Thanks Ali for getting the thread back up and running in time to trail this podcast. I'm sorry you had to spend time cleaning it up; we need to all somehow agree a way to persuade people to keep the lid on things better.
Anyway, I recommend the pod to everyone. This pod has been Media Outlet No. 1 in its clear-eyed analysis of the ESI troub;es, and Kieran is tough but fair. He has previously had the Bedford Town ("FAPL in 10 years") guy on for an interview.
Got this through about an annual conference, it being online for the last few years is not great, it’s now staying online for the foreseeable future. Some things need to happen in person, in a space with other people, and the music industry is one of those things.
But now look at their agenda for it, three days of: (the industry is getting so far away from any actual musical discussion it’s ridiculous).
I think people need to take a step back. This isn’t and ponzu scheme, and it’s unlikely to be an investment. Part of the problem is that everything around digital currency is being conflated with NFTs, and everyone is stuck on the NFT being a digital image.
An NFT simply says you own something, and obviously the most popular version is an image. The image has no value - all you’ve effectively getting is an electronic ownership document. It’s no different to owning a painting - you own it, but you don’t own the copyright. If you buy Van Goghs Starry Night, that doesn’t give you the right to sell copies.
Somebody gave a good analogy earlier of trading cards, you buy them, you own the copy you have, you can trade it, sell it, but ultimately it’s worthless unless someone is willing to pay to complete their set. It might be an investment in 50 years time, but it’s probably not. As long as these are not sold as investments, I have no problem if someone wants to pay for owning an image they can display on their phone. Whatever you want to spend your money on.
At the same time, the NFT may offer benefits - buy an NFT and maybe the club holds a reception for NFT holders, or you get priority on some other offering. It could be anything.
The technology is interesting, but it constantly looks like a solution desperately looking for a problem. Someone mentioned season tickets being NFTs. Why? What benefit does it offer? Just because it could be done doesn’t mean it should be.
This is harmless as long as it’s not marketed as an investment. It’s just stuff you can buy.
Our sponsor exclusively speaks about them as investments. That is the problem.
Why is it? Do you just plough your money into anything else that's classed as an investment? No, you research it and decide if its right for you
There is no age limit on these. Kids can see it on charltons shorts and plough money in without considering risks. Its unregulated and there are no rules/protections. this is the issue
someone mentioned about games earlier in the thread. Where you can buy players and shirts (Fifa/EA to mention one) to suggest this is something similar but as you say kids can plough money into it and kids have been known to plough money into Fifa/EA which has caused their parents grief and money problems. I have a real issue with microtransations in games in general. You pay a full price for a game but have to spend extra for dlcs and what not which i believe to be wrong. but thats where the money is so it wont stop anytime soon, in fact it will probably get worse.
I agree that all the additional purchases in games is a joke and I dont agree with it. But as has been outlined on this thread you would be buying a thing in the game whether a gun or a kit or whatever. You are able to get use and enjoyment out of the purchase. With NFT's they are being sole purely as an investment you get nothing from it while you have it. the sole purpose is solely to make money when you sell it.
Comparison doesnt work.
Wrong. Again.
NFTs are not just digital images!!! Do people actually bother reading opposing views on this thread or just spam the like button with no knowledge on whether it's true just because they think they agree with it?
Lazio are selling season tickets as NFTs. There are computer games where you can purchase in game content as NFTs. They are not being sold purely as investments.
The latter is still an utterly pointless utilisation of NFT technology and I'm not sure the former is worthwhile either personsally. They're currently nothing more than a solution without a problem.
is it? Imagine owning an item in-game nobody else online can have except you - that's worth something.
As for tickets, I already outlined at least 2 - one allows you to permisionlessly loan your ticket to some one, for money, the other is the club gets a cut of all transactions - so increase of sales.
I like this discussion, as it’s about the potential uses of NFTs , rather than how the term seems to be used everywhere as a conflation of the digit art market.
I’m neither pro and anti NFT. I worked in the financial industry before I retired, and these things were often discussed. Although potential uses were seen, they didn’t offer an obvious improvement on what was there today, although that was because it was a highly regulated environment. Going to a decentralized model created challenges which ultimately made most decide any benefit was insignificant compared to the potential costs and risks.
So, back to season tickets - my Boston Bruins ST is all electronic. They don’t issue paper tickets at all. It’s managed through Ticketmaster. I have the option to - - display a game ticket in Bruins app - pull the ticket into my phones wallet and display from there - assign the ticket to anyone via Ticketmaster - no fees involved - sell the ticket via Ticketmaster. I get the price I ask for, TM adds their fees and charges the buyer.
As an end user, I don’t see that an NFT approach adds much. Sure I can take TM out of the loop, but nothing the do directly impacts me. Maybe I could sell for more on the market, by bumping up the price to incorporate what they end up charging the buyer, but that about it.
The Bruins could make money, by demanding a share of any resale over the purchase price, or even restricting my ability to sell below their ticket office price as ST prices are significantly discounted. But that is a benefit to them, not me.
Neither benefits are really significant. And that to me is the real issue. There’s no single convincing argument to do any of this. There may be some benefits, there may be some downsides/risks. Most uses appear to be trying to reengineer some that that already works to do the same thing using different technologies.
New entrants into various markets may try this, which is why we see digital art so often, but established players will need to see a real return for their investment, and regulators will want to see control. Those are going to be big issues hindering adoption.
There can be plenty of ways that ticketing ownership via NFT can be enhanced. As an example for football, clubs could choose to add video clips real time of pre/post match interviews with manager/players etc team talks, match highlights, that can all be accessed via the NFT from your mobile wallet...... all sorts of things that can enhance the match experience....... it might be anything in fact that markets the club and or appeals to the customer...... way beyond my imagination...... but a technology nonetheless that should not be written off before it has really taken off.
