Anyone else think Crypto/NFT etc are the new 2YK scam???

I love the transparency of ownership and prices realised via nft, I think the digital medium offers a glimpse of digital canvases and democratised art for a new generation ... are there issues? Yes clearly. Will ppl get burnt? Yes clearly. But I don’t see a whole heap of difference between this and most new forms of expression scaring the old folk ‘who don’t get it’.

I don’t think I need to add anything really

Just got the Pobel email for this shite.
So stupid.
I just can’t...

Breaks my heart that my loves Handiedan and Jeff Soto jumped on this (IMHO) train bound to nowhere.

Just can’t wrap my head around...
‘Let me show you this amazing piece of art I own...damnit(!) my iPhone doesn’t have any power left... give me a second to recharge.....’

I think it's an interesting time for the at world. I do think nothing beats a physical art work, but digital seems to be the way forward for some collectors. Most likely collectors already invested in crypto and perhaps like the idea of ownership without having physical pieces in their home. It's all quite surreal really. As an artist I think it's worth a punt. As a collector however, it's too early to say.
I've recently minted a couple of pieces that originally started life as oil paintings and then transformed into something different in the digital realm. It's a bit of fun, if nothing else.

Does anyone own any crypto art yet?

Yep, already a spate of works that are just direct copies of other artists work, work photographed in situ and worked ripped off from instagram. As soon as copyright lawyers catch up with this, there'll be carnage.

Given the reception NFT's have received here maybe I'm crazy for admitting that i do own a handful of pieces. Currently only own NFT's from artists who I was already a fan of the physical work. I'm dabbling. I don't see them going anyway anytime soon, but likely 95% of them (or more) will be worthless in 3 years. 

How I Became a Professional NFT Artist "It took three hours, a partial understanding of some esoteric concepts, and $1,300, but I did it."

Great Article
link

onezero.medium.com/how-i-became-a-professional-nft-artist-well-sort-of-d1597d2b3ddb

"What if I just uploaded old paintings that aren’t copyrighted? Would that be considered art?

Publications wrote that perhaps this incident represented the “top” of the NFT bubble — for my sake, I hoped they were wrong.The idea of “art theft” is controversial in the NFT world. Users have found accounts on Rarible that take other digital artists’ art without permission, creating NFTs and attempting to sell them. Users diverge on where the lines should be drawn.

What about images that were in the public domain? What if I just uploaded old paintings that aren’t copyrighted? Would that be considered art?

Thinking this was my best idea yet, 10 minutes of internet sleuthing brought me to the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s “Open Access” Program. They had uploaded over 400,000 images of art in the public domain and released all copyright claims on the pictures. They were free to be used in any form, for any reason, without attribution.

My next step was searching for “the most famous work at the Met.” Shortly, I had downloaded The Death Of Socrates. The optimist in me thought that uploading this could provide an interesting commentary on the lines of what constitutes art — does reformatting something create something new? The realist in me thought it was the only way to upload something without breaking the rules.

File uploaded.

Next, I was asked if I wanted to create my own “collection” or put it under the general “Rarible collection.” Figuring real art would have its own “collection,” I selected that option.
Collection Name? This Is Not Art
Description? These are very much not art."

Interesting article if you want to become a NFT artist in 3 hours.

Last thing - those who think people who don't understand NFTs are "old" or "old school"... just realize that mostly the main players behind NFTs (and crypto) are in their late 30's to 60's old men/women in silicon valley who have done these tech pump and dumps before, are very successful at it, and will make a billions off this before it crashes. Tim Draper is 62 and Winklevoss Twins are 39. The 20 years old are the ones flipping NFT art for a few hundred dollars while the "old" men/women in the bay area are make billions off this scam... NFT to me is being all done by the old players in tech not young 20 year olds.

Matt Levine writes on Financial Markets stuff for Bloomberg.
He is unusually witty, yet manages to explain the inexplicable at time.

