Jump to content

Ark, NFTs, characters and DLTs


Joebl0w13

Recommended Posts

  • Volunteer Moderator

Shi Hai, Snail Games founder and CEO, sees growing opportunities in the metaverse.

“In this metaverse project, each character and DLTs from ARK will be transferred to a planet,” he explained. “On this planet users will have their own unique gameplay, and they can even create and publish their own digital assets and cryptocurrencies.”

https://venturebeat.com/2022/04/27/snail-games-ceo-talks-property-rights-in-the-metaverse-at-gamesbeat-summit/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Joebl0w13 changed the title to Ark, NFTs, characters and DLTs
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If my game play creates something and 10 years later i can look back at it and see it, vs trying to dig through memories to try and remember which digital world a certain memory came from, I'm interested.

 

I see lots of people complaining about NFTs but from what I've seen with them, the actual use cases for them is far greater and more interesting than what has been done so far. 

 

People used to say similar things about software in the cloud, 'I'll never use software I don't own or control on my PC' .... and look where we are today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

Typical corporate doublespeak throughout the interview, this is really just a big smokescreen for microtransactions by another name.

if gamers actually wanted to pay a monthly fee to keep servers powered, then companies wouldn't have shifted to microtransactions.   Blaming them for wanting to make a profit for their shareholders is pretty silly.   IF they can't make something that holds value for players, they won't be able to sell you anything.   

IF the game is free, you are the product.

 

As a thought experiment here:  I think if all dinos bred or generated in game were NFTs, then original breeders, hunters, and WC could potentially get some sort of compensation for every clone, baby sold from player to player.   This would mean if someone bought a dino off someone , then went to resell it right away to a subcommunity they are more plugged into - the originator of the dino would potentially be compensated for their efforts still.  It could reduce the windfall benefit to the person who added little value to the transaction.  WildCard could have a stable flow of income generated that pays for salaries, server hardware, bandwidth.  We could have more active and effective admin on official servers....   or they could just milk the players , not take care of things, and they would shed players to more attractive games.......

 

Compare that with what it is today; WC spends x amount of $ on enforcement over online $ selling. WC makes $0 on any RMT, breeders $0, original stat hunters $0 , everyone can be insided and stolen from, buyers becoming traders become predatory, and competition reselling your 1000 hours of breeding for 2 tek ceilings on the 100 tek ceilings of your time and efforts all because they haggled for a great deal on 6 eggs?  Or how about the spino with 150 points in melee that you spent months on making, you see being sold for $7 an egg.  Can you stop that person? sue that person? force them to give you a cut? no.

The moment stuff I trade for materials in game, is being resold for $ - then things are different.  Even in the real world of business, I have legal recourse over reselling of products.  Contracts are formed, signed, and enforceable.  The moment someone's reselling my work, shouldn't I have some rights?  I'm selling a product that has it's roots in someone else's product, do they have some rights? Yes they do.  This exists today in the real world of business.

Your cell phone, pc - all pay a cut to the chipmakers for every chip sold.  Every blank CD I ever bought in the 90s, paid a cut to the record companies because they could have stored music even though all i put on there was anime.  MCA records used to be owned by Matsushi....(the site here will change this japanese name because it looks like a bad word in english)ta ,  who owned Pioneer/Panasonic who happened to make cd's - they were paying themselves 2 ways for every blank cd sold.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't even imagine the level of stress that would be added to pvp gamers, if their stuff was suddenly that much more connected to real world dollars. Some of them might go postal after a big raid where they loose thousands of dollars and hours after sweating bullets trying to keep the implicitly raidable stuff unraidable. Or if some glitch wipes out some dollars, e.g. the infamous antimeshing system. Wild card wouldn't be able to handle the demand to fix everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, sjskdjkfa said:

I can't even imagine the level of stress that would be added to pvp gamers, if their stuff was suddenly that much more connected to real world dollars. Some of them might go postal after a big raid where they loose thousands of dollars and hours after sweating bullets trying to keep the implicitly raidable stuff unraidable. Or if some glitch wipes out some dollars, e.g. the infamous antimeshing system. Wild card wouldn't be able to handle the demand to fix everything.

It doesn't have to be, it could be tied to an internal system that only has to exit out if the player wants it to.  There's plenty of room for variety of implementations, it could include the ability for players to lock their work from commercial exploitation.

