Question: If someone else buys the blockchain version, does the person with the physical item have to fork that over as well? If not, kinda defeats the purpose of having an exclusive piece of art. If so, what if the person doesn’t want to give up the physical item?
Well i hope his project works and it sells for a few million… We will all benefit from Blender becoming more awesome because they can pay top developers… If it works then it opens the door for more similar NFTs where the funding goes to Blender…
Maybe the Blender splash screens can be sold as an NFT on each major release, that would give it some collectible and historical significance. And for the splash screens the artist would receive a pre-agreed percentage as commission…
This would create a sort of competition for splash screen art that would push artists and Blender to its limits, because every artists wants a chance at pocketing the profits a multi-million NFT sale, and of course the money donated to the Blender Foundation pushes Blender further.
1 Like
This is the dumbest idea i’ve ever heard… unless it would actually be based on something that is not gambling (nfts)
Ton has stated already the blender devs do not endore NFTs.
1 Like
I think this is fun and creative. A great way to take donuts to the next level and make them valuable.
If you are thinking about giving donut, make it before
THURSDAY
SUBMIT:
https://forms.gle/xTpDKSdHpM1yAwkQ8
1 Like
I put mine in, it was just getting all moldy on my hard drive.
3 Likes
I hope you sent it Express or Overnight.
I did when Andrew first posted his request, I’m on his mailing list. 
I made mine with mucus-colored frosting. What color was yours?
I did mine in orange, I thought it might be different enough.
Mine was caput mortuum.
I stopped watching most of Andrew’s videos since he just wouldn’t stop going on about NFTs recently, but I support this idea if it’s intended to help Blender.
To be honest though, image NFTs really suck. The buyer gets a token on the blockchain saying they own an image, but they don’t even own the rights or have any control of the actual image because it’s a digital item that’s easy to copy and in many cases has already been all over the internet anyway. We’ve already seen people buy an NFT for thousands of dollars only for the server hosting the image to go down and the buyer be left unable to even look at the image they supposedly bought.
The Beeple auctions were a bit different to the craze that followed, since it was handled through a reputable auction house, the buyer got more than a token in a crypto wallet and Beeple had been making the images every day for more than 10 years, so there was some history there, but it was still an insane amount of money.
Images baked into the blockchain (I think Cryptopunks maaayy be saved in the blockchain) are a bit cooler, because they will always exist as long as the blockchain is not lost, but the prices are outrageous and all it shows is that there are people out there with very large sums of money who either don’t care what happens to it (maybe they got millions of dollars in crypto by mining or buying very early on) or are just speculating.
Using the blockchain as proof of ownership doesn’t even really make sense when there is no legal recognition of it as such, so I don’t quite understand why people are willing to spend so much money.
To be honest though, I also hate when works of great significance are bought buy some rich arsehole that just squirrels it away into their private collection to never be seen again, so NFTs might offer something different in that regard
1 Like
The answer to your confusion why people wanna spend so much money is:
They think they can flip it to the next fool/ and or as a incentive to boost NFT/ETH popularity to the public because they are a investor in that game (like in beeples case, it was a deal with a NFT/Crypto investor). There is no other answer.
They want these big crazy price pools like beeple etc to happen because it generates news and thus increases the influx of new fools who think they can become rich but all they will do is to give more money to the 3rd party sites, and make ETH go up.
And thus why its all a combined gamble & scheme.
I am also baffled how many people (i guess artists in general dont know anything about economy or math) think money just comes out of thin air, that its completely normal to pay millions for a token to a URL and that people do that because money is infinite in the world and everyone can become a millionare.
If you are interested in some research done into how many are making money of NFTs here is a good blogpost with sources: https://thatkimparker.medium.com/most-artists-are-not-making-money-off-nfts-and-here-are-some-graphs-to-prove-it-c65718d4a1b8
3 Likes
Hi, late by a couple days but I’m legit curious here: what would be the difference between a miner and say, a render farm?
Or a gigantic datacenter?
What about training yet another utterly power-hungry AI by running multiple GPUs in parallel just so we can have pretty pictures in an unnecessarily higher resolution?
