Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
There are a few famous quotes attributed to PT Barnum, Circus promoter
"No man ever went broke overestimating the ignorance of the American public."
"You can fool most of the people most of the time."
"Many people are gullible, and we can expect this to continue."
This might be non-sequitor, but I noted in recent Star Wars offerings such as Bad Batch and Mandalorian, many advanced or rare technological items such as spaceships and suits of Mandalorian battle armor have a Chain Code attached to them. It appears that these items have a built-in ledger that records their provenance and ownership in the physical world using digital data as an identifier. I guess in Star Wars, NFT really does provide proof of ownership.
Of course, its presented more as a plot device than a well-thought out ownership system, and there are obvious holes in their logic. 
Not sure how much of this is tongue in cheek, but regarrdless, it has been confusingly entertaining or entertainingly confusing. Thank you.
*sigh* NFT's reason for existence contienues to befuddle me, but I have come up with an analogy which seems apt.
NFTs are the digital equivalent of modern art; you can acknowledge that it exists, you can even buy it. but you have no freakin idea what you bought.
well I must say I trust the opinions of Reserve Bank of Australia more than a 3D asset company
http://Cryptocurrencies on a knife edge: Is this the slow decline of Bitcoin?
Actual article address: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-13/cryptocurrencies-on-a-knife-edge-bitcoin-decline/100694872
Unless it's this Australian article of the same name? https://headtopics.com/au/cryptocurrencies-on-a-knife-edge-is-this-the-slow-decline-of-bitcoin-22828301
ah, thanks for that, this forum does strange things with links sometimes and I even used the icon and new window dialogue
also do posts from this forum update for others in recent discussions or is it because I had it hidden I don't get those?
Hello!
I'm not even sure if this is the best thread to post this on, but here goes. NFPs...I don't get it. I've joined the Discord Server and even downloaded my free bundle yesterday, but I'm still really confused about the point of NFPs. Even after looking on the Discord, I still feel like I'm missing something. In the past, DAZ had image NFTs that it auctioned. Are the new NFPs, just a new way of rebranding this? If so, what was the deal with the bundle yesterday? Or, is this another way to encourage people to "invest" in NFT art? There is mention of purchasing models that can be used in other platforms. Are these basically going to be one-off Genesis 8 models that only one person can purchase?
Again, I'm just really confused by this.
Thanks,
Jason
You've just reminded me of a Judge Judy saying, "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining".
The NFPs are NFTs giving access to a character that can be used in various ways, including inside DS. It's a character for a figure, not a custom figure.
Yeowch, if the ETH to USD rate is what I'm finding, it's nearly $200 for one of the NFPs on pre sale, and near $800 when on normal sale. Bit too much for me even if I could trust NFTs.
I am new to the discussion.... what does NFT actually stand for ?
"Not For Travesty" of the digital world?
:-)
MimicMolly said:
Yeah, in addition to my general concerns I have not been impressed with Daz's approach; it feels scuzzy in the same way as the metaverse being discussed as an actual advancement and not wild speculation currently represented by long-available technology. It seems primed to burn people who are just getting into 3D art and don't know what can be done for free or at a much lower cost and might think they're buying something truly exclusive.
As far as I can tell the NFP includes the character and the products used to make it, and they all appear to be kitbashed from more or less unmorphed/unmodified products. They're pitching usability as a special benefit of their NFTs, but I'm curious how people who buy these will feel when they realize the functionality is available to just about every product in the store, and that they've purchased something made with stock assets that many people modify to make them look more unique (which you can't really do with your model if you want it to remain accurate to the image you bought). Maybe they won't mind; a lot of the most popular NFT collections are made from stock assets, too.
I'm going to give this the benefit of the doubt for some reason and guess that if you bought each of the products used to make an NFP individually at full, non-sale prices it might shake out to around $200.
