Paying digital artists.
NFTs have gained a foothold in the art world. Sotheby's is still auctioning off NFTs, despite the Silicon Valley hype dying down. If it were actually useless, I don't think they'd still hold active auctions today. I don't know who Vera Molnár is, but if you want to bid on her art, you can do so now. https://metaverse.sothebys.com/gen-art-vera-molnar
Most of us don't buy fine art, so I don't think the problem NFTs solve for that use case presents itself to most of us (myself included). But looking into this, my understanding is that before NFTs, the only way you can tell you're getting an authentic painting is a piece of paper that comes with the purchase. And paintings are relatively easy to fake, so all the value is actually with that paper of authenticity, rather than with the work. Instead of a piece of paper that needs to be physically transferred now, it has all the affordances of digital objects--instant transfer, always available, transaction history transparent, and tradeable on existing web3 markets.
When the iPad first came out, lots of people thought it would fail. It didn't seem obvious why you'd want a phone that doesn't fit in your hand. But it turns out that it's a very good form factor for very specific industries. Point of Sales systems and navigation for pilots are two industries where it's made strong inroads, rather than just a nice to have for people that want to watch some movies.
So I'd say, just watch the fine art world for a few more years to see if NFTs grow or shrink. I personally think NFTs will have more uses than that, but it remains to be seen whether it will fundamentally change large swaths of the economy, or if it'll just be confined to very specific ones, like fine art.
They're separate markets.
NFTs offer no solution to the mainstream fine art market. I've never seen art sold at gallery or auction attached to an NFT for verification where the point wasn't marketing that it was NFT linked. The paper is always verified with third parties. The NFT would have to be as well, to confirm the NFT presented is the valid one for the physical art piece it's purportedly attached to.
Instead, there are people who made money in crypto who did not buy fine art, wanted to buy art, and found artistic value in NFTs. They were willing to pay and others willing to sell.
NFTs do nothing to certify old art.
> it is a massive issue in the fine art world. Even more in the fashion world where recent collections are counterfeited immediately
Auction and fashion houses would love to enforce a system of NFT-based ownership. It means they can tax future transfers of the work. Buyers of art, rationally, don't want that. It's my art. NFTs are DRM for the real world. No thank you.
Also, suppose you verify the NFT is legit. Great. What about the art? How do I know you didn't keep the original and give me a counterfeit? Or that the person you got the NFT from didn't dupe you? I always need to look at the trail and judge if each step looks legitimate, and, if not, commission independent testing.
[1] https://twitter.com/mattdesl/status/1671138742172631040?s=20
Have you bought art? I paid via wire, which was free on my end and less than a basis point for the receiver. If you're paying 10+ percent, you're paying for an auctioneer to juice the price, you're small fry or you're an idiot.
The only potent expansion there are the small fry, because many of those feed a whale. Here, again, I'm challenged to understand why payment in exchange for a song download or merchandise offer is inferior to a glorified sticker. There is simply no need to bundle these problems: small payments and artist compensation. Particularly with a solution that's rotten at each on its own. The Million Dollar Homepage [1] looks rational next to NFTs.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Million_Dollar_Homepage
I’m not sure why you have a hard time with the concept of tokenization; but artists typically lose a significant portion of revenue to more traditional systems. A trad gallery’s 30-50% fees, or Bandcamp and Patreon’s 10-15% fees are significant compared to crypto art’s 0-2.5% fees.
These are different services. Artists don't pay galleries to process a payment, they pay them for distribution. If you're distributing your own art, why on earth are you selling through Bandcamp or Patreon? Just take payment directly. (Including via crypto.)
Crypto art markets do have value in that they're a collection of buyers who place artistic value on buying NFTs. That's fine. But it's a solution for accessing those buyers. Not anything in general. It's a better gallery for a particular audience.
If you're making digital art, crypto art markets are your solution. It's circular, but that's fine--it's art. If you're not making digital art, tagging on an NFT doesn't help you get paid. You might find distribution advantages by doing that, but that's because you changed the thing you're making--e.g. a song into a digital art piece--in a way that appeals to a group of buyers who congregate on crypto art marketplaces.
By absurd analogy, suppose there was a trend of buying art slathered in mayo. There's an eclectic group in Miami, and they just love mayo art. When asked what purpose the mayonnaise serves, one artist replies "it helps us get paid." Which is sort of true. The dry work was more difficult to sell; the dripping one isn't. But that's not quite the answer. The mayonnaised art sells because there are people who like mayo on their art. (And to induce people to buy mayonnaise art, a mayo art dealer may very well charge lower gallery fees. Particularly if there's more competition.)
Simply put: one of the values of this technology is that it offers a novel, open source, and often lower fee mechanism for "paying (and supporting) artists."
What’s an example where the point of adding NFTs wasn’t to sell to people who like buying things related to NFTs? Where not only regular money transmission doesn’t work, but crypto, too, is insufficient?
The fact that the NFT is added to a physical painting or performance ticket (or the privilege of sponsoring one) is entirely separate from the work itself. That some people will pay more for the bundle is a valid market. But it’s still mayo.
And, there are cases where "just crypto" will suffice, like a direct wallet-to-wallet transfer of USDC on a L2 for a physical work—and this is another way of paying artists that Google Play can and should be able to support in their apps. The fees and settlement times are often superior to traditional infra (even Wise). But this transaction comes with no provenance and transfer of ownership, which is one of the selling points of NFT.