Topic: Does the Dark Side of the Art Industry Foretell NFTs Future - page 2. (Read 263 times)

There has been a lot of talk about how the art world was just a way to wash the dirty money that they have. That way they would basically just pay millions of dollars for stuff that they would pay with the dirty money they have.

It is a marvelous method of doing money laundering and this was true while the art was something physical as well, this was going around for a long time and people are not understanding the differences right now we are in the NFT world. Why? Because, there are regular people spending thousands of dollars into stuff that makes no sense at all, and there are people who are doing money laundering on NFT as well by doing the exact the same thing. How could you understand the difference when regular people are making investment wrongly as well? We are in a weird world right now and it will take some time before we understand the difference.

I think it's impossible to find a proof for any money laundering on unregulated market of NFT industry unless they admit themselves or the marketplace requires KYC tomall user. I think I read about your thread about an expensive NFT bought by a random user without any further ado.

I read an article about big scam group using NFT to steal people money, They will pump the value of the NFT they target by buying and selling themselves then abandon then dumping all there NFT once people FOMO and buy it. This is the only I see that might give negative impact in the long run for NFT since NFT value is determined via speculation while fake price pump is free on current marketplace.

I think I have made many comments on the NFT and how they are actually helping the wealthy peeps to launder their money. Though no conclusive proof have been found for this one, then also one can simply tell, rich peeps were using the art exchanges since very long under the name of perseverance and what not so that they can smoothly launder the money and show government a token of favour. This way they can also exempt the taxation for the particular value. They know very well they get to keep rare form of the art which can be easily auctioned out after few years by gaining capital on the same.

Some of them are also into art restoration and donate heavily for this particular thing. I think slowly NFT's will be best home to all riches so that they can also make this transaction more confident and save more money by hiding the tax.

Might look broad to read this but I think that's what NFT's will actually do. No one care if they own a art or not, all they want is good price in exchange!

Frankly, I do not think that NFT tokens can add to any value to Art Industry. In the end, it requires that there be a rich person who is willing to pay money to buy something that only himself knows its value.
In other words, I do not see that such pixels deserve to be paid for in dollars, let alone cryptos.


When there is regulation and taxation of matters, tokens may add to the transparency of the art market.

Generally, if digital art gains a place, NFT tokens will be the primary market for buying and selling.

Most of us here already know that the art industry is just a hub for the wealthy elites to exchange collections that they think is priceless and of value. I wouldn't say though that the art industry as a whole is corrupt as was portrayed in the video. Only those on the uber-extravagant side of it has that corruption the video describes, but the rest of it remains pretty neutral, and is unfortunately deprived of the attention that they deserve.

I believe that some of the corruption exhibited on the elite side of the art industry already exists within the NFT art market. It's not surprising at all, considering that crypto in general is still considered as good vehicles for such activities anyway, though of course people will turn a blind eye on the art industry and will focus more on NFTs because it's crypto and cryptos = bad.

And of course, who the hell pays millions on digital artworks that can easily be reproduced anyway? You can say that NFT art is protected by the blockchain, or that you 'own' that thing, but I don't really see the point of owning them at all.


But at the least you have some pretty cool looking pixels displayed on your screen which you can place on your socials or websites

Hydrogen, I actually appreciated the link to the video.  Even though I didn't like the insinuations or conclusion, I did find aspects of it interesting at least.  I know very little about the art market, and I did watch the whole video (unlike many that other members post links to).

NFTs are a form of art, but a digital one, and I find it absolutely crazy that some people are paying astronomical prices for some of them.  That video maker mentioned that art has no intrinsic value (and he's correct), but usually expensive art pieces have some kind of history behind them that makes the art valuable in the eyes of those wealthy people who buy them.  Whether an artist is dead, under what circumstances the piece was made, the age of it, etc., are all important factors.

But NFTs?  You can't even hang them on your wall unless you print them out or have a digital screen to display them....and they're not physical.  That's what gets me.  Who collects digital anything, even if there's only one of them?  It's certainly a new concept, but it's one that I don't think will stand the test of time.

Is it fair to say, the youtube clip posted in OP does the best job putting the future NFT market into perspective, out of anything that anyone has seen so far? If people have seen better content posted on the future of NFTs anywhere, I would like to see it.

If anyone is unhappy with post in OP. What type of content would they prefer to see posted. I can try to shift to topics people are more enthusiastic about.

Give me examples of what you think good crypto content is.

Who cares?

Who cares?

Also, who cares?  Plus the documentary did mention that the IRS does audit art donated for the purpose of tax write-offs, though only a small percentage of them get audited.  But what do you expect?  The art market is relatively small (which the video states right in the beginning), and there's not a government agency in the US that audits every single transaction or company that's within their purview.  

Here's my impression of that video:  It's made by a professional Youtuber looking to create a "This is an outrage!" type of video, though he's not exactly screaming into his microphone.  He's probably another one of these zoomer/millenial Youtubers so common on that site who think they've stumbled upon something that no one else knows, while in reality he's just telling people what's been known for many years.  

The art market is small; caters to wealthy people; there are only a few auction houses; value is in the eye of the beholder; there's possible corruption (though the video creator doesn't provide a good argument that it's significant); centralization, life is unfair, blah blah blah.  So what's new?  And who benefits from a video like this?  The guy who made it.  And that's why he made it, because he wants to be a Youtuber instead of doing something to really help people (though that's an assumption on my part that this is the only thing he does for a living, but I see these professional Youtubers a lot and it's not unreasonable).

Oh yeah, video sponsored by CuriosityStream.

First off, what the video talks about is simply a single aspect of the art market. So it is rather unfair to call the entire art market a scam. The video is particularly referring to a very small yet very influential portion of the market. Influential not necessarily because the artworks auctioned are highly venerated works of genius artists but because they are very expensive. Expensive, again, not necessarily because of the artworks themselves but because of the people and the companies involved. It is therefore an art market sans the art. That's probably what happens when crazy, rich, vain elites are the main players. They badly need to appear sophisticated.

I don't think the corrupt side of the modern art market has already reached the NFT market. I don't think we can discuss about the same art donation ploy, tax evasion, money laundering, and the likes within the NFT market. What is already reaching the NFT market very early on is the ludicrous price tags. But that's normal when crazy rich elites join the game. They always tend to show off. They have that unquenchable thirst.

The Art Market is a Scam (And Rich People Run It)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ3F3zWiEmc


....


This is a really good, detail oriented, overview of the modern day art industry for a 20 minute watch. Its information and data heavy with both good and relevant statistics.

There are good points made about the art industry remaining unregulated despite some art pieces being valued and sold in the $400 million dollar range. Good points made about the modern art industry being extremely centralized within only 3 nations. Good points made about art lacking intrinsic value. And good points made about organizations like the IRS largely ignoring the art industry.

All current trends in modern day art could illustrate what the future holds for NFTs. While NFTs are relatively new, it may be possible to predict exactly what the future NFT market will resemble, simply by comparing it to modern day analogues like art and collectibles which have many years of history behind them.