Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

1. Patreon exists, this seems like a far safer way to support the creation of art (and a lot of artists already use it heavily).

2. The monetization of art is a heavily controversial topic and a lot of artists rightly think that patronage is a much better system to exist under since it provides a more reliable and stable income.

3. Paper is pretty immutable generally speaking. I don't think NFTs will actually significantly impact issues around long term art providence with both laundering and forgeries still remaining prominent. Additionally, almost all of the art world already supports publicly anonymous transactions to protect purchaser privacy.

4. I think there's some interesting stuff in this realm with interactive art - but I think there are ways to accomplish much the same thing with conventional sale processes.



1. Patreon is not direct, involves a 3rd party (patreon.com), requintes registration (besides a bank account/wallet address), and is centralized enough that they can ban you as a creator and as a giver.

2. With nfts the monetization of art is at least one step less controvertial than current approaches and does not exclude or goes against patronage (which is always a valid non-exclusive approach that can coexist with and along nfts)

3. Paper can be stolen, can be destroyed and is not public by default (it stays in your pants pocket while they go to laundry)

4. Good for you ;)


are these counter-arguments to the points I provided?

I fail to see the point here.

Are you speaking for the ones that like to support cool art or against them? are you speaking for the artists? or just generally against NFTs as an alternative tech innovation to a current existing problem?




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: