Are they trying to say that NFTs are some kind of bullshit scam that should have dissolved into the ether like the crypto bro's cocaine-fueled manic state that spawned them in the first place? How shocking and unpredictable.

The whole "web3" bs has always just been a shabby scam, and people fell for it

I thought the whole point of NFTs and the blockchain is that it's decentralized, and you can use "smart contracts" for things like this. How is one company able to decide to change it?

Fortunately, nothing of actual value was lost. Just fools being parted from their money.

It's broken now? I'd say that's a bold assumption that it ever worked in the first place.

Edit: to be clear, I mean that it is and always has been an impossible problem. The only reason it ever worked is because some broker company wanted it as a feature, not because anything compelled them to give original artists a cut. And that's before you consider the question, "but how do you know the NFT was made by the original artist?"

How is this Web3 scam still a thing? I thought I would finally stop hearing it after the crash but it just keeps coming back. The only people who will get rich from this are the scammers themselves.

"Web3" was supposed to enrich a bunch of assholes. It was never meant to do anything else.

This is now a recurring feature of tech vaporware. Claiming something that is clearly shit is okay because it does some good, or something that is uselesslt frivolous and speculative will have and important function and use-case in the future.

My condolences to those that have been made fools by this - we all need to keep an eye out for these patterns going forward.

I wanna add: prosecute and sue these thieves. Sue the people who took money to promote these lies. They all deserve to have those ill-gotten funds ripped away.

To me that whole royalties spiel was always just marketing to bait non-technical people into adopting the NFT system.

I've never seen anyone build and use an enforcable mechanism for a multi transaction chain to pay out to one original address repeatedly. I think at the very least you would always have to hold the NFT in a multi sig wallet between the artist and the current owner, for the artist to have a mechanism to keep enforcing their royalty claims. That would also require involvement of the artist in every further transaction.

Maybe I'm missing something like a smart contract that can fabricate new multi sig transactions on demand with pre-approval of the artist somehow... If anyone knows of something like that I'd be interested in the technical details.

A. I don't actually feel bad for anyone because if you're involved in NFTs in any way, you're begging to be scammed. There is no legitimate use for NFTs.

B. This seems like blatant illegal fraud. You can't just advertise "get this cut of all transactions forever" to get people to join, then say "just kidding" once they include their "art" in your shitty scam. They're entitled to their shitty cut of your shitty transaction, and you can't hand wave it away by pointing to fine print when you sold the product very clearly making that claim.

Who could have seen this coming? Who could have foreseen that all of Web3 was a ponzi scheme that would say anything to get people to pretend hashes on a blockchain is worth 100s of 1000s of dollars. Who? WHO?

It sure sounds like that wasn't a feature of NFTs, but a feature of OpenSea

This is the best summary I could come up with:

One of the big promises of NFTs was that the artist who originally made them could get a cut every time their piece was resold.

Starting March 2024, those fees will essentially be tips — an optional percentage of a sale price that sellers can choose to give the original artist.

The marketplace will continue enforcing the fees on certain existing collections until March 2024, at which point they’ll become optional on all sales.

Critics say it will hurt small artists and undermines creators’ ability to control their relationship with the people who buy their work.

OpenSea CEO Devin Finzer criticized the fees’ “ineffective, unilateral enforcement” and said that creators will find other ways to monetize their work.

“Our role in this ecosystem is to empower innovation beyond a single use case or business model,” he writes in the blog post announcing that OpenSea will no longer support the ecosystem’s primary business model.

I'm a bot and I'm open source!

pfffffffffffffffff

I want to be sympathetic, but honestly, I'm just not.

Web3 was a mistake from the beginning.

Except people has been stealing art to do NFTs without paying the artists from day 1?

Ik the technology is useful, but selling shit I can screen shot is fucking pointless. If you want to buy shit from the artist, just buy their shit.

I thought the royalty payments were enforced by the contract?

Obligatory rather funny If NFTs Were Honest | Honest Ads https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG_v4bb2e4k which sets this out, a year ago

That was just many parts of the grift. Also when that feature was very rarely used, it was ironically a regular web 2.0 feature that was pushed between participating centralized MFT marketplaces. You know, because it was never actually decentralized.