 

Product designers would be researching what players want out of it and hopefully, if they are good, come up with something attractive to players.  That is their job.

 

I think it's worth noting that when I was 12 (30+ years ago), I read 1984 and had an argument with my dad over the possibility of some of the things in the book ever happening.  My dad's favorite argument was that nobody would be willing to let the government put cameras and microphones in their home to be watched and monitored....  I would argue that it was my dad's failure to be creative to see that people would do it all on their own w/out the government pushing it on them.  Few of us can predict what the future will bring.

https://artsandculture.google.com/story/the-everyday-inventions-people-never-thought-would-catch-on/dAJy2GNl1ScYLQ

 

* I own 0 crypto currencies , I own 0 NTFs.  I got a degree in math, and this stuff is all math.  I simply like to read about everything, and I'm in the wait and see camp.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There may be some merit to this for a new game that is built explicitly such that each contributor to creating a level 3000 Giga is written into its history (or digital ledger).

So Wild Card (maybe) deserves an entry because they created the model and animation and etc. Although one could argue that having sold and taken money for the game, Wild Card no longer can claim any entry to the ledger.

Then the guy(s) that tamed the thing get an entry. Hang on though - if its a team effort, with one bloke doing the feeding and another doing meat runs or kibble fetch, who gets what and which proportion of "ledger entry". Or lets say one guy shot the thing with 42 arrows, but another guy shot exactly one arrow, which knocked the creature out.....

Then there is breeding and mutating and so forth. Once again, does the guy that only does meat runs for the hatchlings get an entry? Is it a tribe share kinda thing? Or only the dude that actually imprinted the baby.

And so on ....

To take kit that has been out in the wild (if you pardon the pun) for many years and try to now reverse implement a chain of ownership on current stuff in the game is impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sjskdjkfa said:

I can't even imagine the level of stress that would be added to pvp gamers, if their stuff was suddenly that much more connected to real world dollars. Some of them might go postal after a big raid where they loose thousands of dollars and hours after sweating bullets trying to keep the implicitly raidable stuff unraidable. Or if some glitch wipes out some dollars, e.g. the infamous antimeshing system. Wild card wouldn't be able to handle the demand to fix everything.

From the article (which I admit to scanning and not really reading) I don't believe that the "plan" is to be able to re-import the NTF stuff to Ark? There was explicit talk of exporting kit to a new kind of server / world / whatever. So more like @GrumpyBear's idea of a digital photo / video record of achievement and not so much introducing $ transactions to the base game Ark. May have the wrong end of the stick here though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see potential for it to be good and bad. Ark has many systems already set up. Amber for mobile and Hexagon on console can easily be converted into a crypto currency. And the transfer system can be diverted to become the different worlds. A big flaw in games that do it is they become pay to win. Including a simple faucet and a few free starter items can help. A major risk is spamming  example (do not press) 

In summary

Try to:

preventing duping using crypto hash

remain a game first and foremost 

provide free gameplay options 

 

Avoid:

pay to win

spamming

pay to start 

focusing to heavily on the money and not on the core gameplay loop

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot to unpack here, going to do my best to keep this reply targeted and focused. Anyone who's not interested in fully articulated arguments should probably look for shorter posts to read. :)

On 4/28/2022 at 5:24 PM, GrumpyBear said:

if gamers actually wanted to pay a monthly fee to keep servers powered, then companies wouldn't have shifted to microtransactions.

There are a couple of major flaws with this statement:

 

1)  "Gamers" are not one, big, monolithic entity, never have been. Even when the games industry was small compared to nowadays it could never be said that "Gamers like this" or "Gamers don't like that". There have always been multiple categories, multiple groups, of gamers, including what they do/don't like and what they do/don't want to pay for.

Any argument that begins with "Gamers be like this" is resting on a hidden premise that is inherently false, which means the rest of the argument should be taken with a large gain of salt. This is no different from starting a discussion with "Everybody says...".

 

2)  This argument is presenting the microtransactions as simple cause-and-affect, as though it's a simple chicken-and-egg scenario with an obvious answer. While the real chicken/egg conundrum has been resolved long ago, it does not apply to this proposed chicken-and-egg-gaming scenario. The rise of microtransactions has much less to do with what the general population of gamers want to pay and much more to do with the gaming industry's decisions, new technologies and new gaming platforms.