Just being super real here: even if people view 3D in films as unfairly cheap and lazy, when it comes to the work of individual artists a lot of the current value/status they can command is that it looks like wizardry and people assume it must take intimidating amounts of skill to make a render look photorealistic or to manipulate 3D models. Every time I talked about Daz to other people my entire angle was that it's not intimidating at all and if I can load a model and pose it anyone can, and the whole utility of Daz to me is that I can use it to make illustrations for my own work in ways I couldn't without 3D. That the market is mostly artists selling assets to each other means a lot.
If Daz is going to do this, they need to be a little more upfront about the products they sell for $1.99 also being "built for the metaverse" and explain that being able to move 3D models between different software packages and doing things with premade assets is just what you do as a render artist, generally, no NFT required. At least then I could believe that they're really trying to get more artists involved in 3D regardless of whether they're willing to buy an expensive token.
I'm assuming that the NFPs they're selling come in several formats that are rigged and ready to use outside of DS too. There's no need to use bridges on them. But like I said, this is my assumption.
For DAZ, it always seemed like you had to spend a lot to make anything look good, and I'm not talking about the assets sold at the store or in 3rd party stores either. (I'm aware that's not the case.) This NFP approach hardly seems any different than their often confusing sales lingo. Not good, in my opinion, but it's something expected.
My favourite band are now selling NFTs (via Opensea).
Long story short, I commented on their page, and someone replied to me. They patronisingly assumed that I didn't know what NFTs are, and that bands will be able be able to retain their "intellectual copyright that sites like Spotify have taken away."
But when I said about my experience over the past few months, the price hikes in computer components, and the fact that the band were selling screenshots from their videos as NFTs (and not protecting their music). That person called me "short-sighted, as they think it will still be around in a decade. "It's all in the name of progress..."
you get the same resposes talking to people who use and peddle essential oils etc
It's all a joke and a bad one at that, anyone can make them out of any thing that's y it's so dangerous for the environment , it's not just for "Artists" it's for any person that want to try and make an easy buck and they don't care about the environmental impact it will have and every thing on the web will cost money because of this.
Oh, right... I've never had that "pleasure" before (hopefully, I'll never have it again).
Like the art world, it's a huge opportunity for money launderers to clean their dirty money (also, the crypto thing). NFT is not yet covered by AML regs, so there's a potential gap there.
AML compliance is a huge issue with international implications. Literally ALL of the largest banks in the world have had AML issues because drug dealers, organized crime, terrorist organizations, and corrupt governments around the world want to get their dirty money into the "clean" financial system... so getting AML regs right is not inexpensive and not simple. Evading AML compliance (like some of the largest banks in the world have attempted) may work for a time, but it usually catches up to you (and then your company gets a big fine).
I'm sure Daz will have a comprehensive KYC system and all that in place to deal with NFT when the regulators decide to clamp down.
there is a cartoon
spare us the Bored Ape Action figures
The smell of tulip bulbs is in the air. Or maybe that's just the smell of panic that "OMG, I'm missing the opportunity of a lifetime! Everyone will laugh at me if I don't buy something!"
While I can provisionally accept that Non-Fungible Tokens are useful in some application (as in "a use" - not neccesarily a computer program), my understanding falls far short of being able to tell if they are appropriate for a given application. I suspect a lot of money is being spent on this in the desparate hope something actually pays off. Throwing money against to wall to see what sticks, as the mixed metaphor goes.
I probably have a better understanding of the risk of putting money into a one-armed bandit than that of putting funds into an NFT/NFP, so I can't say which represents better odds.
Twitter are introducing NFT avatars pictures
they will be a hexagonal shape
that should make it easier to know who not to follow
Paramount are going to start producing Star Trek NFTs... Where Discovery divided some fans, NFTs brought them back together (or am I being optimistic).
I don't understand what I'm actually getting that is of any value / resale value / use. It sounds like "You're buying a piece of code that says you bought a piece of code." Obviously that can't be right or why would anyone buy it?
What's frustrating me is that there's a lot of "Think of it like this..." and not "When you buy $1, you definately get a solid $1's worth of X,Y,Z" I'm suspicious of the whole thing when that's not explained right there on the main page for it. It just seems flaky to me.
