So, Miles_DF did a thing and people are understandably upset about it. I didn't expect anyone to bother uploading it, but since someone did, I've been wondering if it's worth creating a tag that might contextualise this sort of thing to an outside observer. Ergo: meta tag minted, applicable to posts which have specifically been made for or deliberately attached to Foundation or its contemporaries.
Point is: I thought this might be something people would want to blacklist, and it's a bit more specific than the general nft tag. Maybe they should be aliased, idk.

Thoughts?

Why did it get nuked? I get the hate for NFTs in the community (mostly from stolen content and copyright violations), but this is the conscious choice of the artist to create an NFT, either to be sold or reserved for oneself on the market.
They have the right to do so, and if people hate it merely for the fact it is an NFT, then they should have just blacklisted it.

A specific tag would be helpful, but I don't know how it would be defined/implemented; i.e., Does it need to have a source link to a marketplace where it is listed as an NFT? Or does it merely need to reference NFTs?

thegreatwolfgang said:
Why did it get nuked?

It didn't, OP just made a typo in the URL link. https://e621.net/post/3136782 -> post instead of posts. post #3136782

Regarding the existence of a minted meta tag, I'm not sure. Conceptually, it makes sense. Practically, I wonder if it could possibly serve as an incentive for third parties to mint posts and tag them as such afterwards.

gattonero2001 said:
It didn't, OP just made a typo in the URL link. https://e621.net/post/3136782 -> post instead of posts. post #3136782

To be fair, Miles_DF did a pretty smart move there. Listed the artwork as a purchasable NFT on market, but still retained the copyrights to the artwork and character.
In reality, while the buyer can "own" the piece, the artist still kept the copyrights for it and may dictate how it is displayed or used.

It's like paywalling for content on Patreon, but at the same time, making it publicly accessible AND putting a pretty large price tag on it.
Hell, if I could scam people of $440371.80 and still keep my copyright, NFTs are great then. I wonder if this still counts as commercial content. 🤔

For sale at... just over $430,000. I guess charging $5000 to draw a single character just doesn't cut it anymore.

It doesn't really make any sense to me. An NFT is basically just a glorified receipt, it's not the thing itself it's just a note in some digital ledger linking to the thing, and "minting" said thing is simply making and offering said note. Importantly, such a thing can be made at any time, it can be revoked if not yet sold, it can be lost, stolen, etc. It's about as useful as a has_a_certificate_of_authenticity tag (where the authenticity is judged by the crypto's central authority). It's completely pointless as a tag.

faucet said:
For sale at... just over $430,000. I guess charging $5000 to draw a single character just doesn't cut it anymore.

the point is to find some finance bro rube with more money than sense, so a high price tag is very useful

thegreatwolfgang said:
Why did it get nuked?
...
A specific tag would be helpful, but I don't know how it would be defined/implemented

gattonero2001 said:
Practically, I wonder if it could possibly serve as an incentive for third parties to mint posts and tag them as such afterwards.

Oops, link fixed.

The idea is that minted identifies media which is intended to be and has been used for an NFT. That could be inferred if:

• The media itself states so
• The description on a first-party source states so, or contains a link to a marketplace listing (unless the post is condemning the listing)
• The author added a marketplace listing to the sources
• A marketplace listing which is known to belong to the author is listed.

Not an exhaustive list necessarily, but I think these would be the most concrete qualifiers. I don't think just having an NFT listing in the sources should automatically qualify, since it's always possible that it was minted without their permission. I can see the issue though - no such thing as bad publicity. Can't address the issue without granting it more exposure. Hopefully my listed qualifiers would exclude third-party shennanigans.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Listed the artwork as a purchasable NFT on market, but still retained the copyrights to the artwork and character.
...
It's like paywalling for content on Patreon, but at the same time, making it publicly accessible AND putting a pretty large price tag on it.

I've said it before elsewhere: "paying for the right to access exclusive content" and "wasting money on a publicly visible image for what amounts to little more than tenuous bragging rights" are not equivalent. Also I don't know that it does anything for you copyright-wise.

Addendum: I would redefine the existing nft tag for in-media depiction or commentary.

watsit said:
It's about as useful as a has_a_certificate_of_authenticity tag (where the authenticity is judged by the crypto's central authority). It's completely pointless as a tag.

The point is that it's worth examining art in the context that surrounds it - who made it, what motivated them, what statement are they trying to make? Oliver Twist makes even more sense when you realise that Charles Dickens spent his childhood in a workhouse.