Today:

A Banksy is cancelled
I have mostly resisted writing about non-fungible tokens (NFTs), because they are not so much financial news as they are, uh, art news? The idea of an NFT is that you can buy sports memorabilia or art, but on the blockchain. Like there is a clip of LeBron James dunking a basketball, or a GIF of Nyan Cat, and they are more or less freely available on the internet, but you can buy a unique non-fungible copy of, or pointer to, the clip or the GIF proving that, in some sense, you own it. And that pointer is registered on a blockchain, and you can tell everyone “well, sure, anyone can look at Nyan Cat, but I own the real one.”
Of course this is stupid but it’s not so much stupider than anything else. I can look at the Mona Lisa on my computer too, even though the Louvre owns the real one. Well, no, I do think there are some real advantages to owning physical paintings. I’d rather have the original Mona Lisa in my living room than look at it on my computer. But the traditional markets for baseball cards and sports memorabilia are harder to distinguish from NFTs. The scuffed baseball that Barry Bonds hit into the stands for his 73rd home run in 2001 is not a particularly interesting physical object; you can buy a dozen nicer, newer, cleaner baseballs for $17.85 on Amazon. The home-run ball is a unique pointer to a memorable event, but it is not intuitively obvious that you should ascribe any value to that. A Mickey Mantle rookie card is a piece of cardboard with a picture and some stats printed on it, who cares. Why not print it on the blockchain.
So, sure, NFTs, whatever. Still this is kind of nuts:
Banksy isn’t the only person publicly destroying Banksy artworks now. In the latest stunt in the craze for NFTs (Non Fungible Tokens), which have captured the imagination of many digital enthusiasts and a growing sector of the art world, a company called Injective Protocol purchased a Banksy work and converted it into an NFT—and then burned it on video.
Injective Protocol is a so-called DeFI (“decentralized finance”) platform that builds Wall Street-style derivatives using blockchain-based smart contracts. It bought Banksy’s Morons (White) (2006), depicting a crowded auction room with an ornately framed piece beside the auctioneer inscribed with the words “I can’t believe you morons actually buy this shit.” …
In a video posted on the BurntBanksy Twitter account and on YouTube, a representative of the company explains that, come on, they had to burn the physical piece because, if it still existed, the value would remain primarily there, rather than in the digital asset.
So you can buy a unique digital pointer to a physical work of art that does not exist. You can prove your exclusive ownership of the absence of a work of art. Great! The possibilities are dizzying. First, I have an incredibly amazing Ban—no, not a Banksy, I have an incredibly amazing lost masterpiece of Michelangelo here in my living room but unfortunately I lit it on fire. I tried to record a video of it burning but I pushed the wrong button on my phone, so there’s no video. I did succeed, however, in converting this rare and now permanently lost masterpiece into an NFT on the blockchain, and I will now sell it to you. It was a picture of a cat, if that helps.
Second, I am going to sell a token that does not entitle you to ownership of the Mona Lisa. You can prove, on the blockchain, that you do not own the Mona Lisa, and that no one else does not own it in the unique way that you do not own it. I am going to record a video of me walking into the Louvre, and then walking out again half an hour later, and saying to the camera “yup the Mona Lisa is in there and I definitely do not have it.” And then sell a token of … that whole thing. Why not.
Third, I am going to download the YouTube video of them burning that Banksy, then I am going to delete the YouTube video, and then I am going to sell a token giving you ownership to the deleted video.
Fourth, I am going to sell tokens proving ownership, on the blockchain, of the same Banksy painting that they destroyed. Prove me wrong! You buy a token from Injective Protocol proving that you own that Banksy; your friend buys a token from me proving that she owns that Banksy. You say “no I own the real one.” Your friend says “okay then go redeem your token for the painting.” You’re like “well they burnt the painting.” I think you lose this argument! But what do I know about art.
Elsewhere Jack Dorsey is selling his first tweet as an NFT, sure. We’re so close to a good idea here; what we need is for Dorsey to shut down Twitter and then sell an NFT of that.

Nice 3ply paper 33g

Hello,
Thanks for the answer, I am new to this and I want to know how wallets work. I am interested in buying that art, but I do not have an account in any wallet yet

There are lots of different wallets and not all link up to the various sites.
I use coinable wallet and have attached it to rarible. I think it was said already, but Metamask works with Opensea. Not sure on sites such as Superrare though. 

This is the key question. Apparently, in some cases at least, what you actually get is the knowledge that you, and you alone, 'own' a digital artefact that can be freely viewed, retained, redistributed, and potentially even resold (via subsequently-minted NFTs) by unlimited numbers of other people.

This whole thing is madness. I predict copyright carnage.

I think what you really get when you strip away all the bs is the knowledge that an entry exists in a distributed leger confirming that at some point you gave someone some amount of digital currency in exchange for an idea of 'ownership' that exists exclusively in your own mind.

It kind of reminds me of www.moonestates.com/