It’s kind of a shame that Jonathan Mann got wrapped up in all this NFT grift. Many of his songs are quite catchy, I recommend checking him out on YouTube if you haven’t already.
Regulating a money scam that uses art as a token isn’t regulating art, it’s regulating money scams.
I thought the whole point of crypto/blockchain technologies was to avoid government regulations?
I believe NFTs are actually a good idea on paper for this use case. Our implementation of the idea is weird though.
I don’t know why the SEC though. NFTs are not “money”. It’s a contract that shows ownership. It’s a legal issue in my opinion
The problem with what creeps like Mann are claiming comes down to the difference between “art” and buying an “interest” in art as a speculative investment. Mann conflates these two ideas, trying to bestow the wholesomeness of artistic expression with his investment business venture. I’m all in favor of getting artists paid, and structuring society in a way that encourages the production of art, but Mann wants to weaken securities regulations and consumer protections to do that. That’s a terrible idea because it will lead to many more people being conned and defrauded.
If investors were merely trying to support an artist’s work, and not seeking to profit from their investment, they wouldn’t need a securities mechanism like NFTs to do it. We already have money for that.
If a side effect of regulating NFTs as securities is to somehow damage the regular fine art marketplace, as I think Mann’s suit is warning, that is no great loss for society. The fine art market is a blight, a fraud-riddled playground for ultra wealthy douchebags and does nothing to advance art or promote the creation of artworks writ large.
Mann has ridden the crypto speculative bubble and has an inflated impression of the value of his work. He thinks the money is compensation, but it’s largely just a side effect of crypto bros forever trying to find a greater fool to hold the bag in a pyramid scheme. In that effort, his lawsuit is basically a marketing campaign for his investment business. I hope the court puts an end to this once and for all, but I’m not optimistic.
If investors were … not seeking to profit from their investment,
Yeah, this really makes sense. \s
I wonder how much it costs to get an advert article like that.
Given that the world of high art is basically entirely used by rich people as a way to launder money and dodge taxes?
Yes. It absolutely should. It should have been like 30 years ago.
“art”
If it was actually art, it wouldn’t be able to be traded like a commodity. NFTs have very little artistic value.
If pieces of art metadata are being traded like securities, then yes, the SEC should regulate their trade.
It should have absolutely nothing to do with the “art” associated with that metadata, it should just be regulated for what it is.
it should just be regulated for what it is.
Ok soooo how should metadata be “regulated”?
You don’t regulate the metadata, you regulate its trade as a financial security.
But you knew that, you’re just being obtuse.
Alright, reading is hard, but here we go. If:
pieces of art metadata are being traded like securities
Then:
yes, the SEC should regulate their trade
They should be regulated according to securities legislation. Wow! We did it! Does little baby get it now?
the NFT is not the art itself, it is at best a proof of ownership.
NFTs are great for replacing things like deeds or vehicle titles, where we need paperwork to verify ownership. But the problem arises when it’s cryptographically hard (meaning exceedingly unlikely on reasonable timescales) to reverse fraudulent transfers of those documents. Cutting out a centralized authority at the price of making the system more vulnerable for gullible people is almost always not worth it.
