it’s decentralized, and you can use “smart contracts” for things like this. How is one company able to decide to change it?
They can only change it for their instance, but they can’t impact all NFT marketplaces. This is only significant because this company is the largest broker so it will impact more people.
Anyone can set up their own blockchain and build it however they want. Hell, they could make it centralized even.
That’s not the question
The post you replied to was saying, “shouldn’t it be inherent to the entry on the Blockchain, regardless of market”
You’d think it should be, but their contracts never enforced it in code
Apparently, smart contracts are not contracts at all… they are friendly suggestions. Unsurprisingly a contract needs a mechanism to enforce it, which makes decentralized contracts redundant at best (as you still need institutions outside of the blockchain to monitor and enforce the contracts), and or worse, completely useless if there is no legal way to enforce them.
The idea behind smart contracts is that they contain code to verify that the contract is fulfilled (that’s the “smart” part of the name).
This of course also means that you can only use it for stuff that happens on the same blockchain, because the contract can’t verify anything outside of that.
Which is why this isn’t relevant for the real world, it’s just eating its own tail.
Yeah I was tempted to add a caveat, it does technically auto executive, but because it needs to interact with the real world it will always run into the oracle problem. The only solution to the oracle problem is courts and tort law, which makes the blockchain contract redundant and unnecessarily expensive.
A problem with a blockchain-related grift? I’m utterly shocked!!!
“To be clear, creator fees aren’t going away—simply the ineffective, unilateral enforcement of them,” OpenSea co-founder and CEO Devin Finzer
So no, a key feature isn’t broken, they’ve just decided to allow people to not include residual fees of they choose.
The verge either don’t know what they’re talking about or they’re maliciously promoting a false story.
Maybe both.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
One of the big promises of NFTs was that the artist who originally made them could get a cut every time their piece was resold.
Starting March 2024, those fees will essentially be tips — an optional percentage of a sale price that sellers can choose to give the original artist.
The marketplace will continue enforcing the fees on certain existing collections until March 2024, at which point they’ll become optional on all sales.
Critics say it will hurt small artists and undermines creators’ ability to control their relationship with the people who buy their work.
OpenSea CEO Devin Finzer criticized the fees’ “ineffective, unilateral enforcement” and said that creators will find other ways to monetize their work.
“Our role in this ecosystem is to empower innovation beyond a single use case or business model,” he writes in the blog post announcing that OpenSea will no longer support the ecosystem’s primary business model.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Who could have seen this coming? Who could have foreseen that all of Web3 was a ponzi scheme that would say anything to get people to pretend hashes on a blockchain is worth 100s of 1000s of dollars. Who? WHO?
It’s what you get when you invest in glorified digital receipts being used in a confidence game. The real legality is behind whatever the purchase and license agreements say, and a digital receipt may matter shit to it, specially if the the transaction is largely absent of any other value.
OpenSea is bad on purpose. Who remembers their insider trading scandal(s)?
Fortunately, nothing of actual value was lost. Just fools being parted from their money.
deleted by creator
I am ok with this
