Topic: random economic ideas (Read 115 times)

NFT are like only the licence/patent/trademark of something
my idea is more like owning shares in a company(celebrity)

historic tulips and NFT wont be and havnt been described as 'a bubble'
as 'bubble' is about the price value speculation. not the item itself

tulip mania have been and NFT might be described as a 'fad' (temporary trendy thing)
bubbles are about the price of those things. not the thing itself

i think that some popular people will sell themselves as a brand. (like company shares)
take sports
the sports star gets paid a salary. and separately people are 'buying their contract' based on their skills/performance over many games/teams

organising this ranking/valuation into something more official that can get the fans involved and benefits the celeb/sportsman. rather than the team managers. could be a good thing

other things like any random citizen. instead of a credit report to base their risk. they could have a share scheme. where they win points for education level or employment length. or employment promotions.
where friends/family/coworkers can invest in their friend/family. and profit if they succeed

il leave you guys to poke and prod the many aspects that can come from this

NFTs seem intent to create value out of thin air.  

What if celebrity data saved in a blockchain & sold in markets held intrinsic value? The complete DNA of celebrities.

I don't know if anyone would be surprised if 23andme collected, stored or sold the DNA of those who utilized its service, considering how valuable the data could be. Privacy and data integrity concerns don't hold the weight they once did.

Looks like twitter CEO Jack Dorsey is hopping on the bandwagon.


....


There could be a coordinated, organized, effort to artificially inflate the value of NFTs.

Perhaps a prime example of the modern trend to label everything a bubble. Except things that actually are bubbles, as NFTs could potentially be.

Lol... Yes tax them more.

I would prefer to rate celeb with the positive influence they have made to their people, community, country and world at large. Celeb are usually role models, so if they have influenced followers to positive living then they enter tops in my mind rather than celeb not being patriotic, self centered and only interested to pack whatever money they can rather than image building.

Yes this is already happening, the big movies, their budgets, their casts etc.. they all secure a financial funding from small small people and they do give them a bigger amount in return ofcourse. The percentage etc all is being agreed on by them and at the end of the course it depends on the film 🎥. They make profits depending upon the amount of fame the picture gets and how much the celebs earn is also very strategically planned.
-other celebrities like : Ronaldo, Messi etc they are also tokenized by different companies, by different people , people can directly bet on them and not the match to be precise. This is a high end thing going on in the gambling, you can also do this though sports book etc... Other than that that's what pays the income, that's where the funds come from it's all a big business transaction in the end.

I get it, so the bigger the fandom the celebrity is, the bigger the income stream that he/she is going to receive. I guess that it is not a bad idea and not to be commie dude but don't you think that giving more money to these celebrity is a bad idea? I mean they already have a big money from their contracts and they still have this? Don't you think it is a bit too much and I don't think that celebrities don't like the idea that the fans own them because they are still individuals humans that have feelings too.

I think what you are pertaining is producers or agents or slavery which is worse, I might be wrong though. They can sell it but it is up to the management company that own the rights of the movie if they are going to sell it.

I don't quite get it,but I think that the main flaw in this method is the focus on fame.
A bad actor can be really famous and therefore have a high token price,while another actor can be really good,but not that famous,so his token price will be lower.It's all about being in the "mainstream" and attracting the attention of the public,which isn't always a good thing.Independent movies will suffer to get the attention of the crowd,while Hollywood blockbusters will get bigger budgets.
I kinda like ICOs being used as a method for movie crowdfunding,but creating a token for every celebrity seems wrong.

budgets are always a problem.
movie budgets are filled with high labour costs of actors.
an average TV show has budgets of $20k-$1m per episode per actor. where as movies are $1m-$100m

so subsidising a actors income via fanbase share trades can make actors want to do roles for less upfront income to then make the movie X more profitable to then get rewarded on the x profit factor of the shares formula

