Web3 Developers Remain Enthusiastic Despite the Chilly NFT Trading
Reddit Unveils Exciting New NFTs while Crypto Twitter Leaves Threads Unread
Sotheby's Second 3AC NFT Auction Generates $10.9 Million, 'The Goose' Alone Fetches $6.2 Million
If Taylor Swift's first re-recorded album, "Fearless (Taylor's Version)," had been made available as a non-fungible token, I've often wondered what may have happened (NFT).
If you don't know, the top pop-country artist Taylor Swift declared war on the record industry's Scooter Braun in 2019. She fought back by re-recording her own songs when he withheld the masters (i.e., the original recordings of her songs) from her first six studio albums.
She first requested that listeners re-listen to her second studio album, "Fearless," through streaming services through her record label. Her separation from Braun—as well as her independence as an artist—was signaled by the action.
The most discussed use case for music NFTs—connecting fans and artists—is well explained by this classic story of the power disparity in the music business. With bitcoin, middlemen like Braun will have far less initial control over artists like Swift.
NFTs are digital media signatures that are etched onto a blockchain. They provide infinitely reproducible files with a distinct digital identity as well as a mechanism to definitively establish who owns what online.
With the exception of its intended use, "Taylor's Version" is essentially identical to Braun's original. Under the guise of being personally harmed by Braun, Swift urged fans to repurchase or download any songs they may already possess since she was fighting an oppressive music industry.
And it succeeded. According to Billboard, "Taylor's Version" generated more "album units" in its first week of sales than Braun's version did all year. It became the first album that had been re-recorded to ever top the Billboard 200 chart.
![How Taylor Swift and Blockchain Are Making Similar Strides to Transform the Music Industry — Journey to Areté]()
Like many other contemporary celebrities, Swift has considerable power on her followers. She has amassed a fortune thanks to her prowess in promoting products and selling music. However, decades into the social media era, people are starting to understand that the relationship between public figures and their fans may be exploitative and parasocial.
NFTs are a crucial component of achieving parity between fans and artists. They make it possible for individuals to directly support the creation of works of art and to participate in the profits made from album sales and streaming. Red is about to be mine again, but it has always been ours, Taylor said in a tweet announcing "Red (Taylor's Version)." It has, though.
Swifties, who continuously streamed the 10-minute version of her smash song "All Too Well," received nothing. One of them, I was. To be honest, there are some similarities between Swifties and TSA dogs because both groups are aware that they are not being compensated.
If "Taylor's Version" was made available as an NFT, she would be able to give her followers a portion of the proceeds while still accomplishing her aim of recovering control over her music, creating the possibility of a fan base that is financially motivated. However, why would she?
Because you wouldn't pay a TSA dog, Swift and the majority of artists don't actually need to share their money with their followers. They are doing a good job. They are content. They are incredibly faithful. In fact, there is an excess of loyalty that, in the opinion of an artist, is not going to become rare very soon. If something isn't broken, why fix it?
There is still a reputational cost for Taylor Swift to enter the NFT arena, even if we assume that she is not a rapacious money-grabber and wants to reward her fans. Her PR team would have a difficult time explaining smart contracts' importance or how they operate in detail.
She would also have to delve into a political realm she is unfamiliar with, such as the exaggerated environmental worries and the absurd notion that the entire crypto community is represented by right-leaning crypto bros. We're talking about suicide, if not career self-destruction.
It would be ridiculous to believe that Swift hasn't thought about music NFTs despite her absence from the general public conversation on cryptocurrencies. She undoubtedly observed several of her famous pals endorsing cryptocurrency during the bull run the year before.
And it's unlikely that she's still stupid even if she didn't lead NFTs in 2019. Her current record company recently bought a Bored Ape. Not to mention Bella Hadid debuting her own NFT line, one of Swift's closest friends. Swift very likely knows about NFTs now, even if she was unaware of them in 2019.
![NFT Music: A New Era Of Performing Songs Has Arrived - Does It Make Traditional Music Consumption Irrelevant? | Bitcoinist.com]()
However, the political aspects alone provide a strong business rationale for not proceeding.
To be fair to Swift, not disclosing NFTs was the simplest course of action. Why should she have to demonstrate that liberals can gain from cryptocurrency just as much as conservatives if all she wanted to do was sell songs and celebrate her success with her fans? It could "get lost in translation" or be interpreted as "asking for too much."
When she released "Taylor's Version," Swift was criticizing the entertainment industry's status quo, where producers and distributors continue to hold disproportionate power. A cynic may argue that she was only portraying herself as a persecuted girlboss who made money while posing as an independent, charitable, and feminist.
Presenting the financialization of fandom is a potential strategy for pop singers to take a principled stance against the conventional music business. utilizing cryptography for its intended purpose. Is it unexpected that this hasn't occurred in a significant way yet? Not really, given the individuals in question.
Celebrities are present in the crypto industry; nevertheless, they are there for the wrong reasons. The $300,000 Bored Ape NFT Madonna purchased is identical to the Birkin bag she also owns, and Steve Aoki's personal collection of 10 Bored Ape NFTs is not promoting widespread adoption.
How celebrities are given access to so many investment options without considering widespread adoption astounds me. They receive a first-class pass to the metaverse, but the passengers they are bringing along essentially land underwater.
The star Charlie Sheen participated in a panel at the NFT LA conference in March 2022, although he had no idea what he was talking about.
The Grammy-nominated R&B singer Macy Gray, who has experimented with music NFTs herself, stated exactly the same thing on another panel: "I don't know anything about crypto." Some are better at repeating talking points, but few are aware of the seismic change that cryptography might bring to the arts.
