So creators and performers can have their NFTs which would have a value
We are thinking of tokenization of SLR, especially once we add more haptics and multiuser features (shared viewing in VR, jerking each other, etc). Also we should start giving performers a share unrelated to their production payments.
I for 1 hear the letters NFT and immediately lose interest, and I don't think I'm the only 1.
NFT the 3 letter boner killer
dojimmy it's funny. Handy comes out with a tokenized system for scripts, every one loves it.
But if you want to use a better system, NFT's, every one loses interest.
The T in NFT laterally means Token. It's a lot like giving digital content physical traits, like buying a DVD that only works if you are the one pressing Play. Which you can't do with 'normal' tokens.
NFT's would greatly help against piracy. Our scripters suffer the most from piracy. NFT's would stop it.
@doublevr You keep asking people about stuff they don't understand. :/
dojimmy Right, so a token system that has been used for many things is great. But with extra built in security, somehow is bad.
We would not be using them what Ubisoft is using them for. (I assume digital game assets with a marketplace.). NFT's have numerous applications. I don't even know why the user's input is asked for as we would be using them without the users even being ware of them. This would be an internal system to reduce costs and increase security. Not an asset you can trade/resell.
Rakly3 In what universe does everyone love the Handy token scripts? Certainly not the one that customers reside in. I have seen the response to that DRM nonsense to be universally negative. No one wants to have a rented, short term token that stops working when you no longer have a subscription - except content providers who can't recognize when their greed has gotten the best of them.
Rakly3 The T in NFT laterally means Token. It's a lot like giving digital content physical traits, like buying a DVD that only works if you are the one pressing Play.
Which is bullshit, so NFT should become the new DRM, only to avoid the letters DRM because everyone already knows how bullshit DRM is?
I have a year's worth of favorited videos I've been daily previewing and saving for watching when lighter vr-glasses release (Shiftall MeganeX), so I can really enjoy those hour-long JAV sessions. If ever you decide to replace favorites with FTN's TNF's or whatever they're called, please OH PLEASE, do not let us lose our hand-picked fav collections. I don't know how that would work, but having them backed-up, or transferred to new watchlists broken down by creator/studio would suffice. I might start doing this now actually just in case; better safe than sorry. Thanks for putting this question out there and being open for discussion.
I was really hoping this was satire when I saw the title, but my answer is absolutely NOT. There is zero benefit to this, and if the impact on the digital art side of the Internet has taught me anything, it's that this only fuels piracy more rather than prevent it.
NFTs are almost universally hated, enjoyed by only the relatively small minority who have managed to turn a quick buck off them. More and more, companies are finding they have to quickly backtrack on the decision to use NFTs because the backlash from their communities is (understandably) massive. There's just no world in which this can be a good idea.
Rakly3 firstly I used ubisoft as an example for my reason for looking into how NFT worked. At no point did I say SLR were planning to go go down the same route.
As for this tokenized system for the handy that everyone loves, but no 1 actually knows about and those that do don't seem to have good word to say about it.
And if SLR are going forward with this regardless thats entirely their choice, but as a customer it's nice to know that an idea that has been regected by 98% of users on the forum is something that you as company are implementing just because you either think we want it, or you think it'll make money. I would much prefer efforts were spent on things the community have actually shown interest in.
I don't understand what would change if you did this. I have a lifetime subscription. I have a favorites list. Will you change those things? If not, guess I don't care what you do, even if I don't understand it.
On the other hand, if you take away something I've already paid for, I would not welcome that.
dojimmy nice to know that an idea that has been regected by 98% of users on the forum
I’m rather puzzled by your math here. I counted 4 rather vocal users in this thread, with you being the most. 98%? 
as another SLR user, and one who understands the potential of NFTs, I find myself open to learning more about what they’d have in mind before agreeing to this knee jerk reaction from the considerably fewer than 98% of SLR forum.
dojimmy Ubisoft pulled the same bs argument, hence my inital research.
