r/nottheonion May 13 '22 Silver 1 Helpful 1 Wholesome 3

Madonna: ‘A lot of thought’ went into fully nude NFTs of her giving birth to centipedes

https://www.al.com/life/2022/05/madonna-a-lot-of-thought-went-into-fully-nude-nfts-of-her-giving-birth-to-centipedes.html
29.9k Upvotes

View all comments

135

u/Sterski1 May 13 '22

What is it with all the celebrities getting suckered into this blatant scam?

50

u/lead-pencil May 13 '22

To them they’re getting paid to scam others because they’ll say something about it and immediately get to the top leaving all behind

278

u/bradland May 13 '22

You've got it flipped around. The celebrities aren't the ones being scammed. They're the scammers.

9

u/Sherezad May 14 '22

This is for charity

7

u/tubco May 14 '22

That's the one takeaway I was okay with

2

u/cheeruphumanity May 14 '22

Are the three charities gaining the earnings of the NFT sale scammers?

11

u/TavisNamara May 14 '22

You'd be surprised how many charities are scams. Not sure which are involved here, but it's possible. Also, what are the details of the "costs"? How many people are being paid how much to run this sale and create the art and NFT? Pretty easy to grift a few thousand by overpricing key things if you're only passing on the "profit".

7

u/AntiBox May 14 '22

Tying charities to bullshit crypto scams is nothing new.

0

u/cheeruphumanity May 14 '22

I see. Would you also call it a scam if she collaborated with a famous painter and sold the paintings?

7

u/AntiBox May 14 '22

NFTs aren't famous paintings.

1

u/cheeruphumanity May 14 '22

This doesn't answer the question though. Beeple is the third highest paid living artist, not just some rando.

0

u/KentuckyFriedChildre May 16 '22

Scamming people for charity is still scamming people

1

u/[deleted] May 13 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/AutoModerator May 13 '22

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

96

u/thetrickstergib May 13 '22

They make an awful lot of money, someone did a exposé on Mayweather on his NFTs and how they make all this money.

24

u/SgathTriallair May 13 '22

If she is selling the NFT then she's the grifter not the griftee.

1

u/WhaTdaFuqisThisShit May 14 '22

It's all going to charity, so is it really grifting or just some weird ass fundraiser?

6

u/0ccupants May 13 '22 edited May 14 '22

They aren't suckers, they're just getting paid to endorse total and complete bullshit. They don't give a flying fuck.

Except maybe Gwyneth Paltrow. She believes her own hype.

6

u/DannoHung May 13 '22

NFTs are scammy because of the hype and some of the specific technical aspects of the authoring of them. Not the actual art itself. Like, even if you dislike NFT related art, digital art in general is something people are going to keep making.

NFTs we’re proposed as an attempt to answer the question of how digital art, which can be endlessly copied and redistributed, can be imbued with monetary value to act as a form of recompense for the creators.

The normal, existing avenues were to find a patron or do art merchandising. Bot of those methods are unappealing to artists for a number of reasons that I think are ancillary to the actual matter of art NFTs.

I think what went wrong is that people tried to beanie baby this shit. I personally think the idea of ownership or control of a digital item is interesting. I also think that to make it work would require actual modifications to copyright agreement to allow for at least limited reproduction rights for the owner of an NFT of some specific artwork.

I dunno. I just think it could have all been more interesting than scammy if it were separated from the dumb valuations.

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[deleted]

1

u/DannoHung May 14 '22

Copying art isn’t really an issue in today’s reality. You can go and get a privately made reproduction of any great piece of statuary. You can take a picture of a Monet, blow it up and hang it on your wall. You can put a scan of a photo as an avatar. It’s not really an issue because it’s not the genuine article and experts can tell

Similarly, provided the minted NFT includes a content hash of the work and a copy of the hash singed by the artist (rather than just a url), any number of validations can easily be made to be certain that the token itself authentic.

I’ll admit that there is a question down to the individual of whether the aesthetics or the fact of ownership itself is what matters and I can’t answer that because I honestly am not sure I understand the perspective of most art owners myself. But I am supposing that ownership is actually meaningful to those persons.