Considering how reviled the things are, it would allow people who find the idea distasteful to better curate their browsing; and if you're just here to stimulate the monkeh brain with pritty pictures, you don't lose anything by it.

Also "crypto's central authority" is an egregious oxymoron. Theoretically, the whole point of crypto is that it's decentralised, but I won't pretend to know much about the technicals of blockchain.

lurkmore said:
The idea is that minted identifies media which is intended to be and has been used for an NFT.

That's a bit too unrelated to the image, IMO. That's like having a commission art or patreon art tag. How the image is used in some other small corner of the web isn't relevant information to this site or to what's seen in the image, so there's no real reason to tag it except to flare up drama. Especially if you're considering the creator's intention for the image, which can change on a whim, management of the tag becomes a nightmare. e.g. MDF could decide tomorrow or next week that he's getting too much blowback and remove the NFT offer, meaning the tag can become invalid at any time. Any image can also become valid for the tag at any time if the artist decides to try NFTs at some random future point. And whether or not a given image has been used for an NFT isn't going to be easy to track either since you'll have to find who supposedly has it.

Given how easy it would be for a post to erroneously have or not have the tag due to external changes, and how little useful information such a tag provides to the post, better to not bother at all, IMO.

lurkmore said:
Considering how reviled the things are, it would allow people who find the idea distasteful to better curate their browsing

By tagging things about the image itself, not how the image is used elsewhere. We don't tag when an image has the pay-for-download link enabled on DeviantArt, or when the original's for sale on the artist's site, or when it was originally for Patreon (the patreon tag is only for when things relating to the service are visible in the image, be it a logo or some other visual mark; it's a mistag if a post it tagged patreon and there's nothing patreon-related visible in an image).

lurkmore said:
Also "crypto's central authority" is an egregious oxymoron. Theoretically, the whole point of crypto is that it's decentralised, but I won't pretend to know much about the technicals of blockchain.

You need an authority to validate claims. Someone has to be able to check and verify that you have a valid stake, and whoever controls the system to do those checks and verifications is the authority from which trust in the system is derived. A fully decentralized system would have no authority and no trust, as anyone can set up a node to claim whatever they want and it'd be no more true or false than the next person's claims.

watsit said:
That's a bit too unrelated to the image, IMO. That's like having a commission art or patreon art tag. How the image is used in some other small corner of the web isn't relevant information to this site or to what's seen in the image, so there's no real reason to tag it except to flare up drama.

Again, commissions/Patreon and NFTs are not equivalent. I'd argue that the discussion around NFTs is heated enough to consider them contentious content, and at that point, it becomes worth using for the sake of minimising drama.

As for intention; an author can change their mind about or apologise for something, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Art exists as a snapshot of the circumstances in the moment it was created.

lurkmore said:
Again, commissions/Patreon and NFTs are not equivalent.

We're talking about tags relating to an image's external use. No, commissions/Patreon and NFTs themselves aren't equivalent, but tagging based on whether an image was monetized by being a commission, patreon post, or an NFT, is.

lurkmore said:
I'd argue that the discussion around NFTs is heated enough to consider them contentious content, and at that point, it becomes worth using for the sake of minimising drama.

If people bring up NFTs unprompted in the comments that leads to trolling and drama, the admins can deal with it. Having an otherwise pointless tag that points out a given image is being minted for NFTs, when they may otherwise be unaware, is the opposite of minimizing.

lurkmore said:
As for intention; an author can change their mind about or apologise for something, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Art exists as a snapshot of the circumstances in the moment it was created.

Sure, but that still means an image's status as minted can change on a whim. If the artist originally made an NFT for a given image, making the post get tagged minted, but then changes their mind and no longer makes the NFT available, the minted tag would no longer apply since the image would no longer be minted. Then maybe they decide later to mint it again, making the tag apply again, then removes it again, making the tag not apply again.

There's a reason the site uses a TWYS policy, with few exceptions. To avoid the muddy waters of external volatile information. I do not see a minted tag being useful enough to be such an exception. Just the opposite really, with it being more of a liability (in the making-more-work-for-staff sense, due to an increase in drama comments and more work to ensure the tag is properly applied, with no benefit to doing so).

lurkmore said:
I'd argue that the discussion around NFTs is heated enough to consider them contentious content, and at that point, it becomes worth using for the sake of minimising drama.

This is as equally likely to minimize drama as something like artist_is_a_zoophile, artist_is_an_ancap, etc.

minted_(lore), anyone?