An artist being complicit in a Ponzi scheme doesn't mean it isn't a Ponzi scheme. It just means the artist is happy to fleece a greater fool. Don't confuse creativity with integrity! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greate…

I find the Ponzi scheme scam arguments too shallow, and also quite boring TBH

If you're interested, I have a piece of paper that says you own the Eiffel Tower, that you can have for €1,000. (Actually it just says that you own the piece of paper itself, but who's counting?)

In that sense, artists could have had the experience all along by writing an ownership certificate for any of their works and selling it on ebay to the highest bidder and send it by mail.

An artist writing an ownership certificate transfers ownership of a physical asset. Anyone can set up a blockchain, "sell" NFTs _pointing to anything_, and take money without any asset or ownership being transferred anywhere. >>

What if the artwork is not physical?

Musical recordings aren't physical any more. That's why everyone crapped themselves when music went digital. They ended up with various models for ensuring artists, publishers, distributors get fair value. Ownership is still ownership under the law, even of digital products.

NFTs don't confer ownership of a digital product. They confer ownership _of the NFT_. It is the ultimate circular definition. Still, "you will not convince a man of something when [their startup] depends on them not believing it".

I don’t have a startup, but on a working, non-PoW Ethereum-style platform, extremely complicated rules about licensing music right would be a fantastic example for decentralization, i.e. getting rid of the labels as intermediaries. Doesn’t matter whether you’d call that an NFT

Sorry Stefan, not you, the bros jumping onto the thread. No, I think Merkle-based solutions with business rules baked into each node transition are a great solution for a historically challenging problem space, both socially and technically. Just not cryptocurrencies or NFTs.