In response to the articles about NFT and crypto artwork in the past few days, there have been a number of comments from readers about these artworks. Putting aside the market price of NFT artworks, the contrast of these comments is relatively large in terms of appreciation and recognition of NFT artworks themselves. This polarized contrast actually existed as early as when the NFT artworks were introduced and has continued.
Current reviews of these artworks are very low, not only by the general audience, but also by art professionals. Just a while ago I read in an article that some enthusiasts took a considerable number of NFT artworks to professional artists in China for evaluation, and the response was that they were not considered paintings at all, and some even considered them to be not even graffiti.
I believe the debate about it will go on and on, and I am afraid that a more objective conclusion will be available only after a decade or even decades.
As a fan of blockchain technology, I don’t comment too much on the value of these artworks per se, but rather on how it connects real-life copyright-related items to NFT and makes NFT work in this.
Artwork is just one of many copyright-related fields and is only niche, while another art form is much more popular and much more mass-market. This is the recent rise of avatars overseas.
For example, when we use social media such as WeChat and Weibo, everyone’s account has an avatar, and this avatar picture can be considered an avatar.
The avatar doesn’t seem to be a hot topic in domestic self media, the general public just looks at it as a common avatar, but overseas it has almost become a cultural symbol indicating one’s opinion, inclination and even status.
When Musk jumped into the cryptocurrency world a while ago and started the trend of everyone following Bitcoin, many people overseas started a trend: they put laser eyes on their Twitter avatars to show that they support Bitcoin. So when people saw a Twitter avatar with laser eyes, they knew that the person was pro-Bitcoin, and fellow Bitcoiners would see that avatar and follow them.
So in a way, avatars became a way to socialize in the virtual world overseas.
It is with this culture in mind that a large number of avatar-making projects have recently started to appear overseas.
The usual practice of the project owners of these projects is to issue a certain number (say 10,000) of NFT tokens, where each NFT token is associated with a relatively cool picture, and each NFT is different, so the picture it is associated with is also different. These images are usually cartoon characters or images that are popular in secondary culture. Each NFT token is generally priced between 0.01 ETH and 0.1 ETH, with some cheaper and some more expensive. The project owner will announce their future development plan and vision on the project website to attract enthusiasts to buy in.
Only time will tell if the project’s promises will be fulfilled, and it’s up to the market to choose whether enthusiasts will buy or not.
Since this year, especially in recent months, such projects have exploded overseas, the most famous of which is BAYC (https://boredapeyachtclub.com/).
This project issued 10,000 avatars of apes, each of them different, each associated with an NFT token. These avatars are shown below.
The buzz around this project is quite high, going from 0.08 ETH each when it was released in May to over 2 ETH each in 2 months now.
On Twitter, a large number of early overseas NFT players almost have at least one in their hands, and many of them have that ape image they bought as their Twitter avatar. Many NFT players have formed their own circles with this ape avatar as their logo, and share the latest NFT information and projects in the circles. New players who want to enter this circle must also hold an ape NFT token.
Now, if NFT fans want to follow the latest development of NFT on Twitter, there is a simplest way to do so is to find the number whose avatar is this ape avatar and follow it.
With the demonstration effect of this project, many NFT projects started to imitate it. So some people lamented that 1CO in 2017 is back in the NFT field.
As for how this trend will evolve in the future, let’s leave it to future judgment. One thing is certain: that is, this trend will also definitely be recorded in the history of blockchain development and become an indelible memory.
The following and everyone continue to respond to the relevant questions left by everyone.
1, nft artwork contains two parts: part is the image, part is the token to confirm ownership.
So if I own a real piece of art and someone wants to buy it, I transfer my artwork nft tokens from my wallet to his wallet, but I give him a fake physical image. In other words, although in the world of virtual currency, I don’t have the ownership of this portrait, but in the real world, I still really own this portrait, does this possibility exist? I have a superficial understanding of nft, please advise me.
–I think it is entirely possible. My understanding of this situation is that it also exists in the traditional art market. For example, it is entirely possible that after Leonardo da Vinci showed the world his Mona Lisa Smile, if someone did buy it, he secretly painted another very similar one, but gave the buyer the one he painted later. At that point, the world knows that that buyer is now the owner of the painting, but what the buyer gets is not the earliest one.
In practice, however, I rarely come across painters who do this, because in effect it is compromising their reputation.
2, what do you think about enj, he will launch a nft public chain efi in the near future. do you think it is a promising future or a flash in the pan?
–ENJ is a very famous token, but I have not invested in it. I have also learned about this public chain recently launched by this team, but I am not optimistic about it, so I will not buy it. In fact, I am not very optimistic about the public chain projects launched again now, including the earlier FLOW public chain, although it has risen a lot, I did not buy it either.
3、If the author rescanned the painting with the original image, and the size of the cropped painting this time is slightly different from the first time, casting nft again and selling it again, are there any moral disadvantages?
— I don’t see any problem. We can still use the example of the Mona Lisa Smile above. Da Vinci could have sold his painting to one buyer and then painted a similar painting to sell to another buyer. At this time, the market will decide which of the two similar paintings is better.
However, in practice, I rarely come across painters who do this, because in fact it is affecting their reputation.
- This is the link with virtual items, how about the link with physical objects?
— Now all application scenarios of NFT linking with physical objects need centralized institutions in them as intermediaries, so it is not yet possible to do complete decentralization. Therefore, in this process, if this intermediary problems, NFT and physical links in the credit will also be greatly reduced.
- Can the content copyright aspect be linked to the NFT token?
–Yes, and in theory there is a very simple way to do it. However, this issue requires a lot of space to go into detail and conflicts with existing laws.
6, do not care about the original painting, what if the bought painting is damaged or stolen? Now it is difficult to use the law to defend the right, right.
–As I introduced in my previous article, now in the field of NFT we talk about NFT artwork generally refers to virtual artwork, so the artwork is in virtual form (such as image files, 3D files) exist. These files can have countless copies, and many of these NFT files are saved on IPFS. So it is generally rare that a file becomes corrupted and the source file cannot be found. But even if this situation does occur, the existing laws can deal with whether the actual case has not heard of such.
7, if the NFT of the A site to save, and then to B to generate a, so whether there is a problem
— My understanding of this can still be compared with the existing situation. For example, I bought a famous painting, if I imitate this famous painting myself and then go to sell my own imitation, will there be a problem? It still depends on how the existing law deals with it.
The above questions are excerpts from readers’ comments. nft is a brand new field, which brings new ways to copyright and artwork, and also brings new problems, some of which we can solve now, but probably more of which we will have to wait for the future to have a good approach.
Maybe this is the general law of technology to promote the progress of human society.
Posted by:CoinYuppie，Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/is-nftmetaverse-the-next-investment-windfall/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.