Technology

This article makes my brain want to bleed.

I'll say it louder one last time for the people in the back:

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH BITS IN ANY TYPE OF NFT TO STORE ART ON THE BLOCKCHAIN. THE BEST YOU CAN DO IS A URL WEBLINK TO THE IMAGE AND AN IMAGE HASH. THAT IS FUNCTIONALLY NOT THE SAME AS STORING THE ACTUAL IMAGE ON THE BLOCKCHAIN. IF THE ORIGINAL IMAGE GETS DELETED, THE URL AND HASH ARE BOTH EFFECTIVELY USELESS.

The art is always a completely separate entity from the NFT itself. Trying to act like this is "regulating art" is just more cryptobro bullshit.

the NFT is not the art itself, it is at best a proof of ownership.

Regulating a money scam that uses art as a token isn't regulating art, it's regulating money scams.

If pieces of art metadata are being traded like securities, then yes, the SEC should regulate their trade.

It should have absolutely nothing to do with the "art" associated with that metadata, it should just be regulated for what it is.

Given that the world of high art is basically entirely used by rich people as a way to launder money and dodge taxes?

Yes. It absolutely should. It should have been like 30 years ago.

The problem with what creeps like Mann are claiming comes down to the difference between “art” and buying an “interest” in art as a speculative investment. Mann conflates these two ideas, trying to bestow the wholesomeness of artistic expression with his investment business venture. I’m all in favor of getting artists paid, and structuring society in a way that encourages the production of art, but Mann wants to weaken securities regulations and consumer protections to do that. That’s a terrible idea because it will lead to many more people being conned and defrauded.

If investors were merely trying to support an artist’s work, and not seeking to profit from their investment, they wouldn’t need a securities mechanism like NFTs to do it. We already have money for that.

If a side effect of regulating NFTs as securities is to somehow damage the regular fine art marketplace, as I think Mann’s suit is warning, that is no great loss for society. The fine art market is a blight, a fraud-riddled playground for ultra wealthy douchebags to sequester wealth and does nothing to advance art or promote the creation of artworks writ large.

Mann has ridden the crypto speculative bubble and has an inflated impression of the value of his work. He’s carved out a niche as a sort of court jester for billionaires like Mark Andreesen who want to rebuild financial systems in a way that would dismantle the regulatory state and enshrine an elite class as technologically empowered feudal lords. He thinks the money is compensation for his songs, but it’s largely just a side effect of crypto bros forever trying to find a greater fool to hold the bag in a pyramid scheme. In that effort, his lawsuit is basically a marketing campaign for his investment business. I hope the court puts an end to this once and for all, but I’m not optimistic.

I thought the whole point of crypto/blockchain technologies was to avoid government regulations?

EDIT: Never mind, they're suing because the SEC declared them as securities, which the artists don't want.

I wonder how much it costs to get an advert article like that.

The only purpose of NFTs is to raise sea levels by metres and inundate every coastal city. Owning NFTs is a crime against humanity. Anyone who has ever owned an NFT belongs in prison

"art"

If it was actually art, it wouldn't be able to be traded like a commodity. NFTs have very little artistic value.

It's kind of a shame that Jonathan Mann got wrapped up in all this NFT grift. Many of his songs are quite catchy, I recommend checking him out on YouTube if you haven't already.