* At first, it was mostly (portions of) the gaming industry trying to figure out ways to steal market share from other existing, established games.

* Then, with the rise of mobile gaming, it was (portions of) the gaming industry trying to figure out how to get more people to play games in the mobile space, during a time when most people people used desktops and mobile devices very differently.

* Then, as the gaming industry was growing and learning more about human behavior and psychology (and deliberately employing psychology professionals to help them understand how to make games more addictive) micro's were a deliberate tool used to squeeze as much money as possible out of their titles on every platform - mobile, desktop, console.

The extent to which gamers have their share of responsibility for microtransactions is because people are inherently vulnerable to these psychological tricks, and it takes an act of will to overcome the potential dangers of being tricked into spending more money through micro's than a person would normally spend if they realized how much they were spending on a game.

And, of course, the history and development of microtransactions are even more complicated than the three bullet points I've laid out, but for the purposes of this discussion those three bullet points are enough to explain my argument - that it's incorrect to simply blame gamers and move on. For the purpose of the point I'm making it shouldn't be necessary to do a deeper dive into the history of micro's and the gaming industry, that would be a waste of everyone's time.

The point here is that blaming gamers for microtransactions is a false argument, for multiple reasons.

On 4/28/2022 at 5:24 PM, GrumpyBear said:

Blaming them for wanting to make a profit for their shareholders is pretty silly.

No one's doing that, you're making up a fake argument to argue against.

Or if you feel that I need me to be more specific (since "no one" is a broad, general argument) I wasn't doing that and it was me you were replying to, which means you're using a straw man argument in your reply to me.

On 4/28/2022 at 5:24 PM, GrumpyBear said:

IF they can't make something that holds value for players, they won't be able to sell you anything.

True statement. More than just true, I suspect that everyone here can agree with it.

Unfortunately it also has nothing to do with what I said, it's a red herring that's unrelated to both my post and Shi Hai's comments.

On 4/28/2022 at 5:24 PM, GrumpyBear said:

IF the game is free, you are the product.

Also true, and also unrelated to both the question of NFT's and my statement regarding the interview, another red herring.

Microtransactions are not necessarily needed to prevent a game from being free. Likewise NFT's are not necessarily needed to prevent a game from being free. ARK, as an obvious example that's just sitting in our lap, is none of the above - not free, no microtransactions, no NFT's and yet it is clearly "something that holds value for players".

On 4/28/2022 at 5:24 PM, GrumpyBear said:

As a thought experiment here:  I think if all dinos bred or generated in game were NFTs, then original breeders, hunters, and WC could potentially get some sort of compensation for every clone, baby sold from player to player.

I'm not sure what to make of the idea that WC somehow needs to make money from in-game trading among players, considering that they created the product that all of the players bought for money in the first place, but okay. If you really believe that WC is somehow hurting for revenue from this franchise then yes, that is something that could happen. Essentially WC would create the ARK metaverse (so I guess the ARKiverse...?) and then they could get a broker's cut of every transaction that happens between players who are paying each other using RMT's (real money transactions) inside that ARKiverse, basically turning WC into the E-Bay of the ARKiverse (so ARKBay... PayARKPal... you get the idea).

It's true that's a possible future, one which sounds horrifying, pretty much turning ARK into Eve Online with dinosaurs. Building a system that encourages RMT's between players is certainly a realistic prospect, albeit a disgusting one.

 

It's worth noting that original breeders and hunters already get compensation "for every clone, baby sold from player to player", they just don't get compensated with real money, which is how it should be. If people are following the ToC and the CoC the compensation is in the form of in-game currency, resources that they've farmed by playing the game like ingots or pearls, rather than RMT transactions. If you believe that enabling and encouraging RMT's between players would make the ARKiverse a better place than the current environment, I can't say strongly enough that you should go play Eve Online and see if you like it. If you think that's actually a good, fun game environment that's your right, more power to you, after all Eve is going strong because there are plenty of gamers who enjoy it and are willing to spend money in that game environment. As we've already established, "gamers" are not a monolithic entity that all think and act the same, there's a reasonably large chunk of gamers who like the dog-eat-dog world of Eve. But if an Eve-like distopian ARKiverse is not your idea of a good time then WC should do everything in their power to prevent RMT's, even in the future ARKiverse.

Personally for that particular vision of the future I would be ARKiverse averse.

