Because these days everyone must say something about NFTS:
I don’t understand how statistics could play out any different in the ‘metaverse’ than in reality. The Pareto distribution describes how 80% of all good art/songs/music/etc. are produced by 20% of the artists. If an artist is struggling to make a living off their art in reality, why should they earn more money simply by minting their art (which isn’t selling) into an NFT? Why would the usual statistics not apply in the metaverse?
If they were to make more money with NFTs, is it because they’re good at making art, or good at talking about NFTS? It seems to me that the more you Tweet like an NFT-enthusiastic (gm, we must support everyone, etc.), the more likely you are to make a buck/.eth. Why should an association with the NFT world increase the value of your art?
“You’re not just buying a .jpeg…” you’re supporting an artist you believe in. I get it. It’s about making sure that artists get paid for their work. But artists have always been paid for their work. Some more than others. Some way more than others. And some not at all. (Blame Pareto.) Truth is, making a living as an artist is excruciatingly difficult, no matter which universe you inhabit.
And here’s Seth Godin on the economic and ecological problems surrounding NFTs.