But couldn't those add-ons be added to conventional digital tickets? Not being on the blockchain doesn't preclude you from providing ticket holders with digital benefits, surely?
I think this is why I empathise with people that see current use of NFTs as a solution looking for a problem. Digital tickets, media content can all be provided off blockchain. And for most customers, getting yourself a presence on the blockchain is a massive ballache. I can see why clubs are buying into doing things with crypto etc, because it opens up a quite dedicated customer base, but I can't see why anyone would look to make this the main way of operating at least for the forseeable future?
Memorabilia :- QR codes can be more easily forged and don't offer much in terms of collectables. There appears to be a growing audience for NFT collectables and there is less risk of them becoming lost, stolen or damaged. They will be ensured as unique unlike conventional digital assets which can be replicated.
Thanks Ali for getting the thread back up and running in time to trail this podcast. I'm sorry you had to spend time cleaning it up; we need to all somehow agree a way to persuade people to keep the lid on things better.
Anyway, I recommend the pod to everyone. This pod has been Media Outlet No. 1 in its clear-eyed analysis of the ESI troub;es, and Kieran is tough but fair. He has previously had the Bedford Town ("FAPL in 10 years") guy on for an interview.
I think people need to take a step back. This isn’t and ponzu scheme, and it’s unlikely to be an investment. Part of the problem is that everything around digital currency is being conflated with NFTs, and everyone is stuck on the NFT being a digital image.
An NFT simply says you own something, and obviously the most popular version is an image. The image has no value - all you’ve effectively getting is an electronic ownership document. It’s no different to owning a painting - you own it, but you don’t own the copyright. If you buy Van Goghs Starry Night, that doesn’t give you the right to sell copies.
Somebody gave a good analogy earlier of trading cards, you buy them, you own the copy you have, you can trade it, sell it, but ultimately it’s worthless unless someone is willing to pay to complete their set. It might be an investment in 50 years time, but it’s probably not. As long as these are not sold as investments, I have no problem if someone wants to pay for owning an image they can display on their phone. Whatever you want to spend your money on.
At the same time, the NFT may offer benefits - buy an NFT and maybe the club holds a reception for NFT holders, or you get priority on some other offering. It could be anything.
The technology is interesting, but it constantly looks like a solution desperately looking for a problem. Someone mentioned season tickets being NFTs. Why? What benefit does it offer? Just because it could be done doesn’t mean it should be.
This is harmless as long as it’s not marketed as an investment. It’s just stuff you can buy.
Our sponsor exclusively speaks about them as investments. That is the problem.
Why is it? Do you just plough your money into anything else that's classed as an investment? No, you research it and decide if its right for you
There is no age limit on these. Kids can see it on charltons shorts and plough money in without considering risks. Its unregulated and there are no rules/protections. this is the issue
someone mentioned about games earlier in the thread. Where you can buy players and shirts (Fifa/EA to mention one) to suggest this is something similar but as you say kids can plough money into it and kids have been known to plough money into Fifa/EA which has caused their parents grief and money problems. I have a real issue with microtransations in games in general. You pay a full price for a game but have to spend extra for dlcs and what not which i believe to be wrong. but thats where the money is so it wont stop anytime soon, in fact it will probably get worse.
I agree that all the additional purchases in games is a joke and I dont agree with it. But as has been outlined on this thread you would be buying a thing in the game whether a gun or a kit or whatever. You are able to get use and enjoyment out of the purchase. With NFT's they are being sole purely as an investment you get nothing from it while you have it. the sole purpose is solely to make money when you sell it.
Comparison doesnt work.
Wrong. Again.
NFTs are not just digital images!!! Do people actually bother reading opposing views on this thread or just spam the like button with no knowledge on whether it's true just because they think they agree with it?
Lazio are selling season tickets as NFTs. There are computer games where you can purchase in game content as NFTs. They are not being sold purely as investments.
The latter is still an utterly pointless utilisation of NFT technology and I'm not sure the former is worthwhile either personsally. They're currently nothing more than a solution without a problem.
is it? Imagine owning an item in-game nobody else online can have except you - that's worth something.
As for tickets, I already outlined at least 2 - one allows you to permisionlessly loan your ticket to some one, for money, the other is the club gets a cut of all transactions - so increase of sales.
I like this discussion, as it’s about the potential uses of NFTs , rather than how the term seems to be used everywhere as a conflation of the digit art market.
I’m neither pro and anti NFT. I worked in the financial industry before I retired, and these things were often discussed. Although potential uses were seen, they didn’t offer an obvious improvement on what was there today, although that was because it was a highly regulated environment. Going to a decentralized model created challenges which ultimately made most decide any benefit was insignificant compared to the potential costs and risks.
So, back to season tickets - my Boston Bruins ST is all electronic. They don’t issue paper tickets at all. It’s managed through Ticketmaster. I have the option to - - display a game ticket in Bruins app - pull the ticket into my phones wallet and display from there - assign the ticket to anyone via Ticketmaster - no fees involved - sell the ticket via Ticketmaster. I get the price I ask for, TM adds their fees and charges the buyer.
As an end user, I don’t see that an NFT approach adds much. Sure I can take TM out of the loop, but nothing the do directly impacts me. Maybe I could sell for more on the market, by bumping up the price to incorporate what they end up charging the buyer, but that about it.
The Bruins could make money, by demanding a share of any resale over the purchase price, or even restricting my ability to sell below their ticket office price as ST prices are significantly discounted. But that is a benefit to them, not me.
Neither benefits are really significant. And that to me is the real issue. There’s no single convincing argument to do any of this. There may be some benefits, there may be some downsides/risks. Most uses appear to be trying to reengineer some that that already works to do the same thing using different technologies.
