or just incredibly lucky. So many successful people or companies are only successful because they were first, sometimes by only a short period. A couple examples: amazon, they were the first to fill a niche and subsequently bought out any vaguely similar businesses within the first couple years of their running. Twitch, previously named justintv, they got in the live streaming business super early and now they are literally just riding on the "i only watch livestreaming for one streamer and they only stream on twitch" to stay in market lead. As a branch of that, ProjectMelody, a stream that was basically the first first western streamer to do "vtuber" stuff. Now she owns a network. She got her start in pornographic streaming actually, she was a novelty. The first of a thing no one had seen been and because of that she gained a really big following. There was literally no one else to go to for that and people are oh so predictable in their sticking to what introduced them to a thing.
For sure, being early to establish a presence and a dominance can e huge advantage- luck can and often is a huge factor in business though- with the paradox being that skill and strategy at reading trends and predicting or understanding peoples behavior is often written off as luck and often people make careers off a lucky break that gets chalked up to “vision” and skill.
Case in point it isn’t so much that so many big names were the “first” as they are the first that most people ever heard of or that had success. Many ideas are put in to play too far ahead of their time for example. Marketing and connections/exposure play a huge role too- history (especially digital history) is full of objectively better or more liked iterations that simply didn’t get the exposure and lost out to inferior versions that either won a popularity contest or integrated themselves to become the defacto norm.
This is essentially what crypto and NFT are trying to do- credit card companies did this successfully going from an obscure niche in the 70’s to something that most Americans literally can’t live their lives without- Facebook and Google provide API’s and integrations like crazy and have done so since early on because the more products rely on their services to function or use their credentials for authorization (sign in with Facebook etc…) the more dominance and security they have. There are enough apps or services relying on these accounts as the sole means of access or to provide access to all but the most basic of features that millions of users have a created interest in keeping those services if they want to continue to use the apps and devices they love. Apple does this with their Apple eco system of course, but they are less focused on getting general users than on getting dedicated users so they restrict the access to their eco system to developers of software and hardware…
… instead of handing it out like candy to entice mass standardization. Instead Apple uses exclusivity and the security that comes with tighter control as a selling point to appeal to a targeted market. Even the automobile and things we take for granted have relied on strategies of using influence or “loss leading” strategies to bring wide adoption of a product and standard that benefitted them. The “product” isn’t enough because it’s too easy to copy functionality unless you have something truly above competition. Monopolizing mediocrity requires strategy- but getting into the position to do so can require a good deal of luck until you are big enough to “bully” the field. At some point most organizations become big enough (if they succeed enough) that their success becomes their downfall- they tend to lose the agility and risk threshold to capitalize on emerging or fringe markets and ideas, and they either stay big but are eclipsed by bigger or go extinct- and the cycle repeats.
one thing about all that, specifically NFTs. They likely arent going to actually succeed in their "genre" goal of well, probably even being anything more than a super niche thing that everyone forgot about. From a technical standpoint they are literally just a digital receipt that can't be destroyed unless the blockchain its written in dies or is forked. From a legal standpoint its dubious if you can even OWN an nft. Legally you can't own a hyperlink. From what i've heard from business lawyers and specifically copyright lawyers NFTs will probably fall under that, not being able to own it because its an address that links you to a "thing" which has no actual link to the nft, the same way that a hyperlink is something that takes you to a webpage of some kind, that has no actual connection to what it takes you too. It's an address point that can have whatever is stored in that point changed at any moment, further, a lot of these NFT artwork things are probably not copyrightable. cont.
Because of a ruling in a case where PETA sued a photographer for using an image that a monkey accidentally took of itself using his camera, in America for something to be copyrightable it must have been created explicitly by a human. This means that anything that's not created by a human, which computer/algorithm/AI generated content would probably not be copyrightable. Many NFTs are computer generated images that are a random selection of like 3 or 4 "options" that the computer picks at random. That might not be something you can own copyright on.
You raise a valid and interesting point- I personally see NFT’s in much the same light- however it all depends on their ability to gain legitimacy. For businesses like these to take off there is a sort of feedback loop- the “major” institutions don’t want to get involved in such business until they have some sort of legal stability- but legal stability usually doesn’t come until large institutions lobby for it OR there is a wide enough adoption that legislators and major corporations feel a disruption and realize they need to get involved to control and regulate things to maintain a status quo of control.
