Deployer
@deployer
I've seen mixed reactions to Zora combining pictures and tokens. I could be wrong but this feels ... right. It's fascinating. Its like fractionalizing NFTs without having to fractionalize a thing. You can own a lot or you can own a little. You can flex being the biggest holder, or you can just support your favorite artist with $5. The only thing that separates this from existing 1/1s or open editions is how platforms display them. By owning any amount of these tokens you own "the picture". The amount you put in is up to you. I get the sense artists hate this because it further pushes art into some kind of financial asset, but this is fascinating and I hope more artists use it and it catches on. NFTs were always financial. Artists wanted a new way to monetize their work. They required a mental leap to embrace a new concept of ownership. Seems like that is also the case here. This solves the royalty debate. I assume the artist earns fees on every swap.
24 replies
34 recasts
174 reactions
Angel - Not A Bot
@sayangel
"you can just support your favorite artist with $5" sort of right? don't those $5 go to the LP? Artist gets 0.05 After price discovery the artist would need to "sell" the art by selling some or all of their 10M allocation to realize the price. the greater market would need to accept creators (that includes devs) capturing value by selling some of their supply *whenever they want*. If the market doesn't accept that and the pressure is on the creator to hold forever then I don't see how this is necessarily better for artists because they're not really selling their art directly.
2 replies
0 recast
15 reactions
0xen 🎩
@0xen
NFTs were better for sure better when it came to artists selling: https://warpcast.com/0xen/0x87b906e4
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Angel - Not A Bot
@sayangel
right. that will be an important cultural obstacle to overcome. but who knows maybe the volume is there for this to make sense... https://warpcast.com/sayangel/0x51c89abd
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