New entrants into various markets may try this, which is why we see digital art so often, but established players will need to see a real return for their investment, and regulators will want to see control. Those are going to be big issues hindering adoption.
There can be plenty of ways that ticketing ownership via NFT can be enhanced. As an example for football, clubs could choose to add video clips real time of pre/post match interviews with manager/players etc team talks, match highlights, that can all be accessed via the NFT from your mobile wallet...... all sorts of things that can enhance the match experience....... it might be anything in fact that markets the club and or appeals to the customer...... way beyond my imagination...... but a technology nonetheless that should not be written off before it has really taken off.
But couldn't those add-ons be added to conventional digital tickets? Not being on the blockchain doesn't preclude you from providing ticket holders with digital benefits, surely?
I think this is why I empathise with people that see current use of NFTs as a solution looking for a problem. Digital tickets, media content can all be provided off blockchain. And for most customers, getting yourself a presence on the blockchain is a massive ballache. I can see why clubs are buying into doing things with crypto etc, because it opens up a quite dedicated customer base, but I can't see why anyone would look to make this the main way of operating at least for the forseeable future?
Memorabilia :- QR codes can be more easily forged and don't offer much in terms of collectables. There appears to be a growing audience for NFT collectables and there is no risk of them becoming lost, stolen or damaged. They will be ensured as unique unlike conventional digital assets which can be replicated.
But there have been recent reports of crypto wallet hacks and NFTs being stolen; it might be harder to steal than regular digital assets, but when they are it's almost impossible to reclaim. So I'm not sure I buy that assets contained within an NFT are as secure as you you're making out.
Actually the way he dealt with the Everton story (last in the pod) was excellent, and quite challlenging for those of us who believe that actually going to the game is what it's all about, and should be the primary business focus of the football club and its owners...
Actually the way he dealt with the Everton story (last in the pod) was excellent, and quite challlenging for those of us who believe that actually going to the game is what it's all about, and should be the primary business focus of the football club and its owners...
This is exactly where I am with the music industry, actually being either a creative and making music, or being a music lover and going to a show aren’t where the focus of the industry is. The fact songs are now merely referred to as “content” speaks volumes.
I think people need to take a step back. This isn’t and ponzu scheme, and it’s unlikely to be an investment. Part of the problem is that everything around digital currency is being conflated with NFTs, and everyone is stuck on the NFT being a digital image.
An NFT simply says you own something, and obviously the most popular version is an image. The image has no value - all you’ve effectively getting is an electronic ownership document. It’s no different to owning a painting - you own it, but you don’t own the copyright. If you buy Van Goghs Starry Night, that doesn’t give you the right to sell copies.
Somebody gave a good analogy earlier of trading cards, you buy them, you own the copy you have, you can trade it, sell it, but ultimately it’s worthless unless someone is willing to pay to complete their set. It might be an investment in 50 years time, but it’s probably not. As long as these are not sold as investments, I have no problem if someone wants to pay for owning an image they can display on their phone. Whatever you want to spend your money on.
At the same time, the NFT may offer benefits - buy an NFT and maybe the club holds a reception for NFT holders, or you get priority on some other offering. It could be anything.
The technology is interesting, but it constantly looks like a solution desperately looking for a problem. Someone mentioned season tickets being NFTs. Why? What benefit does it offer? Just because it could be done doesn’t mean it should be.
This is harmless as long as it’s not marketed as an investment. It’s just stuff you can buy.
Our sponsor exclusively speaks about them as investments. That is the problem.
Why is it? Do you just plough your money into anything else that's classed as an investment? No, you research it and decide if its right for you
There is no age limit on these. Kids can see it on charltons shorts and plough money in without considering risks. Its unregulated and there are no rules/protections. this is the issue
someone mentioned about games earlier in the thread. Where you can buy players and shirts (Fifa/EA to mention one) to suggest this is something similar but as you say kids can plough money into it and kids have been known to plough money into Fifa/EA which has caused their parents grief and money problems. I have a real issue with microtransations in games in general. You pay a full price for a game but have to spend extra for dlcs and what not which i believe to be wrong. but thats where the money is so it wont stop anytime soon, in fact it will probably get worse.
I agree that all the additional purchases in games is a joke and I dont agree with it. But as has been outlined on this thread you would be buying a thing in the game whether a gun or a kit or whatever. You are able to get use and enjoyment out of the purchase. With NFT's they are being sole purely as an investment you get nothing from it while you have it. the sole purpose is solely to make money when you sell it.
Comparison doesnt work.
Wrong. Again.
NFTs are not just digital images!!! Do people actually bother reading opposing views on this thread or just spam the like button with no knowledge on whether it's true just because they think they agree with it?
Lazio are selling season tickets as NFTs. There are computer games where you can purchase in game content as NFTs. They are not being sold purely as investments.
The latter is still an utterly pointless utilisation of NFT technology and I'm not sure the former is worthwhile either personsally. They're currently nothing more than a solution without a problem.
is it? Imagine owning an item in-game nobody else online can have except you - that's worth something.
As for tickets, I already outlined at least 2 - one allows you to permisionlessly loan your ticket to some one, for money, the other is the club gets a cut of all transactions - so increase of sales.
I like this discussion, as it’s about the potential uses of NFTs , rather than how the term seems to be used everywhere as a conflation of the digit art market.
I’m neither pro and anti NFT. I worked in the financial industry before I retired, and these things were often discussed. Although potential uses were seen, they didn’t offer an obvious improvement on what was there today, although that was because it was a highly regulated environment. Going to a decentralized model created challenges which ultimately made most decide any benefit was insignificant compared to the potential costs and risks.