When these entities want new ideas to fail- they’ll tend to avoid interfering because the very act of legislating or regulating will lend legitimacy and thusly draw more attention and more people. Simply put- right now there is little or no tax incentive to the NFT and only tax burden from capital gains etc. you can’t write off loses like other investments. The loose regulations…
.. and as you point out the questionable legal definition and nature of what is even being bought mean that all sorts of acts that would be crimes with clear consequences or processes of mediation don’t exist. Simply put- it’s relatively easy to steal or scam people in the NFT game and have committed no easily discernible crime or no crime at all. That puts off many “mainstream” and large scale investors because it’s just so volatile and the market is so new there isn’t enough data to make long term analysis of trends, profit, demand etc. right now, ignoring people who are simply doing it for ideological reasons etc, it’s mostly a mix of “get rich quick” short term investors looking for a major score because an opportunity to potentially make huge gains on small investments exists; and people who may say it is strategy but are largely hoping that they’ll happen to grab the right NFT’s or carve a space in the industry that will see them set up long term.
I can’t say if NFT’s will ever be big. I think in plain English the whole thing is largely “stupid” for lack of a better word. The technology has some potentials for sure- but trading digital pogs or tying an NFT to physical product and other things are largely gimmicks. People are hunting for the right gimmick that is going to catch on with the public and create viable business models. They may or may not find it. That’s part of the instability- there’s little to no regulation and the the industry is working to establish what the business model and standards will be. People are vying to make themselves the “authority” which is the trusted authentication and certification or distribution name in the NFT game- but without legal frameworks like credit lenders and communications or other segments have- it’s up to perceptions which can change with the wind.
So maybe they’ll catch on and maybe become legitimate someday- when we look at products and companies and services that have add good ROI in the last few decades they are lots of examples of things I think most people would think are inherently “stupid” on their own, but are “smart” in the sense that they are able to appeal or force themselves on a mass of consumers not generally known for making buying decisions based on objective reasoning. If you can make peoples lives easier or sell than on an idea that something enhances their social or financial standing- the mass consumer will generally be willing to play you game. NFT ate at a stage where they are trying to get people in the game. To go big they'll likely need to “clean up” the NFT Wild West a bit and they’ll need to gain some relevance in mainstream life.
We are already seeing some big name companies dipping their toes in the NFT pool, and new business ideas are emerging and being realized all the time. NFT based video games- largely “Pokémon” style or collection games and “gatcha” style games where items, characters etc. can be gained through gameplay random/semi random or cash micro transactions are being introduced with a hook that these assets exist as NFT’s. It’s an interesting idea with potential- asides offering a sort of “cheater mitigation” for large social multiplayer games by making it difficult or impossible to clone or spoof assets- it adds a layer of exclusivity that such games often hinge on and core players eat up- while creating the potential that playing this game could be a means to acquire valuable tradable assets which can be bought and sold at profit.
The idea has lots of hurdles to overcome- one major one being that to take off it really needs a “hit” game- a “Pokémon” or “Genshin Impact” or “StarCraft” etc. halo title that gets a wide range of adoption and popularity. From there these things tend to be natural in capitalism- others imitate, where there is money and popularity there are often collaborations and tie ins which can breed their own franchise deals. There’s a lot of cross market potential in games from shows and movies or animations to comics and toys and spin offs and sequels etc. if we look at an “alternate” hypothetical universe where the original Pokémon games were backed by NFT- which is sort of akin to combining the video game monsters with a matched trading card etc- we could see where NFT’s could gain mainstream
Legitimacy and where there’s ample room to profit.
Of course we have seen these sort of tie ins and few have had much success beyond niche markets. Nintendo has/had “Amiibo” figured that were supposed to unlock exclusive content for players while creating revenue and a “physical” tie to the game. Many toys and games have used the idea of cards or characters that can be scanned to related software or used as keys to unlock content. I don’t have all the numbers to say wether consumers simply don’t care for the gimmick or wether there’s flaw in execution or why exactly they have had limited success before, though we can identify some factors.
Most if not all these digital tie ins have flaws that make circumventing the system or duplication an issue. The integrity of the system or the rights of the owner to access their content have been past issues. The physical nature of the produce is often an issue- they take space, the antithesis of digital entertainment. If you have to carry your army of figurines around to be able to play at a friends or on the go it is inconvenient. While some enjoy the “treasure hunt,” having to physically locate the specific item you want can put off a lot of people. Many like know the sting of getting the wrong color power ranger or ninja turtle or the lame GI JOE etc. because an older gift buyer was confused or simply wasn’t willing to hunt store to store for the exact character you want etc. while NFT is still potential subject to this sort of confusion. It can be mitigated using digital marketplace tools,
And the “hunting” aspects can be removed.
So there are ways where NFT backed gaming could appeal to consumers- though the moral and philosophical implications on gaming and society are their own issues.
It becomes a question of will it catch on?
It could- we have been seeing large titles in gaming have longer service lives in part due to their high costs to develop. Games like Skyrim and GTA or even initial duds like No Mans Sky as well as many MMO like WOW or EVE and may others can go over a decade or more without a new game coming out.
That sort of IP stability can make people more keen on NFT’s as longer term values- for “fad” games or this years hot property people might have less reason or confidence to get involved in NFT’s-
The most valuable call of duty game asset NFT would likely become worthless in a year when the new title came out making any effort or money to acquire it somewhat a wash after that, and not really establishing a concept of value- but then again… there could even be markets there…
So I dunnoh. Tl:dr we have to wait and see if they find the business model and market and are able to get adoption. That’s the whole thing with getting luck/smarts confused for the other- we tend to look at results. If we watch someone doing something today we may say they are stupid- but if that pays off in billions down the road we would then say they were a visionary that saw what no one else did or something. If someone is prudent and makes what would seem to be the wisest decisions to any reasonable and intelligent person at the time, if they fail we tend to say that lacked the skill to predict the changing landscape. Wether we chalk it up to skill or luck usually depends on their track record- if they are someone who has made many or great successes in the past we will tend to attribute failure to bad luck whereas those who have done things “right” and “had bad luck” so have a record of failure will be labeled as unskilled even though they are unlucky. Lol. It shows you why…
.. NFT’s or whatever financial fad can become more than a fad though- people are all about perception. Never forget the stock market- the most “legitimate” investment marketplace for “serious entrepreneurs..” isn’t indexed to any actual performance of a company- it’s a metric of how people FEEL about a company. It’s very common for companies stocks to fall or markets to crash even when performance is as expected or better- because investors perceptions have lost confidence. It’s all adult make believe- like playing super heroes or whatever as kids and shouting “you didn’t get me because I have invincibility!” And someone else saying they have “anti invincibility” and the winner is whoever is more convincing. That’s the world we live in. Lol.
Case in point it isn’t so much that so many big names were the “first” as they are the first that most people ever heard of or that had success. Many ideas are put in to play too far ahead of their time for example. Marketing and connections/exposure play a huge role too- history (especially digital history) is full of objectively better or more liked iterations that simply didn’t get the exposure and lost out to inferior versions that either won a popularity contest or integrated themselves to become the defacto norm.
When these entities want new ideas to fail- they’ll tend to avoid interfering because the very act of legislating or regulating will lend legitimacy and thusly draw more attention and more people. Simply put- right now there is little or no tax incentive to the NFT and only tax burden from capital gains etc. you can’t write off loses like other investments. The loose regulations…
Legitimacy and where there’s ample room to profit.
And the “hunting” aspects can be removed.
It becomes a question of will it catch on?
It could- we have been seeing large titles in gaming have longer service lives in part due to their high costs to develop. Games like Skyrim and GTA or even initial duds like No Mans Sky as well as many MMO like WOW or EVE and may others can go over a decade or more without a new game coming out.
That sort of IP stability can make people more keen on NFT’s as longer term values- for “fad” games or this years hot property people might have less reason or confidence to get involved in NFT’s-
The most valuable call of duty game asset NFT would likely become worthless in a year when the new title came out making any effort or money to acquire it somewhat a wash after that, and not really establishing a concept of value- but then again… there could even be markets there…