And Peter, we haven’t even got to talking about tech risks here. The certificates of authenticity are ruggable, especially on a shitcoin chain like Tezos, with its delegated-PoS consensus that highly prone to baker centralization
Discussion
On socioeconomic terms it works, and that's what I am interested in, and what I would like to preserve. There is some magic going on there, that gos far beyond the banality of social media as we know it. I am sure that we can solve it technically.
Live is full of risks, but risks can be anticipated and managed. What if Tezos goes to 1sat but artworks maintain their value relative to BTC or fiat? That way oligopolists get expropriated but artists prevail?
Even if xtz goes to 0 I can still prove that I collected the artwork at date x for price y.
Not if the chain gets re-organized
Then the artist can reissue the token on a btc powered art chain. There’s a german saying: Wo ein Wille ist ist auch ein weg.
The artists are better off using a central marketplace that issues certificates of authenticity. They don’t need a blockchain. That way they don’t take the risk of holding xtz. Tezos is not decentralized by any stretch of imagination and there is no guarantee that the certificates will last forever
I didn’t make the case for hodling xtc. And I am not aware of an open centralized digital art market, which has a community of liquid art collectors.
I am also not making the case for Tezos, but rather promote the experience of a working digital art market and ecosystem, which is technology agnostic and will embrace happily any technology that serves the purpose.
My skepticism stems from people (not you, necessarily) inserting a blockchain and token wherever possible, when the same problem can be solved in a far more cost and compute efficient manner. That plus my original view that a certificate of ownership for a digital image doesn’t make sense (because of 100% fidelity infinite replication)