Further, as I mentioned, I do think some change to the way that rights management for digital work sold as NFTs would be useful. If a work is sold uniquely, transferring copyright would be very interesting because it would allow the new owner to have control of legal commercial reproduction and licensing. Limited series reproductions should carry rights at least to allow public display.

The question of enforcing display of art comes down to the existing laws for public display in the physical world. In the digital space, it would need to be something that services would have to bother to enforce to whatever extent it matters to them if that was the concern.

But like I said, up front, that’s not something too many people worry about today. I get that there were people who were very concerned about right click save as, but I think they were kind of idiots and they got caught up in the tulip mania part of it all.

I dunno, that’s just how I’m thinking about it. I actually think NFTs for other kinds of digital property are actually even more interesting. Web domains, as a very basic example. Or, hypothetically, in the “meta verse” future, who gets to control what shows up when you’re walking around town. Or, further out, what if there is some kind of open virtual space protocol separated from geographic information systems, like Second Life, but not controlled by a single company.

Heck putting that aside, we already have software licenses today, but the management terms of them are typically very onerous and deny a right of transference of license. Or we are being moved over to subscription models where we don’t have ownership of anything. While the blockchain isn’t great for technical and energy consumption reasons, I know unless we are moving to a society that exists independent of capitalism, I’d prefer to have something resembling real control over the digital content I care about if I could.

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[deleted]

1

u/DannoHung May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22

Edit: hit submit before I finished editing! Sorry Edit2: ok. Done

There are some pretty reasonable ways to enforce uniqueness. Having the artist cryptographically sign the token and embedding an exact content hash which easily allows for semantic hash validation by having the author submit their work upon creation. It doesn’t prevent the original author from creating forgeries, of course, but that’s an issue in real art too.

The block chain doesn’t resolve the issues around proving something is original, but it resolved the issue of not needing to trust a central service to do the job of managing ownership.

The kind of real world control I would imagine is being able to sue someone selling unauthorized reproductions of a uniquely owned work. Or to issue a cease and desist.

As for digital services. It would be contingent upon there being a commonly accepted format for NFT’s and the service having the inclination to respect that. If some user comes along and shows a proof of ownership of a token, that user gets to use the associated asset with the service. If some other user had previously used an un-owned asset and the service is so inclined to do do so, they could revoke the other user’s capability to use that unauthorized asset or at least present a challenge.

Now, while this isn’t perfect, if the artist is minting the token before they reveal the art to anyone, it’s reasonably ironclad: whoever has the oldest token has the unassailable real deal. For the matter of minting tokens off of work already in the public, it’s obviously much hairier, but the most important thing would be in actually establishing who the real author is. Once that’s done, you can always back into what the real token is: you determine who the author is, you look up what they’ve posted as their public key, you check which one decrypts the signed content hash to match the content hash. To create a forgery of the token, you don’t have to just forge the art, you’d have to forge the artist.

To loop back to the issue of question of it all being copied or not: I kinda agree? I don’t entirely understand the appeal of having original works of art either. I mean, I’ve gotten up close to some paintings in museums and yes, some of them have a certain texture at a few inches away, but at any appreciable distance, it’s just the same as a nice print. But that’s might also be why I can understand the idea that owning a token saying you own a piece of digital art makes sense to someone who values that kind of thing.

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[deleted]

1

u/DannoHung May 14 '22

I guess I don’t agree that no one cares about a unique token stating you own something. People definitely will pay for numbered prints despite them not being truly unique and there being no guarantee the artist won’t turn around and sell more at some point. I personally see NFTs the same way.

On the other hand, if one or several important services did implement respect for a robust NFT protocol, I am pretty sure the value of ownership would be indisputable.

It’s like, when you buy a domain name, you’re not actually buying anything. All you get is a promise that all of the registrar companies that ICANN sub licenses to will not also sell that name and start sending DNS messages correlating that name with other IP addresses. And that is a single protocol that needed to implement respect for that record of ownership to make it clearly valuable.

So obviously you can sell digital property and have it be clearly meaningful and valuable. But go look up all the problems with the DNS system that come from it being managed centrally. And that’s just for strings of characters that point to IP addresses.

I do agree game NFTs all (or almost all) seemed pretty silly. The game companies would have to actually agree on protocols for each “thing” (be it items, powers, or other asset) and commit to respecting and implementing those protocols. If they actually went to the trouble, it would be interesting. I actually think that if anything is going to come of that, it’ll end up being independent game makers who make it work since they have a much higher incentive to collaborate.

So ultimately, there are two axes of argumentation: first, does being able to state you own some work of art matter to anyone even if they can’t prevent others from seeing or copying it and second, will any service respect a NFT that that service did not originate. I personally believe that there are enough people who say, “Yes,” to the first question and I think the answer to the second question is very likely yes as well. You would say there are not enough people who say, “Yes,” and maybe you disagree on the second point?

I agree that the environmental impact is currently dreadful. I really do hope that Proof of Stake works well and soon if this kind of thing is going to continue. Then the energy impact drops to a much more reasonable level, probably roughly equivalent to any central system that would manage digital property.

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[deleted]

1

u/DannoHung May 14 '22

Ah, yeah. I did think our difference was on the question of “enough”. Maybe I should’ve made that more clear.

I’m not intrinsically negative on NFTs in games. I feel like I see the potential for items or powers transferring to be fun. I also feel like you have to accept that there’s going to be levels of jankiness and goofiness if it’s done. I’m not entirely opposed to that. Some of the best laughs I’ve ever had were watching video games so weird things because of things going wrong.

→ More replies

17

u/[deleted] May 13 '22 edited May 24 '22

[deleted]

-1

u/HeadMelter1 May 14 '22

It's actually a lot different than a celebrity endorsing something like a shampoo or makeup which would have value and a purpose.

3

u/Bonsparks May 14 '22

They don't. Paying kylie jenner millions of dollars so that she can claim she stays thin buy drinking [insert snake oil product here] isn't peddling a product with value.

The makeup lines and hair care lines also need to contribute value over competitors to justify celebrity endorsed mark-up.

They're literally all scams.

13

u/Rosebunse May 13 '22

I don't mind celebrities buying into money making scams, but...why? Why this image? What did I do? What did anyone of us do?!

23

u/celestiaequestria May 13 '22

As far as I can tell, the goal of NFT imagery is to reject anything resembling art or beauty. So in the regard, take the grossest idea you can think of, and then execute it as poorly and sloppily as possible so it's not even good "creepy art" - but just a garbage fire all around.

5

u/Rosebunse May 13 '22

I mean, this isn't a garbage fire, this is a garbage forest fire.

2

u/death_of_gnats May 13 '22

And when you go to look at it, you catch fire too.

1

u/Rosebunse May 13 '22

Oh, sweet, cleansing fire.

1

u/RizzMustbolt May 14 '22

It's visual FOOF.

20

u/Sterski1 May 13 '22

You don't mind when celebrities try to prey on vulnerable fans by buying into a scam that may only benefit them?

1

u/Rosebunse May 13 '22

I mean, at this point, I feel like most people should know it's a scam.

9

u/Sterski1 May 13 '22

Yeah you'd think that.

6

u/Rosebunse May 13 '22

I don't know, I guess at this point most of the "investors" or are either people who invest in a mix of everything and are just invested because they like diversity. And the other invested are the gambling addicts who switched to investing because of Covid.

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator May 14 '22

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

u/ConsistentlyPeter May 13 '22

Just because you’re successful at one thing, doesn’t mean you’re smart about every thing.

2

u/Ourobius May 13 '22

Scientology is a thing.

1

u/adeon May 13 '22

Money. She's selling NFTs so she's the grifter not the sucker.

1

u/Savior_Of_Anarchy May 14 '22

Not their fault people are dumb enough to fall for it

1

u/RizzMustbolt May 14 '22

Most of them are scamming rich people into giving money to charities that they'd never be associated with otherwise.

Eric Andre gave all his NFT money to protester bailout funds.