Gaming is precisely where crypto, blockchain, and NFTs make a ton of sense and will become game changing. These games that create an in-game economy with in-game items for purchase… they are lacking right now because people that spend $50 on weapons upgrades, or skins, or what have you, once they are done with the game they can never get those sunken costs back out. Once games move towards these being NFTs that are owned by the player, and can be resold at a later time to someone else on open markets, who then have provable ownership, well that changes everything.
Here's my thing. I am a programmer and I've been in the crypto space for many years now. What you need to ask yourself is what goal are you solving for here? What business opportunities arise? What customer benefits are provided?
If you just have a shallow answer it can be likened to the .com fever. Just crypto fever.
Lifetime subscriptions should be an nft. That makes it a transferable asset for the user. That allows the company to use blockchain tech to verify the user has access to the service. Solid use case which for nft's which nobody is doing because... monke pics. It could allow providing access to users on other services using that same nft. Multi-network porn site deals comes to mind but traditionally they weren't ever actually that good to me. I should add: Lifetime sub when a user doesn't do anything crypto is still a thing that has to be handled. At least until it is more universal.
Replacing favorites with nft's, to me, sounds horrendous. You take away a valuable feature and replace it with something serving a different purpose. Even if you tokenized videos and we had to pay for each one or whatever... within the list of my collection I would want favorites.
Tokenize every video. Makes sense. Provides a solid base to ensure user A has access to that (whether by purchase or subscription). If other producers were on board and getting their fair cut of sales SLR users could go to their service and still access that video. That kind of thing should exist. Crypto does facilitate it more simply that traditional code methods would. In fact all data on a video could be on-chain and global to all services. Obviously certain issues there but globally share user feedback on something could be pretty cool. Today, we just have the same video on infinite distributors each with their whole own community uniquely ranking, commenting, etc. Hell if you did it would be the first true 'multiverse'. I don't even think zucker understands the concept. Silo'd private ecosystems is just a garbage facelift on what already exists. It should not be bound by private entities. You wouldn't store video files themselves on-chain at this stage, to be clear. We're not there yet.
You'd need to stress test HARD. Even basic account queries against a blockchain is completely dependent on that chain functioning at an acceptable speed... which often gets muddy. I don't know what kind of traffic SLR generates but you need to test with a sustained load like that against the desired chain. They make a lot of claims they don't consistently deliver on. Caching and such will come into play of course.
I think there is plenty of opportunity to gamify SLR with crypto, or in gamify it in general. I also thing there is a lot of room to creatively innovate. Just make sure it makes sense. It needs to be seen by solid minded people and not simple lambros or idiots who understand the lameness of the hype without understanding the technology.
I can talk at length on this stuff but will stop here. Cheers.
argyle43 my assumption of 98% came from every time NFT gets bought up on this and other vr forums its the same 3 people that support it while everyone else says how pointeless it sounds.
For example
https://forum.sexlikereal.com/d/2321-anyone-into-nfts-and-blockchain/86
dojimmy nearly every gamer i speak to is hoping its a passing fad that will fail
well respectfully I don’t see that happening. Crypto currency and NFTs are simply two applications of blockchain technology. Like the Internet, blockchain is here to stay, and like the early Internet it’s currently in a Wild West state full of fads and pets.com stupidity. The bear market we’re seeing (in crypto and with monkey pic NFTs, etc.) is the crypto bubble bursting under the pressure of other economic forces currently underway. I predict it will clean up / purge out most of the bullshit and scams, and over the next year or two the only projects left standing will be legitimate ones that will move blockchain into the future that changes a lot of industries. With those changes will come better understanding and accelerating adoption. Gaming will be one of the big industries that changes for the reasons I described above. I guess only time will tell who’s predicting this correctly though.
argyle43 i agree if done right and in the right places there is definetly intersting possibilitys from NFT and block chain, i just have this vision of so many companys, sites, games etc handling it so poorly, and if that carries on so much of the market share will become dissatisfied to the point they move their attention and purchases elsewhere.