So, back to season tickets - my Boston Bruins ST is all electronic. They don’t issue paper tickets at all. It’s managed through Ticketmaster. I have the option to - - display a game ticket in Bruins app - pull the ticket into my phones wallet and display from there - assign the ticket to anyone via Ticketmaster - no fees involved - sell the ticket via Ticketmaster. I get the price I ask for, TM adds their fees and charges the buyer.
As an end user, I don’t see that an NFT approach adds much. Sure I can take TM out of the loop, but nothing the do directly impacts me. Maybe I could sell for more on the market, by bumping up the price to incorporate what they end up charging the buyer, but that about it.
The Bruins could make money, by demanding a share of any resale over the purchase price, or even restricting my ability to sell below their ticket office price as ST prices are significantly discounted. But that is a benefit to them, not me.
Neither benefits are really significant. And that to me is the real issue. There’s no single convincing argument to do any of this. There may be some benefits, there may be some downsides/risks. Most uses appear to be trying to reengineer some that that already works to do the same thing using different technologies.
New entrants into various markets may try this, which is why we see digital art so often, but established players will need to see a real return for their investment, and regulators will want to see control. Those are going to be big issues hindering adoption.
There can be plenty of ways that ticketing ownership via NFT can be enhanced. As an example for football, clubs could choose to add video clips real time of pre/post match interviews with manager/players etc team talks, match highlights, that can all be accessed via the NFT from your mobile wallet...... all sorts of things that can enhance the match experience....... it might be anything in fact that markets the club and or appeals to the customer...... way beyond my imagination...... but a technology nonetheless that should not be written off before it has really taken off.
But couldn't those add-ons be added to conventional digital tickets? Not being on the blockchain doesn't preclude you from providing ticket holders with digital benefits, surely?
I think this is why I empathise with people that see current use of NFTs as a solution looking for a problem. Digital tickets, media content can all be provided off blockchain. And for most customers, getting yourself a presence on the blockchain is a massive ballache. I can see why clubs are buying into doing things with crypto etc, because it opens up a quite dedicated customer base, but I can't see why anyone would look to make this the main way of operating at least for the forseeable future?
Memorabilia :- QR codes can be more easily forged and don't offer much in terms of collectables. There appears to be a growing audience for NFT collectables and there is no risk of them becoming lost, stolen or damaged. They will be ensured as unique unlike conventional digital assets which can be replicated.
But there have been recent reports of crypto wallet hacks and NFTs being stolen; it might be harder to steal than regular digital assets, but when they are it's almost impossible to reclaim. So I'm not sure I buy that assets contained within an NFT are as secure as you you're making out.
That's why you keep them offline in a ledger wallet
I think people need to take a step back. This isn’t and ponzu scheme, and it’s unlikely to be an investment. Part of the problem is that everything around digital currency is being conflated with NFTs, and everyone is stuck on the NFT being a digital image.
An NFT simply says you own something, and obviously the most popular version is an image. The image has no value - all you’ve effectively getting is an electronic ownership document. It’s no different to owning a painting - you own it, but you don’t own the copyright. If you buy Van Goghs Starry Night, that doesn’t give you the right to sell copies.
Somebody gave a good analogy earlier of trading cards, you buy them, you own the copy you have, you can trade it, sell it, but ultimately it’s worthless unless someone is willing to pay to complete their set. It might be an investment in 50 years time, but it’s probably not. As long as these are not sold as investments, I have no problem if someone wants to pay for owning an image they can display on their phone. Whatever you want to spend your money on.
At the same time, the NFT may offer benefits - buy an NFT and maybe the club holds a reception for NFT holders, or you get priority on some other offering. It could be anything.
The technology is interesting, but it constantly looks like a solution desperately looking for a problem. Someone mentioned season tickets being NFTs. Why? What benefit does it offer? Just because it could be done doesn’t mean it should be.
This is harmless as long as it’s not marketed as an investment. It’s just stuff you can buy.
Our sponsor exclusively speaks about them as investments. That is the problem.
Why is it? Do you just plough your money into anything else that's classed as an investment? No, you research it and decide if its right for you
There is no age limit on these. Kids can see it on charltons shorts and plough money in without considering risks. Its unregulated and there are no rules/protections. this is the issue
someone mentioned about games earlier in the thread. Where you can buy players and shirts (Fifa/EA to mention one) to suggest this is something similar but as you say kids can plough money into it and kids have been known to plough money into Fifa/EA which has caused their parents grief and money problems. I have a real issue with microtransations in games in general. You pay a full price for a game but have to spend extra for dlcs and what not which i believe to be wrong. but thats where the money is so it wont stop anytime soon, in fact it will probably get worse.
I agree that all the additional purchases in games is a joke and I dont agree with it. But as has been outlined on this thread you would be buying a thing in the game whether a gun or a kit or whatever. You are able to get use and enjoyment out of the purchase. With NFT's they are being sole purely as an investment you get nothing from it while you have it. the sole purpose is solely to make money when you sell it.
Comparison doesnt work.
Wrong. Again.
NFTs are not just digital images!!! Do people actually bother reading opposing views on this thread or just spam the like button with no knowledge on whether it's true just because they think they agree with it?
Lazio are selling season tickets as NFTs. There are computer games where you can purchase in game content as NFTs. They are not being sold purely as investments.
The latter is still an utterly pointless utilisation of NFT technology and I'm not sure the former is worthwhile either personsally. They're currently nothing more than a solution without a problem.
is it? Imagine owning an item in-game nobody else online can have except you - that's worth something.
As for tickets, I already outlined at least 2 - one allows you to permisionlessly loan your ticket to some one, for money, the other is the club gets a cut of all transactions - so increase of sales.
I like this discussion, as it’s about the potential uses of NFTs , rather than how the term seems to be used everywhere as a conflation of the digit art market.