If you don't know, the top pop-country artist Taylor Swift declared war on the record industry's Scooter Braun in 2019. She fought back by re-recording her own songs when he withheld the masters (i.e., the original recordings of her songs) from her first six studio albums.
She first requested that listeners re-listen to her second studio album, "Fearless," through streaming services through her record label. Her separation from Braun—as well as her independence as an artist—was signaled by the action.
The most discussed use case for music NFTs—connecting fans and artists—is well explained by this classic story of the power disparity in the music business. With bitcoin, middlemen like Braun will have far less initial control over artists like Swift.
NFTs are digital media signatures that are etched onto a blockchain. They provide infinitely reproducible files with a distinct digital identity as well as a mechanism to definitively establish who owns what online.
With the exception of its intended use, "Taylor's Version" is essentially identical to Braun's original. Under the guise of being personally harmed by Braun, Swift urged fans to repurchase or download any songs they may already possess since she was fighting an oppressive music industry.
And it succeeded. According to Billboard, "Taylor's Version" generated more "album units" in its first week of sales than Braun's version did all year. It became the first album that had been re-recorded to ever top the Billboard 200 chart.
Like many other contemporary celebrities, Swift has considerable power on her followers. She has amassed a fortune thanks to her prowess in promoting products and selling music. However, decades into the social media era, people are starting to understand that the relationship between public figures and their fans may be exploitative and parasocial.
NFTs are a crucial component of achieving parity between fans and artists. They make it possible for individuals to directly support the creation of works of art and to participate in the profits made from album sales and streaming. Red is about to be mine again, but it has always been ours, Taylor said in a tweet announcing "Red (Taylor's Version)." It has, though.
Swifties, who continuously streamed the 10-minute version of her smash song "All Too Well," received nothing. One of them, I was. To be honest, there are some similarities between Swifties and TSA dogs because both groups are aware that they are not being compensated.
If "Taylor's Version" was made available as an NFT, she would be able to give her followers a portion of the proceeds while still accomplishing her aim of recovering control over her music, creating the possibility of a fan base that is financially motivated. However, why would she?
Getting political
There is still a reputational cost for Taylor Swift to enter the NFT arena, even if we assume that she is not a rapacious money-grabber and wants to reward her fans. Her PR team would have a difficult time explaining smart contracts' importance or how they operate in detail.
She would also have to delve into a political realm she is unfamiliar with, such as the exaggerated environmental worries and the absurd notion that the entire crypto community is represented by right-leaning crypto bros. We're talking about suicide, if not career self-destruction.
It would be ridiculous to believe that Swift hasn't thought about music NFTs despite her absence from the general public conversation on cryptocurrencies. She undoubtedly observed several of her famous pals endorsing cryptocurrency during the bull run the year before.
And it's unlikely that she's still stupid even if she didn't lead NFTs in 2019. Her current record company recently bought a Bored Ape. Not to mention Bella Hadid debuting her own NFT line, one of Swift's closest friends. Swift very likely knows about NFTs now, even if she was unaware of them in 2019.
However, the political aspects alone provide a strong business rationale for not proceeding.
To be fair to Swift, not disclosing NFTs was the simplest course of action. Why should she have to demonstrate that liberals can gain from cryptocurrency just as much as conservatives if all she wanted to do was sell songs and celebrate her success with her fans? It could "get lost in translation" or be interpreted as "asking for too much."
When she released "Taylor's Version," Swift was criticizing the entertainment industry's status quo, where producers and distributors continue to hold disproportionate power. A cynic may argue that she was only portraying herself as a persecuted girlboss who made money while posing as an independent, charitable, and feminist.
Real rewards
Celebrities are present in the crypto industry; nevertheless, they are there for the wrong reasons. The $300,000 Bored Ape NFT Madonna purchased is identical to the Birkin bag she also owns, and Steve Aoki's personal collection of 10 Bored Ape NFTs is not promoting widespread adoption.
How celebrities are given access to so many investment options without considering widespread adoption astounds me. They receive a first-class pass to the metaverse, but the passengers they are bringing along essentially land underwater.
The star Charlie Sheen participated in a panel at the NFT LA conference in March 2022, although he had no idea what he was talking about.
The Grammy-nominated R&B singer Macy Gray, who has experimented with music NFTs herself, stated exactly the same thing on another panel: "I don't know anything about crypto." Some are better at repeating talking points, but few are aware of the seismic change that cryptography might bring to the arts.
In reality, people do say "all's well that ends well." It's difficult to think that most celebrities have not yet heard of cryptocurrency at this time. But do musicians like Taylor Swift firmly reject the idea of smart contracts and music NFTs, or are they apathetic?
I think it's a combination of both. Are Swifties happy to see a girlboss thrive or do they secretly feel that they deserve some sort of reward for constantly playing "Taylor's Version"?
I suppose we'll never know for sure why Swift turned a blind eye to NFTs, but after the dust settles and the political collateral damage is no longer a concern, I suspect—or dare I say predict—that we'll see celebrities heavily promoting crypto and NFTs.
I can already hear Kris Jenner's cheery voice announcing a partnership with an arbitrary layer 1: "We've partnered with Cardano for the Kardashian Koin digital collection" or Taylor Swift announcing the availability of her utility NFT collection on Polygon in order to "finally be able to share success with my fans." Would this be considered gaslighting after all these years of disregard?
TSA dogs won't ever understand that they aren't being paid, but fans will in ten years, or even five. Once they do, a brand-new musical and artistic epoch will start, giving Taylor another memory that will severely harm her.
-----------