Mind you, there is potentially something that NFT's could help with, if implemented properly they could help WC crack down on RMT's, but any scenario in which WC uses NFT's to encourage RMT's is, in my opinion, just plain bad. You'll have to decide whether that's a future you would enjoy.

On 4/28/2022 at 5:24 PM, GrumpyBear said:

This would mean if someone bought a dino off someone , then went to resell it right away to a subcommunity they are more plugged into - the originator of the dino would potentially be compensated for their efforts still.  It could reduce the windfall benefit to the person who added little value to the transaction.

Only if WC took responsibility for enforcement of NFT infringement between players. Considering that WC has always had a... oh let's call it "lackadaisical"... approach to cheating and enforcement, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that WC would spend almost all of their energy making sure that NFT's benefit WC and would only give lip service to enforcing NFT's for the benefit of the other content creators in the ARKiverse. Even if the ARKiverse was to be built from the ground up to take advantage of the technology there's no reason to assume that their company culture would be any better, it would just be the same company culture with a new technology.

On 4/28/2022 at 5:24 PM, GrumpyBear said:

WildCard could have a stable flow of income generated that pays for salaries, server hardware, bandwidth.  We could have more active and effective admin on official servers....

You seem to have this idea that the reason the Official servers are so weak is WC doesn't make enough money to support them. Let's do some quick napkin math.

* This is a game that, at a rough guess, has generated somewhere between 1-2 billion dollars at this point (if you have knowledge of any good estimates more precise than that it would be interesting to see them).

* In one of the old reddit threads analyzing the lawsuit by Trendy aginst WildCard, one of the researchers stated that a WC employee had given them an estimate of $150,000 per month to run the Official servers network.

That's a lot of money, of course, anyone here would be more than happy to receive an extra $150,000 per month, but that amount pales in comparison to the overall revenues from the game.

 

$150,000 per month * 12 months per year * 7 years (ARK went in to Early Access in the middle of 2015, this is the middle of 2022).

= $1,800,000 per year * 7 years

= $12,600,000

= estimated $15-$20 million total if we adjust for inflation, or maybe even as high as $25 million if they needed lots more servers during the peak years of ARK.

 

This means that server costs have been somewhere between 1%-1.3% of revenue over the last 7 years.

Or, even if you want to be super conservative with the estimates, let's say ARK has only generated $1B in revenue and has had server costs of $25M, that means that server costs have been 2.5% of total revenue over that time.

 

It's worth repeating that these are very rough numbers, estimates based on some information WildCard gave to the gaming press about sales figures combined with a source of unknown provenance from within the company about server costs. If anyone has more authoritative information it would be great for us all to see it. But unless someone can provide that information this is what we have to work with.

If this napkin math is even close to being correct, server costs are not the reason that the Official servers are so weak. The real reason has more to do with how WC sees the Official network in the overall scheme of their business. From WC's perspective the Official servers don't generate any revenue, they are for all intents and purposes an advertising expense. When businesses see something as an expense, rather than a revenue generator, their first instinct is always to cut that expense down to the bone. That's true in every industry, games included. Every company sets up their servers to be only as expensive as they need to be in order to meet the minimum requirements to get the job done.

Some game companies consider having strong servers that provide a smooth, non-laggy player experience to be an essential element to generating revenue - WC is not one of those companies. Even if WC transformed ARK into the ARKiverse, and even if they implemented microtransactions and/or NFT's, they would still do everything they could to keep the expenses of running the Official ARKiverse network as low as possible. The only way that WC would make their Official network more powerful would be if they internally came to the conclusion that server quality is a driver of revenue.

On 4/28/2022 at 5:24 PM, GrumpyBear said:

or they could just milk the players , not take care of things, and they would shed players to more attractive games.......

If only it were that simple.

If this was true then there are a whole bunch of game companies that would have gone out of business long ago. If nothing else, Electronic Arts has shown the world again and again (and again and again) that if the idea of a game is good enough, then enough players will stick around to make the game (and the company a success.

And, if we're being honest, WildCard is solidly in that category. ARK is horrible in a lot of ways, and WC's support is horrible in a lot of ways, and yet tons of people (including most of us on these forums) have stuck around because the ideas behind the game are so appealing in spite of all its flaws. If you were to total up all of the player-hours that have been lost because of bugs, glitches, server rollbacks, bad mechanics, and so on, the number would be mind boggling, and yet the game has made enough money that they're working on a sequel.