I’m neither pro and anti NFT. I worked in the financial industry before I retired, and these things were often discussed. Although potential uses were seen, they didn’t offer an obvious improvement on what was there today, although that was because it was a highly regulated environment. Going to a decentralized model created challenges which ultimately made most decide any benefit was insignificant compared to the potential costs and risks.
So, back to season tickets - my Boston Bruins ST is all electronic. They don’t issue paper tickets at all. It’s managed through Ticketmaster. I have the option to - - display a game ticket in Bruins app - pull the ticket into my phones wallet and display from there - assign the ticket to anyone via Ticketmaster - no fees involved - sell the ticket via Ticketmaster. I get the price I ask for, TM adds their fees and charges the buyer.
As an end user, I don’t see that an NFT approach adds much. Sure I can take TM out of the loop, but nothing the do directly impacts me. Maybe I could sell for more on the market, by bumping up the price to incorporate what they end up charging the buyer, but that about it.
The Bruins could make money, by demanding a share of any resale over the purchase price, or even restricting my ability to sell below their ticket office price as ST prices are significantly discounted. But that is a benefit to them, not me.
Neither benefits are really significant. And that to me is the real issue. There’s no single convincing argument to do any of this. There may be some benefits, there may be some downsides/risks. Most uses appear to be trying to reengineer some that that already works to do the same thing using different technologies.
New entrants into various markets may try this, which is why we see digital art so often, but established players will need to see a real return for their investment, and regulators will want to see control. Those are going to be big issues hindering adoption.
There can be plenty of ways that ticketing ownership via NFT can be enhanced. As an example for football, clubs could choose to add video clips real time of pre/post match interviews with manager/players etc team talks, match highlights, that can all be accessed via the NFT from your mobile wallet...... all sorts of things that can enhance the match experience....... it might be anything in fact that markets the club and or appeals to the customer...... way beyond my imagination...... but a technology nonetheless that should not be written off before it has really taken off.
But couldn't those add-ons be added to conventional digital tickets? Not being on the blockchain doesn't preclude you from providing ticket holders with digital benefits, surely?
I think this is why I empathise with people that see current use of NFTs as a solution looking for a problem. Digital tickets, media content can all be provided off blockchain. And for most customers, getting yourself a presence on the blockchain is a massive ballache. I can see why clubs are buying into doing things with crypto etc, because it opens up a quite dedicated customer base, but I can't see why anyone would look to make this the main way of operating at least for the forseeable future?
Memorabilia :- QR codes can be more easily forged and don't offer much in terms of collectables. There appears to be a growing audience for NFT collectables and there is no risk of them becoming lost, stolen or damaged. They will be ensured as unique unlike conventional digital assets which can be replicated.
But there have been recent reports of crypto wallet hacks and NFTs being stolen; it might be harder to steal than regular digital assets, but when they are it's almost impossible to reclaim. So I'm not sure I buy that assets contained within an NFT are as secure as you you're making out.
That's why you keep them offline in a ledger wallet
they're technically not offline - as they're on the blockchain. But they at least require you to physically input something in order to approve a transaction. For the most part these get stolen because of poorly designed protocols that people have given permission to interact with their wallet. Get a ledger and it removes this.
I think people need to take a step back. This isn’t and ponzu scheme, and it’s unlikely to be an investment. Part of the problem is that everything around digital currency is being conflated with NFTs, and everyone is stuck on the NFT being a digital image.
An NFT simply says you own something, and obviously the most popular version is an image. The image has no value - all you’ve effectively getting is an electronic ownership document. It’s no different to owning a painting - you own it, but you don’t own the copyright. If you buy Van Goghs Starry Night, that doesn’t give you the right to sell copies.
Somebody gave a good analogy earlier of trading cards, you buy them, you own the copy you have, you can trade it, sell it, but ultimately it’s worthless unless someone is willing to pay to complete their set. It might be an investment in 50 years time, but it’s probably not. As long as these are not sold as investments, I have no problem if someone wants to pay for owning an image they can display on their phone. Whatever you want to spend your money on.
At the same time, the NFT may offer benefits - buy an NFT and maybe the club holds a reception for NFT holders, or you get priority on some other offering. It could be anything.
The technology is interesting, but it constantly looks like a solution desperately looking for a problem. Someone mentioned season tickets being NFTs. Why? What benefit does it offer? Just because it could be done doesn’t mean it should be.
This is harmless as long as it’s not marketed as an investment. It’s just stuff you can buy.
Our sponsor exclusively speaks about them as investments. That is the problem.
Why is it? Do you just plough your money into anything else that's classed as an investment? No, you research it and decide if its right for you
There is no age limit on these. Kids can see it on charltons shorts and plough money in without considering risks. Its unregulated and there are no rules/protections. this is the issue
someone mentioned about games earlier in the thread. Where you can buy players and shirts (Fifa/EA to mention one) to suggest this is something similar but as you say kids can plough money into it and kids have been known to plough money into Fifa/EA which has caused their parents grief and money problems. I have a real issue with microtransations in games in general. You pay a full price for a game but have to spend extra for dlcs and what not which i believe to be wrong. but thats where the money is so it wont stop anytime soon, in fact it will probably get worse.
I agree that all the additional purchases in games is a joke and I dont agree with it. But as has been outlined on this thread you would be buying a thing in the game whether a gun or a kit or whatever. You are able to get use and enjoyment out of the purchase. With NFT's they are being sole purely as an investment you get nothing from it while you have it. the sole purpose is solely to make money when you sell it.
Comparison doesnt work.
Wrong. Again.
NFTs are not just digital images!!! Do people actually bother reading opposing views on this thread or just spam the like button with no knowledge on whether it's true just because they think they agree with it?