Wouldn’t supercomputing be the real issue, then?
Well, are stupidly big machines crunching ridonkolously big numbers and eating big ol’ humongous loads of energy problematic? I believe there is some truth to this, but I’m a keyboard monkey not an environmentalist. I wouldn’t know for sure.
What I do know however is that, if this is indeed something to worry about, then miners could stop right now and that’d barely put a dent in the problem; pretty far from being the only irresponsible technocrats in this planet, though many don’t remember that all of a sudden.
This is a question but not directed at you specifically, I’m just quoting as you brought it up. Forgive that it is a tad off-topic, I just feel it is relevant: isn’t our level of consumption, and the growth thereof, comparable on some level?
Doesn’t it border on hypocrisy to pick on crypto, then?
Perhaps there is a definite limit on how powerful hardware can get and how many impossible calculations a millisecond we can push before it becomes an environmental hazzard? Is that the suggestion?
Well, is this something people actually care about or one of those scapegoat situations? You know the ones where the dumb kid takes the fall and everyone else that’s just as guilty runs off scot-free?
Mmmh, perhaps we should stop doubling resolutions every few years?
Or maybe just cut it with the fossil fuels already, no? I was born in '94 and I’ve been hearing about that being such a big issue my whole life. How come it still hasn’t been dealt with? Who’s in charge of this? I wanna see the manager!
Anyhoo, if you hate mosquitoes then stop running over frogs.
This got too long, I’m sorry.
Late to the game with a ‘legit curious’, ‘just wondering’ bad faith argument, looping around to whataboutism and thinking out loud. Sprinkle in some deep thinking a la ‘Can’t we all just hold hands and stop using fossil fuels?’, et voila: You’ve really contributed to this discussion in a profound way.
Crazy thought: Aren’t people allowed to dislike something based on the energy it uses in relation to the cultural value it provides?
Which, given one side of the equation being zero, is going to be a pretty bad ratio.
Turning on lights on so we can see in the dark is also using electricity, but that’s unrelated to what’s being discussed here: the high price and low value of this latest iteration of the cryptogrift.
But money comes out of thin air. That is nearly the literal meaning of “fiat money” which is what “normal” money such as Dollars and Euros are called.
It is money by decree not because it has some intrinsic value. It is just money because enough of the right people say so.
Money is infinite. Or at least governments can pump out as much as they want to. Its value - on the other hand - is not infinite. That is why inflation happens when governments print new money.
In fact, that is one important reason why people and companies are buying crypto money. Some crypto money is not infinite and therefore does not inflate. They buy it because they don’t want their money to be worth less in a couple of years.
3 Likes
The more I read about NFTs the more it seems the Environmental Problem (real or not) is a way to distract people from the fact that it looks very much like a scam.
- Wait, the buyer doesn’t even own…
- Is it about that fake data on emissions again?!
- Well, it might be a problem too, but what about ‘scarcity’ concep…
- FOsSil fUeL!
It might be exaggerated (slightly), but that’s what I’ve observed so far.
Still, whether NFTs are a scam or not, Mr. Price as an individual is free to do as he likes and even invite other individuals to participate. Wish them luck and all that.
Not a good idea to get involved in something so shady as a community though.
Aren’t they supposed to be supported by something (like gold)?
No. Money is not supported by anything in that sense.
It used to be a couple of decades ago but it was not practical. Unbacked money has its advantages.
1 Like
When as kids we used tree leaves as currency it didn’t take too long to see a problem there.
2 Likes
You would have needed a big stick with a nail in it to tell the other kids that they can only use the leaves you tell them to use.
2 Likes
I take it you had a bad day?
I don’t like virtual currencies. Though the value of every coin is basically made up, and governed by speculation more than anything far as I can understand. But I prefer having bills in my pocket if that makes sense.
Bitcoin to me doesn’t mean much other than being this wacky, descentralized money thing. Honestly we could do without all the scams around it. But, as far as enviromental concerns go I really don’t think that’s the right argument against it.
Hope you get better soon. c: