Here is an interesting interview discussion about NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and the world of luxury brands. It's a conversation between Benoit Pagotto, cofounder of the NFT brand RTFKT Studios, and Ian Rogers, who is Chief Experience Officer at the blockchain startup Ledger (he was previously the Chief Digital Officer at LVMH). Below is an excerpt that stood out to me. It starts to speak to the potential of NFTs for fashion/luxury brands. Rogers also makes an interesting comparison to the music industry in that things are playing out very differently today compared to what happened back in the late 90s.
Benoit is proving that he can basically sell a $4,900 digital good alongside a $100 physical good. Now imagine when the lightbulb goes off in Adidas’s head, that the item on adidas.com comes with a digital collectible and the item at “retailer dot com” does not. It fits with their focus way more than the internet did. The internet didn’t fit in any incumbent’s focus. It was the opposite. It was like, “Oh my God, this threatens our monopoly in some way,” right? For the music business, it was, “Wait a minute, we want to sell a $17 compact disc, not a $1 digital file.” They got dragged into that world.
Here is an interesting interview discussion about NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and the world of luxury brands. It's a conversation between Benoit Pagotto, cofounder of the NFT brand RTFKT Studios, and Ian Rogers, who is Chief Experience Officer at the blockchain startup Ledger (he was previously the Chief Digital Officer at LVMH). Below is an excerpt that stood out to me. It starts to speak to the potential of NFTs for fashion/luxury brands. Rogers also makes an interesting comparison to the music industry in that things are playing out very differently today compared to what happened back in the late 90s.
Benoit is proving that he can basically sell a $4,900 digital good alongside a $100 physical good. Now imagine when the lightbulb goes off in Adidas’s head, that the item on adidas.com comes with a digital collectible and the item at “retailer dot com” does not. It fits with their focus way more than the internet did. The internet didn’t fit in any incumbent’s focus. It was the opposite. It was like, “Oh my God, this threatens our monopoly in some way,” right? For the music business, it was, “Wait a minute, we want to sell a $17 compact disc, not a $1 digital file.” They got dragged into that world.
On a related note, it was recently announced that model Emily Ratajkowski has made an NFT containing a photograph of herself standing in front of a Richard Prince print that had previously appropriated one of her photos. (Richard Prince's artwork is known for appropriation.) So this is an exceptionally neat idea. Here she is using an NFT to try and take back some control. Basically: You took my photo and then profited from it. So now I'm going to stand in front of that image, take a new photo, and then reclaim some ownership using the blockchain. Is this the future?
Scarcity. FOMO. Scott Galloway is right. In this recent post, he talks about why humans are programmed to chase scarcity and why blockchains (specifically NFTs) could represent something incredibly meaningful for not just the art world but for many other asset classes. Here's an excerpt from the post:
People like scarcity — a lot. Owning something scarce makes one feel unique, and signals success and worthiness as a potential mate. Scarcity is also an instinctual trigger for obsession — when we sense a scarcity of something, be it food or a mate, we are programmed to become obsessed with finding it. Art auctions, the (pre-pandemic) lines outside Supreme, and the margins on a Panerai Tourbillon prove this point.
A Van Gogh and a Rothko are both unique, and therefore scarce, because they are made of atoms, and it is impossible to arrange a second set of atoms in an identical configuration. Print artists, whose lithographs are made to be reproduced without alteration, use a small "17/100" written in the corner, to distinguish each print and bestow scarcity upon it.
To hold value, scarcity must be credible. The dirty (not-so) secret of the art world is that art buyers, and even professional art appraisers, struggle to discern originals from forgeries. A well-made forgery provides the same practical value as an original — you can hang it on your wall and bask in its profundity. Yet the art world invests millions of dollars in identifying the "real" version of valuable works; once unmasked, forgeries are nearly worthless.
I have always found this fascinating about art (but really, it applies to most other things). Is the price you pay so that you can "bask in its profundity" or because the object in question signifies something -- it tells a story? In addition to scarcity, we also obsess over stories. They help create meaning for us.
The interesting thing about all of this is that it's really just a question of perception. When a work of art is discovered to be a fake that is, indeed, detrimental to value. But what changed? The art itself hasn't changed. We just no longer enjoy it and derive as much value from it because the story is not what we thought it was.
A new Facebook-supported blockchain and cryptocurrency, called
On a related note, it was recently announced that model Emily Ratajkowski has made an NFT containing a photograph of herself standing in front of a Richard Prince print that had previously appropriated one of her photos. (Richard Prince's artwork is known for appropriation.) So this is an exceptionally neat idea. Here she is using an NFT to try and take back some control. Basically: You took my photo and then profited from it. So now I'm going to stand in front of that image, take a new photo, and then reclaim some ownership using the blockchain. Is this the future?
Scarcity. FOMO. Scott Galloway is right. In this recent post, he talks about why humans are programmed to chase scarcity and why blockchains (specifically NFTs) could represent something incredibly meaningful for not just the art world but for many other asset classes. Here's an excerpt from the post:
People like scarcity — a lot. Owning something scarce makes one feel unique, and signals success and worthiness as a potential mate. Scarcity is also an instinctual trigger for obsession — when we sense a scarcity of something, be it food or a mate, we are programmed to become obsessed with finding it. Art auctions, the (pre-pandemic) lines outside Supreme, and the margins on a Panerai Tourbillon prove this point.
A Van Gogh and a Rothko are both unique, and therefore scarce, because they are made of atoms, and it is impossible to arrange a second set of atoms in an identical configuration. Print artists, whose lithographs are made to be reproduced without alteration, use a small "17/100" written in the corner, to distinguish each print and bestow scarcity upon it.
To hold value, scarcity must be credible. The dirty (not-so) secret of the art world is that art buyers, and even professional art appraisers, struggle to discern originals from forgeries. A well-made forgery provides the same practical value as an original — you can hang it on your wall and bask in its profundity. Yet the art world invests millions of dollars in identifying the "real" version of valuable works; once unmasked, forgeries are nearly worthless.
I have always found this fascinating about art (but really, it applies to most other things). Is the price you pay so that you can "bask in its profundity" or because the object in question signifies something -- it tells a story? In addition to scarcity, we also obsess over stories. They help create meaning for us.
The interesting thing about all of this is that it's really just a question of perception. When a work of art is discovered to be a fake that is, indeed, detrimental to value. But what changed? The art itself hasn't changed. We just no longer enjoy it and derive as much value from it because the story is not what we thought it was.
A new Facebook-supported blockchain and cryptocurrency, called
Libra
, was announced today. The goal: a new global currency. But unlike other cryptocurrencies, this one will be backed by a basket of government-issued securities and other investments.
A new governing body called the Libra Association has also been formed, with its 28 founding members (see above image) contributing both capital (at least $10 million) and expertise. Going forward, they will help shape the network. It's important to note that Facebook will have the same status as all other members of the Association.
Facebook said Tuesday the network underpinning the new cryptocurrency would be governed by the Libra Association, an independent, not-for-profit organization based in Geneva. Facebook named more than two-dozen founding partners in that association, including Uber, Visa Inc. and a handful of venture-capital firms and blockchain companies like Coinbase.
The other thing that differentiates Libra from other cryptocurrencies is that when it launches next year (2020), it will do so inside some of the most widely used consumer apps on the internet, including Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp. That translates into somewhere around 2.4 billion active users.
Many within in the industry are already speculating that this could be what finally brings the crypto ecosystem into the mainstream, which is, I guess, why companies such as Visa and Mastercard have already signed on to the project. I am also thrilled to see the Creative Destruction Lab listed above. They are a seed-stage program based out of the University of Toronto.
If you'd like to learn more about Libra, here's the official website and here's a good solid overview by TechCrunch.
, was announced today. The goal: a new global currency. But unlike other cryptocurrencies, this one will be backed by a basket of government-issued securities and other investments.
A new governing body called the Libra Association has also been formed, with its 28 founding members (see above image) contributing both capital (at least $10 million) and expertise. Going forward, they will help shape the network. It's important to note that Facebook will have the same status as all other members of the Association.
Facebook said Tuesday the network underpinning the new cryptocurrency would be governed by the Libra Association, an independent, not-for-profit organization based in Geneva. Facebook named more than two-dozen founding partners in that association, including Uber, Visa Inc. and a handful of venture-capital firms and blockchain companies like Coinbase.
The other thing that differentiates Libra from other cryptocurrencies is that when it launches next year (2020), it will do so inside some of the most widely used consumer apps on the internet, including Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp. That translates into somewhere around 2.4 billion active users.
Many within in the industry are already speculating that this could be what finally brings the crypto ecosystem into the mainstream, which is, I guess, why companies such as Visa and Mastercard have already signed on to the project. I am also thrilled to see the Creative Destruction Lab listed above. They are a seed-stage program based out of the University of Toronto.
If you'd like to learn more about Libra, here's the official website and here's a good solid overview by TechCrunch.