Lazio are selling season tickets as NFTs. There are computer games where you can purchase in game content as NFTs. They are not being sold purely as investments.
The latter is still an utterly pointless utilisation of NFT technology and I'm not sure the former is worthwhile either personsally. They're currently nothing more than a solution without a problem.
is it? Imagine owning an item in-game nobody else online can have except you - that's worth something.
As for tickets, I already outlined at least 2 - one allows you to permisionlessly loan your ticket to some one, for money, the other is the club gets a cut of all transactions - so increase of sales.
I like this discussion, as it’s about the potential uses of NFTs , rather than how the term seems to be used everywhere as a conflation of the digit art market.
I’m neither pro and anti NFT. I worked in the financial industry before I retired, and these things were often discussed. Although potential uses were seen, they didn’t offer an obvious improvement on what was there today, although that was because it was a highly regulated environment. Going to a decentralized model created challenges which ultimately made most decide any benefit was insignificant compared to the potential costs and risks.
So, back to season tickets - my Boston Bruins ST is all electronic. They don’t issue paper tickets at all. It’s managed through Ticketmaster. I have the option to - - display a game ticket in Bruins app - pull the ticket into my phones wallet and display from there - assign the ticket to anyone via Ticketmaster - no fees involved - sell the ticket via Ticketmaster. I get the price I ask for, TM adds their fees and charges the buyer.
As an end user, I don’t see that an NFT approach adds much. Sure I can take TM out of the loop, but nothing the do directly impacts me. Maybe I could sell for more on the market, by bumping up the price to incorporate what they end up charging the buyer, but that about it.
The Bruins could make money, by demanding a share of any resale over the purchase price, or even restricting my ability to sell below their ticket office price as ST prices are significantly discounted. But that is a benefit to them, not me.
Neither benefits are really significant. And that to me is the real issue. There’s no single convincing argument to do any of this. There may be some benefits, there may be some downsides/risks. Most uses appear to be trying to reengineer some that that already works to do the same thing using different technologies.
New entrants into various markets may try this, which is why we see digital art so often, but established players will need to see a real return for their investment, and regulators will want to see control. Those are going to be big issues hindering adoption.
There can be plenty of ways that ticketing ownership via NFT can be enhanced. As an example for football, clubs could choose to add video clips real time of pre/post match interviews with manager/players etc team talks, match highlights, that can all be accessed via the NFT from your mobile wallet...... all sorts of things that can enhance the match experience....... it might be anything in fact that markets the club and or appeals to the customer...... way beyond my imagination...... but a technology nonetheless that should not be written off before it has really taken off.
But couldn't those add-ons be added to conventional digital tickets? Not being on the blockchain doesn't preclude you from providing ticket holders with digital benefits, surely?
I think this is why I empathise with people that see current use of NFTs as a solution looking for a problem. Digital tickets, media content can all be provided off blockchain. And for most customers, getting yourself a presence on the blockchain is a massive ballache. I can see why clubs are buying into doing things with crypto etc, because it opens up a quite dedicated customer base, but I can't see why anyone would look to make this the main way of operating at least for the forseeable future?
Memorabilia :- QR codes can be more easily forged and don't offer much in terms of collectables. There appears to be a growing audience for NFT collectables and there is no risk of them becoming lost, stolen or damaged. They will be ensured as unique unlike conventional digital assets which can be replicated.
But there have been recent reports of crypto wallet hacks and NFTs being stolen; it might be harder to steal than regular digital assets, but when they are it's almost impossible to reclaim. So I'm not sure I buy that assets contained within an NFT are as secure as you you're making out.
I agree there is an "element" of risk, as there is with owning any asset. So any buyer would need to be comfortable that the risk of theft is negligible. But if you are sensible and know the do's and don'ts, then the risks can be minimised. If the value of digital assets are high, one way would be to use a non-custodial wallet to reduce the risk of theft. If anyone thinks for any reason that the risks are too high, then you can take out insurance, just the same way you would do with anything of reasonable value. I am sure there will be plenty of people who will be uninterested in NFT's in the future for a variety of reasons, security being one. But there is a growing trend in sport for adoption and a consensus that sport NFT collectables will be a revenue generator in the near future. Time will tell if the naysayers are correct.
One thing I still don't "get" with NFTs is the uniqueness of each thing. Ok I get you can own the Blockchain of the original clip of Rooney scoring the overhead kick in the Manchester Derby. But that can be replicated all across the internet with GIFs, highlights, etc. Etc. that are indistinguishable from the "original" footage, and those can be made with a few clicks of a mouse in about a minute.
However, if I buy the boots he scored the goal in, that's a physical item that cannot be replicated in any way to a point where they would be indistinguishable from the original, without great cost, time and effort.
So why would the digital clip be worth anything at all?
One thing I still don't "get" with NFTs is the uniqueness of each thing. Ok I get you can own the Blockchain of the original clip of Rooney scoring the overhead kick in the Manchester Derby. But that can be replicated all across the internet with GIFs, highlights, etc. Etc. that are indistinguishable from the "original" footage, and those can be made with a few clicks of a mouse in about a minute.
However, if I buy the boots he scored the goal in, that's a physical item that cannot be replicated in any way to a point where they would be indistinguishable from the original, without great cost, time and effort.
So why would the digital clip be worth anything at all?
Your rooney is example is where imo nfts dont work. You'll probably find stuff like this on opensea that's now worth basically nothing. For uniqueness it definitely works for art and anything else that needs to have uniqueness - deeds to a home etc. Sure you could always get a high res picture of a picasso, print it and put it in a frame, but it won't be the verifiably original picasso. It's the same with nft art.
