Yet, there is something I see spread which I cannot agree with, as an author-illustrator, content creator and NFT minter. What you call CC0 license opens up just one possible business model, which benefits copyrigths holders who are businesses, but not independent self-managed artists.
This kind of business model is recently praised as a great innovation, yet it is a threat to the promise that blockchain tech brought to artists.
Blockchain tech was supposed to free us from middlemen and abuses from companies hiring the services of artists, in this way overriding a fair reward of their IP. I firmly believe this is still possible and work for this, building a DApp that may help every artist-author freely decide about the use of their artworks minted as NFTs.
Independent self-managed artists need to know that the The Intellectual Property they own is for them to manage and the web3 will make it possible on the Internet.
Great article! I believe though, that user-owned social networks should be easily accessible in order to reach mass adoption and allow people that are not yet in the web3 community to benefit from it. A good example of this is: https://momentsapp.xyz/
You've all definitely shown that proper tie ins between utility and ownership are here to stay and will evolve into a powerful business model--especially as more talent moves into the space and increases the quality of the products. The next question for me becomes how does any non-fund attempt to put a value on anything in the space? Web2 or L1/L2 blockchains are inter-comparable, but in the ownership economy when the utility of each token is so unique and the issuance schedules are so diverse, who can we rely on to keep the market efficient? To me, much like NFTs, I fear that this sector comes with a lot of liquidity risk and that long-term successful projects are going to have to be forged in fire.
Thank you for this insightful article.
Yet, there is something I see spread which I cannot agree with, as an author-illustrator, content creator and NFT minter. What you call CC0 license opens up just one possible business model, which benefits copyrigths holders who are businesses, but not independent self-managed artists.
This kind of business model is recently praised as a great innovation, yet it is a threat to the promise that blockchain tech brought to artists.
Blockchain tech was supposed to free us from middlemen and abuses from companies hiring the services of artists, in this way overriding a fair reward of their IP. I firmly believe this is still possible and work for this, building a DApp that may help every artist-author freely decide about the use of their artworks minted as NFTs.
Independent self-managed artists need to know that the The Intellectual Property they own is for them to manage and the web3 will make it possible on the Internet.
Here is a link, for a more detailed response to this crucial matter: https://app.sigle.io/mirlo.id.blockstack/HUbS031tsrPy4SUz7y8Zz
Great article! I believe though, that user-owned social networks should be easily accessible in order to reach mass adoption and allow people that are not yet in the web3 community to benefit from it. A good example of this is: https://momentsapp.xyz/
Wow, thank you for this thorough report. Just as I thought I was getting my head around web3 I realise how little I know!
You've all definitely shown that proper tie ins between utility and ownership are here to stay and will evolve into a powerful business model--especially as more talent moves into the space and increases the quality of the products. The next question for me becomes how does any non-fund attempt to put a value on anything in the space? Web2 or L1/L2 blockchains are inter-comparable, but in the ownership economy when the utility of each token is so unique and the issuance schedules are so diverse, who can we rely on to keep the market efficient? To me, much like NFTs, I fear that this sector comes with a lot of liquidity risk and that long-term successful projects are going to have to be forged in fire.
…