If WC was able to construct an ARKiverse that would be as engaging as ARK has been, there's no reason to believe that failing to take care of things would necessarily "shed players to more attractive games", after all it hasn't happened so far.

On 4/28/2022 at 5:24 PM, GrumpyBear said:

Compare that with what it is today; WC spends x amount of $ on enforcement over online $ selling. WC makes $0 on any RMT, breeders $0, original stat hunters $0

All true, and as far as I'm concerned that's the way it should be. This is a value judgement, of course, maybe you like RMT in games but I don't. I've never seen an example where RMT's make a game better.

* WC should make $0 on any RMT, becuase RMT in games is always terrible. RMT's inevitably makes games P2W and it's never good for a game publisher to have a financial incentive for encouraging RMT's.

* Breeders should make $0. This is a game and, again, players should always be discouraged from RMT's in games.

 * Same with original stat hunters. RMT's are always a bad idea.

When players trade in-game assets by using currencies based on in-game assets that they've gathered while playing the game, that's fine. Trading ingots, pearls, etc. for dino's is fine, but any form of RMT between players inevitably pollutes the environment and makes the gaming experience worse.

Again, those are personal value judgements. I agree with your statement, I think you're making an accurate assessment, and personally that's how I want a game to be. The only RMT's should be when a game company offers incentives or sponsorships to mod makers, like WC does.

Mind you, that doesn't mean I refuse to accept the possibility that some sort of ARKiverse could have RMT's that are beneficial for everyone concerned, but the history of RMT's in games has yet to show us an example where it makes a game better or more fair. If you can show an example in which RMT's have not lead some form of P2W problem or increased forms of cheating I'd be interested to hear it. It's not that I'm being closed minded about the possibility that RMT's could make things better, it's just that at this point we have a fairly long history of RMT's and how they affect games, and based on that history this possibility is based on wishful thinking, not on an honest assessment of what happens when a game includes RMT's.

On 4/28/2022 at 5:24 PM, GrumpyBear said:

everyone can be insided and stolen from

That rests squarely on WC's shoulders. They deliberately designed and implemented a game in which everyone can be insided and stolen from. From WC's point of view that is a feature of the game, even in PvE, in spite of the fact that their player base has been telling them for 7 years that it's a horrible feature and the vast majority of their players don't want insiding to be part of PvE.

WC could fix (or at least heavily improve) this problem right now, today, without NFT's, they don't want to.

There's no reason to assume that WC's attitude about insiding would change if they create an ARKiverse, NFT's would not fix this unless WC wants to fix it. Insiding is not a technology problem, it's an attitude problem from the creators of the game.

On 4/28/2022 at 5:24 PM, GrumpyBear said:

The moment stuff I trade for materials in game, is being resold for $ - then things are different.  Even in the real world of business, I have legal recourse over reselling of products.  Contracts are formed, signed, and enforceable.  The moment someone's reselling my work, shouldn't I have some rights?  I'm selling a product that has it's roots in someone else's product, do they have some rights? Yes they do.  This exists today in the real world of business.

Other than a few, rare exceptions you only have legal recourse if someone steals your product, not if they purchase it and resell it. And since stealing other people's stuff is a built in "feature" of ARK you still wouldn't have legal recourse even if NFT's were built into the ARKiverse.

Beyond that, this comparison to the real world makes no sense. Reselling products is a basic, essential aspect of commerce and has been since the beginning of time. Ever since the first traveling salesman (Gronk the Wanderer) realized that he could buy a polished rock from one tribe, carry it over the mountain, and then sell it to another tribe for a profit, reselling has been a basic component of commerce & business.

There are entire industries built on the concept of buying & reselling - whether you call them "tinkers", "traders", "merchants", "brokers", "middlemen", "importer/exporter" or a long, long list of other appellations that all mean the same thing, resellers have always been essential participants in commerce. That has been true under every economic system used by humans from barter to feudalism to mercantilism to capitalism. You name it, resellers have always been part of what makes economies work.

What are retailers? They're resellers.

There is nothing wrong with reselling, as long as the asset/commodity is acquired honestly.