One thing I still don't "get" with NFTs is the uniqueness of each thing. Ok I get you can own the Blockchain of the original clip of Rooney scoring the overhead kick in the Manchester Derby. But that can be replicated all across the internet with GIFs, highlights, etc. Etc. that are indistinguishable from the "original" footage, and those can be made with a few clicks of a mouse in about a minute.
However, if I buy the boots he scored the goal in, that's a physical item that cannot be replicated in any way to a point where they would be indistinguishable from the original, without great cost, time and effort.
So why would the digital clip be worth anything at all?
I would suggest that the "uniqueness" would be the issuance. At the time Rooney scored that goal, say Manchester United issued a single NFT of the goal. it is the "rarity" of the item (the fact that it was issued by United) that determines the value to a collector and that original would have a far higher value than any copy you could make. The blockchain establishes the authenticity of the original NFT being issued by Man U. In times gone by the original 1968 European Cup Final programme between Manchester United and Benfica would have been more expensive to buy than a copy (although they would have had the same content) sought by collectors of the memorabilia.
Yeah videos make zero sense unless only 1 person was allowed at that venue for that specific event.
If a band sell a album/song to 1 bidder though, they can lease it out, get royalties from radio stations and movies etc.
But that person owning it could be a big turn off to fans of the band, the potential audience, who buy into bands because of the personal touch; not some random on the Internet and therefore a turn off to any potential broadcasters therefore affecting any potential for monetisation.
Yeah videos make zero sense unless only 1 person was allowed at that venue for that specific event.
If a band sell a album/song to 1 bidder though, they can lease it out, get royalties from radio stations and movies etc.
But that person owning it could be a big turn off to fans of the band, the potential audience, who buy into bands because of the personal touch; not some random on the Internet and therefore a turn off to any potential broadcasters therefore affecting any potential for monetisation.
I mean, I can't tell you about what fans might like, im simply telling you something that could be possible. WU tang sold a album to 1 bidder a few years ago, im pointing out how it can be monetised, as finances are all that seem to matter.
Yeah videos make zero sense unless only 1 person was allowed at that venue for that specific event.
If a band sell a album/song to 1 bidder though, they can lease it out, get royalties from radio stations and movies etc.
But that person owning it could be a big turn off to fans of the band, the potential audience, who buy into bands because of the personal touch; not some random on the Internet and therefore a turn off to any potential broadcasters therefore affecting any potential for monetisation.
I mean, I can't tell you about what fans might like, im simply telling you something that could be possible. WU tang sold a album to 1 bidder a few years ago, im pointing out how it can be monetised, as finances are all that seem to matter.
Yes indeed 👍🏻
I can only refer to the music industry but it seems many are taking the approach of if they talk about it long enough it’ll become viable. This doesn’t actually do anything to enrich music, it’s only about an individuals profit and exclusivity rather than popularity and inclusivity which is the point where music becomes about people and that human interaction. I can’t see it becoming established.
Yeah videos make zero sense unless only 1 person was allowed at that venue for that specific event.
If a band sell a album/song to 1 bidder though, they can lease it out, get royalties from radio stations and movies etc.
But that person owning it could be a big turn off to fans of the band, the potential audience, who buy into bands because of the personal touch; not some random on the Internet and therefore a turn off to any potential broadcasters therefore affecting any potential for monetisation.
I mean, I can't tell you about what fans might like, im simply telling you something that could be possible. WU tang sold a album to 1 bidder a few years ago, im pointing out how it can be monetised, as finances are all that seem to matter.
Yes indeed 👍🏻
I can only refer to the music industry but it seems many are taking the approach of if they talk about it long enough it’ll become viable. This doesn’t actually do anything to enrich music, it’s only about an individuals profit and exclusivity rather than popularity and inclusivity which is the point where music becomes about people and that human interaction. I can’t see it becoming established.
Yeah videos make zero sense unless only 1 person was allowed at that venue for that specific event.
If a band sell a album/song to 1 bidder though, they can lease it out, get royalties from radio stations and movies etc.
But that person owning it could be a big turn off to fans of the band, the potential audience, who buy into bands because of the personal touch; not some random on the Internet and therefore a turn off to any potential broadcasters therefore affecting any potential for monetisation.
I mean, I can't tell you about what fans might like, im simply telling you something that could be possible. WU tang sold a album to 1 bidder a few years ago, im pointing out how it can be monetised, as finances are all that seem to matter.
Yes indeed 👍🏻
I can only refer to the music industry but it seems many are taking the approach of if they talk about it long enough it’ll become viable. This doesn’t actually do anything to enrich music, it’s only about an individuals profit and exclusivity rather than popularity and inclusivity which is the point where music becomes about people and that human interaction. I can’t see it becoming established.
It's not about the music or inclusivety when bands get 15p for 300000 plays on Spotify, or you pay £300 to see the rolling stones .
Yeah videos make zero sense unless only 1 person was allowed at that venue for that specific event.
If a band sell a album/song to 1 bidder though, they can lease it out, get royalties from radio stations and movies etc.
But that person owning it could be a big turn off to fans of the band, the potential audience, who buy into bands because of the personal touch; not some random on the Internet and therefore a turn off to any potential broadcasters therefore affecting any potential for monetisation.
I mean, I can't tell you about what fans might like, im simply telling you something that could be possible. WU tang sold a album to 1 bidder a few years ago, im pointing out how it can be monetised, as finances are all that seem to matter.
Yes indeed 👍🏻
I can only refer to the music industry but it seems many are taking the approach of if they talk about it long enough it’ll become viable. This doesn’t actually do anything to enrich music, it’s only about an individuals profit and exclusivity rather than popularity and inclusivity which is the point where music becomes about people and that human interaction. I can’t see it becoming established.
