Topic: [ANN] Cryptoart.com - Purveyors of fine art paper wallets (Read 3972 times)

Hi Folks! 

I'm just posting a little note here because I'm sure that I'm not the only one curious how Cryptoart.com is planning to navigate the "cryto-winter" and the seeming shift in (at least those amongst this sub) perceived value of NFTs in general. 

I know that there are several community members who plan to continue with their collecting of Cryptoart.com prints in the physical form.  A few have no desire to mint any NFTs at all, especially using ETH.  I'd love to hear what you all think!

Cheers,
CakeOnIt

Hi Cygan,

Do you plan to mint NFTs?  You appear flexible and open to the notion.  I am sitting the fence, mainly because of the minting cost; although the minting fee is not quite as bad as I expected, it's non trivial.  I'd love to hear form you or anyone who is proceeding with minting and how the process goes.  I will likely mint some when time allows but really want to see how things go.  I'm really curious how things will go from here.  The cryptoart.com site has undergone revision again as of a week or so ago.  It appears a community manager is still being sought.  Thanks!

CakeOnIt

I think solona would be a much better chain to mint on simply because of the eth gas fees & much faster

Reprints will be in the new form.   My advice would be to hang on to it and see what the NFTs are worth.  There is no expiration on claiming your NFT.  Logic says physical errors will be worth more as they become more scarce, but who knows with the NFT market.

what about the both error prints 'The Tinkerer ' and 'The Halving'...
they were published in a very small number after all - will there also be matching nfts?

Fixed.  Thanks!

I can now see all but "pwned"

As much as it costs to get the NFT, I don't see it as being any sort of value added benefit.

I don't see me signing over a a week's wages just to mint the near 20 pieces I have just to have some jpeg saying I own something I have already owned for quite some time.


To me, physical pieces that have NFT's is just a physical item with an electronic receipt and no one should have to pay for an electronic receipt.

Update:


I think I might have come up with a way to ensure that there isn't more than one copy of the same edition number in existence.  

More to come.

Everything should be on there now.

Also, "Enjoy The Ride" and "Bulwarks of Solidity" certificates.  Welcome back to the forum Troy!

Noted.  It wouldn't make sense to mint something if the NFTs aren't selling for much more.    Eventually, interoperability will allow you to move the NFT around to different blockchains.  It requires us to put the contract on all supporting chains, but it is something we've stated as a future goal.

For me - i wont pay the gas fees to mint anything on ethereum its a waste of funds and in every case I have done so in the past, minting the nft cost more than the art - totally not worth it. Also a shame when something is btc related and then has an eth nft - they really don't go together.

No, but it wouldn't save you gas fees anyway unfortunately.   We looked at this.  We even trying patch processing on polygon, then bridging to ethereum.   

All the NFTs will be on Ethereum at this point.  The imagery on the art piece is independent of the NFT.  Having said that, it is our goal to allow the NFTs to travel to other chains via bridges.   

We used two different printers to create the CofAs.  It looks like the neutral was just a misprint. 

Ok, I'll add it today.




Good question.  Anything we printed previously is a relic of the past.  We won't try to make a print with the rough edges.  I don't know how the market will eventually play out, but it seems like a good strategy for you would be to claim the NFT, then sell the NFT bundled with the rough edged physical.  If you sold the NFT by itself, you invalidate your ability to sell it.



There are 400.  You have a misprint. 

Does each respective blockchain for different pieces accept tokens/NFTs?
I know that BTC uses XCP....and Dogecoin also has tokens.

Do these cryptos haven tokens available?
LTC (Litecoin)
PPC (Peercoin)
BCH (BCash)

Also, is there a significance to the BTC symbol being orange or neutral on the middle back of the prints?
I have 2 of the same print, but the back is different:

I agree this is the case for PFP projects, but I don't believe this is the case for 1/1s and editioned NFTs.   If you know some, please let me know.  I would be curious to see how they do it.  I hope all will eventually. 

Only new prints (that are created with the NFT) will be marked on the back.  It will be marked by us during publication.  If you have a physical print, you don't need to do anything.




If you want to transfer ownership, you need to transfer the NFT.  That's it.  The only reason I mentioned optionally including a physical is because some people may want to load the NFT on to the art piece.





I'm glad you used this analogy.  If previous copies of art pieces are not valid for resale, their velocity is zero.  The fed could print a bunch of new money, but if it never makes it to a bank's balance sheet, no inflation.

In fairness though, the NFT could travel around to many buyers and each of the previous owners could have a non-transferrable version on their wall.   This brings us back to the realization though that anyone can make a print of an image and hang it all their wall.  It doesn't affect the available supply.


As an alternative approach, we could make it so that when someone creates an art piece using the NFT, they surrender the NFT to us.  We could then embed the NFT in the art piece we created for them so that it's removal would damage the art piece.  This would stop previous copies from being in existence.   This was actually our original idea, but after some consideration we realized that the friction it caused didn't really solve anything given the argument above.   I'm open for thoughts on this of course.





The NFT is the authentication and an art piece can't stand alone without it's NFT.   I think it may be confusing to you that you can sell someone an art piece as long as the NFT is included.   Think of it like this, you are really just selling the NFT, but including an art piece to save the new NFT owner the cost of creating a new piece.   


To put it in these terms, the only authentic art piece is the art piece with the NFT. 



If the prints from the museum shop had the term "not valid for resale" they would have little value.



I think I see the source of the confusion.  We could simply mark all new pieces as "not valid for resale."  This would bring the point home that the NFT is the ownership.   Most people will simply sell the NFT by itself anyway.  As mentioned above, marking new pieces "not valid for resale with the NFT" accomplishes a similar result in terms of supply availability.   I'm open for feedback on this.




You get your number.  But, you will never see multiple copies of the same number for sale because only one person has the NFT.  You can't sell anything without the NFT. The art pieces without the NFT are not validly transferrable.




No worries. It can be confusing.  I think the ah ha moment I had was when I realized that the value of editioned art (in this case prints), is not in the media it is on.  The cost to make a print is very small.  The real value is your right to enjoy something scarce, and even more so, your ability to sell that scarce enjoyment to others.

All of this is an experiment. 

I have one that has the rough edges as well - I wondered why it was like that - didnt realize there was various editions of the same artwork.