On 4/28/2022 at 5:24 PM, GrumpyBear said:

buyers becoming traders become predatory, and competition reselling your 1000 hours of breeding for 2 tek ceilings on the 100 tek ceilings of your time and efforts all because they haggled for a great deal on 6 eggs?  Or how about the spino with 150 points in melee that you spent months on making, you see being sold for $7 an egg.  Can you stop that person? sue that person? force them to give you a cut? no.

And you shouldn't be able to. Those are not scenarios that involve shady or unscrupulous activity.

Things would be somewhat different if we start discussing intellectual property rather than commodities, but the kind of reselling you're talking about doesn't involve IP. If you breed a dino and sell it, that's not IP it's a commodity. If you tame a dino with great stats and sell it, that's not IP it's a commodity. If you sell in-game commodities to other players that commodity is now owned by them and they can do whatever they want with it, keep it, destroy it, resell it for a profit, whatever, they own it now.

If a player is selling things to other players and the purchasers are reselling them for a profit, that's not something that WC should ever become involved in. The first player in that chain of transactions needs to learn how to get better at pricing and negotiating their original sales. Even if NFT's were to in the ARKiverse this isn't a property problem, it's a negotiation and pricing problem.

On 4/28/2022 at 5:24 PM, GrumpyBear said:

Your cell phone, pc - all pay a cut to the chipmakers for every chip sold.

That's because the chips are not just a commodity, they also contain IP which has licensing fees.

When you sell a dino, egg, etc. it doesn't contain any IP that you have created. Inside the context of the game it's nothing more than a simple commodity. You're trying to use the logic of IP for commodities and it doesn't apply.

On 4/28/2022 at 5:24 PM, GrumpyBear said:

Every blank CD I ever bought in the 90s, paid a cut to the record companies because they could have stored music even though all i put on there was anime.  MCA records used to be owned by Matsushi....(the site here will change this japanese name because it looks like a bad word in english)ta ,  who owned Pioneer/Panasonic who happened to make cd's - they were paying themselves 2 ways for every blank cd sold.

Which is a great example of corporations using legal structures to abuse consumers. What it's not a good example of is how NFT's would be beneficial to the individual content creators & mod makers, the "little guys" that Shi Hai is purporting to be looking out for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteer Moderator
1 hour ago, RTGLoot said:

For the sake of completeness 


NFTs can include smart contracts. Smart contracts store code instead of data in a blockchain, and execute when particular conditions are met. An example of an NFT smart contract might give a percentage of future sales of their work.

 

 

 

Hackers/cheaters would love smart contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2022 at 9:55 PM, Kaprosuchus said:

I have 0 interest in virtual real estate it's the digital equivelant of sharecropping from the slave days.

 

and there it is, digital slavery.  Yes, this sounds exactly as bad as share cropping from the mid to late 1800s in the USA. 

 

Just waiting on the Nazi references , and then we are complete.

 

@Pipinghot You lost me about 15 sentences it.  There's plenty of counter points to your arguments, but I'm not looking to break down every word I chose and why I chose those words.  I'm satisfied you overanalyzed what I was writing, maybe my fault for not writing a 5 page essay here, but I don't have an axe to grind here.  I'm not going to write a book on the topic.  
 

Easy example; you misunderstand contract law as it pertains to reselling.  If a company sells to wallmart,  Walmart can be bound by contract to observe stipulations made by the original seller.  If you resell it,  you can bind the next buyer to your own terms and conditions….. we could break down all your points but … again this starts to look like a book…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, RTGLoot said:

For the sake of completeness 


NFTs can include smart contracts. Smart contracts store code instead of data in a blockchain, and execute when particular conditions are met. An example of an NFT smart contract might give a percentage of future sales of their work.

 

 

Maybe I missed something, but most all the hacks with NFTs and crypto so far have involved exploiting human behavior, not code inserted into blockchains.

 

My wife bought into a puppy scam online, got alot of money taken from her.  No NFT or etherium needed to get ripped off.   

Anything of value, has someone looking to steal it.  That's another way to tell if something has value, if people are willing to steal it.

 

----------

 

Use cases people haven't yet explored for NFTs; coupons , concert tickets , rebates....  I know I've lost plenty of these in my days so far, and when I want to save a coupon (yes I'm older) - my wife can't throw these away before i use them... and she has tossed my rebate paper work from my pc components before - that's lost money that I otherwise wouldn't have lost if it was an NFT instead. 

I'm open to counterpoints though, maybe someone can convince me how evil and similar to slavery this all is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...