It's not about the music or inclusivety when bands get 15p for 300000 plays on Spotify, or you pay £300 to see the rolling stones
Which is why streaming is slowly dying and live performance is the only growth area (and by virtue the crazy ticket prices) which one of these has most in common with NFT’s?
Yeah videos make zero sense unless only 1 person was allowed at that venue for that specific event.
If a band sell a album/song to 1 bidder though, they can lease it out, get royalties from radio stations and movies etc.
But that person owning it could be a big turn off to fans of the band, the potential audience, who buy into bands because of the personal touch; not some random on the Internet and therefore a turn off to any potential broadcasters therefore affecting any potential for monetisation.
I mean, I can't tell you about what fans might like, im simply telling you something that could be possible. WU tang sold a album to 1 bidder a few years ago, im pointing out how it can be monetised, as finances are all that seem to matter.
Yes indeed 👍🏻
I can only refer to the music industry but it seems many are taking the approach of if they talk about it long enough it’ll become viable. This doesn’t actually do anything to enrich music, it’s only about an individuals profit and exclusivity rather than popularity and inclusivity which is the point where music becomes about people and that human interaction. I can’t see it becoming established.
Welcome to the music industry.
Ah but that’s the thing, if something isn’t successful it dies: success doesn’t mean it has to be any good, but success does require popularity in some form and popularity requires inclusivity.
Yeah videos make zero sense unless only 1 person was allowed at that venue for that specific event.
If a band sell a album/song to 1 bidder though, they can lease it out, get royalties from radio stations and movies etc.
But that person owning it could be a big turn off to fans of the band, the potential audience, who buy into bands because of the personal touch; not some random on the Internet and therefore a turn off to any potential broadcasters therefore affecting any potential for monetisation.
I mean, I can't tell you about what fans might like, im simply telling you something that could be possible. WU tang sold a album to 1 bidder a few years ago, im pointing out how it can be monetised, as finances are all that seem to matter.
Yes indeed 👍🏻
I can only refer to the music industry but it seems many are taking the approach of if they talk about it long enough it’ll become viable. This doesn’t actually do anything to enrich music, it’s only about an individuals profit and exclusivity rather than popularity and inclusivity which is the point where music becomes about people and that human interaction. I can’t see it becoming established.
It's not about the music or inclusivety when bands get 15p for 300000 plays on Spotify, or you pay £300 to see the rolling stones
Which is why streaming is slowly dying and live performance is the only growth area (and by virtue the crazy ticket prices) which one of these has most in common with NFT’s?
Not shocked at that, weve just had 2 summers with no live events to attend.
Yeah videos make zero sense unless only 1 person was allowed at that venue for that specific event.
If a band sell a album/song to 1 bidder though, they can lease it out, get royalties from radio stations and movies etc.
But that person owning it could be a big turn off to fans of the band, the potential audience, who buy into bands because of the personal touch; not some random on the Internet and therefore a turn off to any potential broadcasters therefore affecting any potential for monetisation.
I mean, I can't tell you about what fans might like, im simply telling you something that could be possible. WU tang sold a album to 1 bidder a few years ago, im pointing out how it can be monetised, as finances are all that seem to matter.
Yes indeed 👍🏻
I can only refer to the music industry but it seems many are taking the approach of if they talk about it long enough it’ll become viable. This doesn’t actually do anything to enrich music, it’s only about an individuals profit and exclusivity rather than popularity and inclusivity which is the point where music becomes about people and that human interaction. I can’t see it becoming established.
Welcome to the music industry.
Ah but that’s the thing, if something isn’t successful it dies: success doesn’t mean it has to be any good, but success does require popularity in some form and popularity requires inclusivity.
nothing stops you from owning nfts. It's permission-less. You don't have to live anywhere to create a web3 wallet and get an nft.
Comments
Thanks Ali for getting the thread back up and running in time to trail this podcast. I'm sorry you had to spend time cleaning it up; we need to all somehow agree a way to persuade people to keep the lid on things better.
Anyway, I recommend the pod to everyone. This pod has been Media Outlet No. 1 in its clear-eyed analysis of the ESI troub;es, and Kieran is tough but fair. He has previously had the Bedford Town ("FAPL in 10 years") guy on for an interview.
Going to save this for my coffee break...
Some things need to happen in person, in a space with other people, and the music industry is one of those things.
But there have been recent reports of crypto wallet hacks and NFTs being stolen; it might be harder to steal than regular digital assets, but when they are it's almost impossible to reclaim. So I'm not sure I buy that assets contained within an NFT are as secure as you you're making out.
The fact songs are now merely referred to as “content” speaks volumes.
But if you are sensible and know the do's and don'ts, then the risks can be minimised. If the value of digital assets are high, one way would be to use a non-custodial wallet to reduce the risk of theft.
If anyone thinks for any reason that the risks are too high, then you can take out insurance, just the same way you would do with anything of reasonable value.
I am sure there will be plenty of people who will be uninterested in NFT's in the future for a variety of reasons, security being one. But there is a growing trend in sport for adoption and a consensus that sport NFT collectables will be a revenue generator in the near future. Time will tell if the naysayers are correct.
However, if I buy the boots he scored the goal in, that's a physical item that cannot be replicated in any way to a point where they would be indistinguishable from the original, without great cost, time and effort.
So why would the digital clip be worth anything at all?
If a band sell a album/song to 1 bidder though, they can lease it out, get royalties from radio stations and movies etc.
In times gone by the original 1968 European Cup Final programme between Manchester United and Benfica would have been more expensive to buy than a copy (although they would have had the same content) sought by collectors of the memorabilia.
This doesn’t actually do anything to enrich music, it’s only about an individuals profit and exclusivity rather than popularity and inclusivity which is the point where music becomes about people and that human interaction.
I can’t see it becoming established.
Not shocked at that, weve just had 2 summers with no live events to attend.