I'm not trying to be flip or snarky. I'm sure it has value or else DAZ wouldn't sell it. I just truly do not understand this thing, even after reading all the explanations. What am I missing here? What would I actually own and be able to use if I bought this?
You would own the NFT, which is a link to some digital content - Sort of one of a kind URL that nobody else has, which you can later sell to someone else before it stops working (like any other URL out there)
Contrary to the sales pitches and lots of misinformation, the content behind the link is not the NFT, and the concept does not provide proof of ownership, originality or legality, or grant you any rights to the digital content, unless the seller uses other means to do that.
The entire concept depends on believing that you're getting in on the ground floor of a sweeping, unilateral change to the way people think about and value digital assets. There is a lot of near-magical stuff you have to think of as imminent and inevitable for it to make sense, but the core thing is believing that blockchain technology is the future of the internet and eventually everything of importance will be recorded on it, from financial transactions to medical records. If you are dead sure this is going to happen and that you're the vanguard of a sea change on the same level of importance as the internet itself, it's fairly easy to see a unique blockchain entry that an important artist has put their stamp of authenticity on as valuable.
After all, a baseball card is just a piece of cardstock--you don't own the image on it, and it's only valuable due to its rarity, age, whether or not it's signed, etc. and because other people interested in baseball cards want it. The logic behind an NFT is the same.
But.
NFTs are a fundamentally broken project because there are only three reasons to own one right now: 1) you believe it will appreciate in value and someone will buy it from you for much more than you paid down the line; 2) the NFT's creator has promised that you'll be able to do some really awesome stuff with it just as soon as they finish their development roadmap (or the entire internet ecosystem changes, whichever comes first); 3) you actually like the thing and want to support the artist.
The first is purely speculative and led to the gold rush. Once that kicked off in earnest I think it probably killed any hope of salvaging the space, if there was anything there to save. Most grifters spamming the marketplaces never believed there was any real value in NFTs. But if they managed to hook one person who did through sheer volume of attempts and make one or two sales when the buying frenzy was at its peak, they could make decent money. And since buyers were encouraged to think of the early days as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to snap up rare collectables--without any real sense yet of what a "good" NFT might look like--there was literally no downside to flooding the ecosystem with junk and stolen art and trying to catch a mark.
The second is also speculative, but the Bored Ape model promises that buying a piece from a limited collection comes with built-in clout, community, and eventual material benefits. At first glance this seems more stable, except that there is also literally no downside to mocking up a roadmap in Photoshop, algorithmically generating some basic portraits of weird skrunklies, and then ghosting the earnest people who believe they paid you thousands of dollars in support of a real project. Even the creators with good intentions for their projects are often rushing into them with all the planning, expertise, and skill of a college freshman who has a really good idea for an MMO setting and just needs someone to program the game.
The third is, in my opinion, the only legitimate reason to own an NFT. I've mentioned before that if NFTs were just digital collectables you bought to support artists you liked, I would think they were pretty cool. But any chance of them being that and only that basically died on the vine, because crypto culture is ultimately about being the smartest, earliest, and most confident investor and the dream of making enormous amounts of money off speculative bets. People traded them for years as fun collectables, and they only took off when marketing stunts and incurious media coverage convinced people they were something much, much more.
That's the part I ultimately can't get past. It's very common to see NFT projects reinventing the wheel; what you can do with them now or in the future is only impressive if you think no one has achieved or attempted their stated goal, so there are a lot of folks who have never been into tech before being lovebombed into believing they're in the inner circles of geniuses. There's a lot of peer pressure to avoid questioning what you're buying into--a ton of mythmaking about buyers and project leaders as prophetic visionaries and people with counterpoints and concerns as uninformed rubes. Even if the environmental issues are solvable, that they were handwaved and glossed over signaled that this was not anything good or lasting.
In short, you're not missing anything. Most of the quantifiable value of an NFT is a gesture of trust from a buyer toward a future they desperately want to come to pass. And many of the people who have made any money from NFTs have only done so by abusing that trust. Unfortunately, there isn't a vast, quick fortune waiting to be made in simply loving art and supporting artists.
If you see something you like then, Right click... Save as... Then show your friends!