That is an interesting idea, I would like to own a piece of a celebrity  

The same could be done for TV actors aswell, because since Netflix TV Shows become much more important. It might also because of the pandemic that we can't really go to movies anymore but I kind of miss the block buster movies. The new James Bond movie has been postponed so many times already. What I am wondering is if it wouldn't be cheaper to just sell it to Netflix or so and try to get some cash in now? Nobody knows how long the corona pandemic is going to last and when the cinemas are going to open again. Maybe the whole movie industry has to start changing their plans and focus more on TV shows?

there are ratings and Qscores and other metrics. where the director pays the actor a income. to be in the directors movie..
but this is another income stream for the actor outside of the income per role. based on his fanbase and success.
where his fans can be involved. and the fans can feel like they own a part of their celeb


other things you economic people can play with is things like:
forget the 500m token limit. instead have a movie of 1:20:35 (4835 seconds)
where the movie creates:
21,750,000 luke hemsporth tokens
    hemsworth: 45% of movie(36:15(2175secs)) =10000 tokens per second screentime

where if a actor has only done say 10 movies with average screen time. there may only be ~220m tokens to their name

ill leave you economic people to thrash out different things.

Aren't we already doing that to celebrities? Although we don't call it as token but fame, the more they are famous then the more they are going to get paid for their works, kind of like how a painter is paid. It is a good idea but with the current social climate, I don't think that blatantly putting a price tag on a celebrity is a good thing because of all the snowflakes that is on the Internet. Better yet if we just tax this kind of people higher than those in the working class.

every couple years or so. i throw out some idea's to let the open community think about and develop if they want. no ownership from me. just some random things to inspire others to play around with to make their own.

so heres my latest thoughts
tokenising celebrities

imagine you can rate a celebrity based on:
budget of tv show/movie
profit of tv show.movie
income of celeb
minutes featured in said tv/movie
=influence of celeb in comparison to above

EG
have an index of 1bill
movie budget: 0.3 of index($300m)
movie profit 1.2 of index($1.2b)
celeb income: 0.06 of index ($60m)
celeb minutes: 45% of movie time

then rate the celeb influence by calculating it as
income / 45% *100 = income if movie was all about them..(mainstar value)
 x 4 as their influence on profitability

so their first movie a star only in 45% of movie that is 4x profitable has a value of $533mill of the $1.2b

now.. lets tokenise it
movie director. the celebs agents. and some independant 'critics' decentrally agree on the calculated total. to award the celeb a $533m rating for the movie
each celeb can only have 500million tokens ever(fan shares)
making each share at the point of their first movie release $1.06each
the ongoing value is based on adding on the value of the movies combined

movie 2(a flop):
movie budget: 0.4(of index)($400m)
movie profit 0.5(of index)($0.5b)
celeb income: 0.06(of index)($60m)
celeb minutes: 60% of movie time
=income/60%*100*1.25=$125m value

the value of 533+125 for the only 2 movies the star was in is $658m
so each token value is now $1.316each
more movies a celeb does the better his token value will be.
...
this then allows celebs to 'sell' themselves. where minimum bid will be 1% above their value
fans can buy shares in them. and if the actor is successful. so are the fans.
celeb gets 100% of ICO and then gets a 1% tx fee per trade
celebs first movie roll their ICO is $1.06 ($533m extra income if they sell all coins)
later their asset VALUE could be $1.316 where the celeb would get $0.01316 per trade while it circulates between his fans
or if they didnt sell all ICO coins. they can sell their holding for $1.316 instead of $1.06

other factors are then at play. the loyalty/speculative market:
if demand for a celeb is high. potential fans may be willing to pay $1.60 for the $1.316 asset
fans hedging the celeb isnt about to retire and will make many movies that dont flop
so a celeb may get 0.016 tx fee instead of 0.013 and the current fan can get 1.584(of $1.60) instead of 1.316
the celeb however can only sell his shares at his asset value.

ill let you economic people game theory out the speculative ups and downs.