That sounds pretty good! +5%
August 16th, 2014
Why didn't you start with that to begin with?
Now on the IPO,
the '3.2.2 Crowd-funding' does not explain the proposed IPO model for the DAC itself - hope you have equally good news in that regard too!
That sounds pretty good! +5%
August 16th, 2014
Why didn't you start with that to begin with?
Now on the IPO,
the '3.2.2 Crowd-funding' does not explain the proposed IPO model for the DAC itself - hope you have equally good news in that regard too!
The IPO model for the DAC itself will be announced very soon. I want to make sure all our ducks are in a row before saying anything.
Eddie and I had a long Skype call with Stan, Daniel and Nikolai and they introduced us to the "IPO" model they would have used in 2013 had they had the knowledge and experience they have now (and not to mention they would have needed DPOS to do it!) .
The new proposed method came out of left field but once I got my head around it, realized it solves so many problems. regulations for starters and all the attorney fees tied to that. It will be more democratic (Notes holders have a say in where the funds are going), no up front cost for "investors", meaning it will be pay as you go (if we produce results then the funding comes in).
Anyway I won't spend too much time talking about it yet. It'll be cleared up much better in an upcoming blog post / article. Which will be shared on the forums of course.
You can see your artistcoins rise in value if the artist starts selling albums or gets their song played on one of the more popular playlists.
One thing I'm still unsure about is how exactly being on a playlist will generate income for the artist, or rather why the artistcoin value will increase? Just from popularity and the fact that people will want to buy their songs or is there an actual mechanism in place?
3.2.3 is something I never thought about (perks for coin holders) and is absolutely brilliant! Imagine the spike in One Direction coin price when they announce that the top 50 coin holders get a backstage pass. O. M. G.Agree on 3.2.3, genius :)One thing I'm still unsure about is how exactly being on a playlist will generate income for the artist, or rather why the artistcoin value will increase? Just from popularity and the fact that people will want to buy their songs or is there an actual mechanism in place?
One of the biggest hurdles for new artists is exposure. Getting on a popular playlist would be the same as getting on a popular music station. As people buy the song a portion of those sales goes to burning that artistcoin. Combine that with 3.2.3 and you have a resource that is both becoming more scarce and more desirable.
You've been a visitor of the greate Rock concert in L.A. 2014
---signed Beatles!
..... crypto-signature ....
This project has me so excited I can hardly sit still, it's absolutely revolutionary and the paper does a good job of exposing the potential, well done Cob! :)
One thing I'm still unsure about is how exactly being on a playlist will generate income for the artist, or rather why the artistcoin value will increase? Just from popularity and the fact that people will want to buy their songs or is there an actual mechanism in place?QuoteYou can see your artistcoins rise in value if the artist starts selling albums or gets their song played on one of the more popular playlists.
I'm no expert but I imagine that if an artist get's played regularly on the radio, he gets compensated according to how often his songs get played. Will you implement a similar concept for the playlists? If so, where will the money come from to pay for this compensation, ads?
Solid job Cob,
I really see the potential growth there.
The artistcoin buy back from song selling revenues is very nice, there's going to be a great appeal to create artistcoins for niche artists as well as established money making machines (the likes of U2, Rolling Stones, etc.).
How do you plan on making sure there won't be any "scammers" that will create an artistcoin without being the real artist and try to sell them to others that believe they buy the coins from the real band? I mean it might take a while before some artists get to hear about Bitshares music, and nothing (that I know of) is preventing early scammers to upload existing music for which they don't have the rights and sell artistcoins as well.
Looks good cob!
Sorry, but I'm at it again with spotting typos. In part three it says, "Every time the song is or purchased".
Edit:
cob, I'd like to ask you something. There is an established band which I love. I think they may be interested in PeerTracks. When do you think would be a good time to try to get them interested? If they are interested will there be a special channel set up whereby PeerTracks work with artists to educate, assist and bring them onboard?
3.2.3 is something I never thought about (perks for coin holders) and is absolutely brilliant! Imagine the spike in One Direction coin price when they announce that the top 50 coin holders get a backstage pass. O. M. G.
Your PTS will give you shares in this DAC, or do you mean something else?Yes but how do the shares make money? In other words how does the DAC make a profit to pass on to the shareholders.
Your PTS will give you shares in this DAC, or do you mean something else?Yes but how do the shares make money? In other words how does the DAC make a profit to pass on to the shareholders.
2.2.2 Artistcoins
An artist can decide to create his own coin and start selling them to his fans to fund his career. The artist sets the price of his coin and sells it just as he would sell a baseball card. A limited edition digital token with his name and/or his face on it. These newly created, limited edition artistcoins are now distributed throughout the artist’s fanbase and himself. The income generated by his fans buying up the artistcoins will go straight to his wallet, directly funding his career just like kickstarter would. Only, as we will see below, this type of kickstarter is superior in many ways.
Every time a song is sold on PeerTracks.com, a certain % of that income goes into the market and buys up the lowest ask of that artistcoin, effectively cashing out the seller. That artistcoin is “burned” (taken out of circulation). This mechanism achieves the following:
pays the artist for his content
increases liquidity in that artistcoin (paying off the artistcoin seller)
increases demand in that artistcoin
reduces supply of that limited edition artistcoin
The last three points are what can cause a price increase in that artistcoin.
The more music an artist sells on PeerTracks, the more liquid his artistcoin is. Since every song sale is actually a buy order on the books.
If a user purchased a certain artist’s coin and the artist starts selling songs and albums on PeerTracks, that coin is now worth more than when it was purchased. It is in that user’s self-interest to share and promote this artist’s music in order to reap maximum benefit from the holding of that artistcoin. In other words, the fans are incentivized to generate more music sales for the artists they hold artistcoins of.
Your PTS will give you shares in this DAC, or do you mean something else?Yes but how do the shares make money? In other words how does the DAC make a profit to pass on to the shareholders.
just read the first post in this thread.Quote2.2.2 Artistcoins
An artist can decide to create his own coin and start selling them to his fans to fund his career. The artist sets the price of his coin and sells it just as he would sell a baseball card. A limited edition digital token with his name and/or his face on it. These newly created, limited edition artistcoins are now distributed throughout the artist’s fanbase and himself. The income generated by his fans buying up the artistcoins will go straight to his wallet, directly funding his career just like kickstarter would. Only, as we will see below, this type of kickstarter is superior in many ways.
Every time a song is sold on PeerTracks.com, a certain % of that income goes into the market and buys up the lowest ask of that artistcoin, effectively cashing out the seller. That artistcoin is “burned” (taken out of circulation). This mechanism achieves the following:
pays the artist for his content
increases liquidity in that artistcoin (paying off the artistcoin seller)
increases demand in that artistcoin
reduces supply of that limited edition artistcoin
The last three points are what can cause a price increase in that artistcoin.
The more music an artist sells on PeerTracks, the more liquid his artistcoin is. Since every song sale is actually a buy order on the books.
If a user purchased a certain artist’s coin and the artist starts selling songs and albums on PeerTracks, that coin is now worth more than when it was purchased. It is in that user’s self-interest to share and promote this artist’s music in order to reap maximum benefit from the holding of that artistcoin. In other words, the fans are incentivized to generate more music sales for the artists they hold artistcoins of.
That describes how the artistcoin will make money not the DAC.Yet to be revealed ... cob mentioned he wanted to tell us the weekend .. let's see
So will PTS holders be given 10% of all artistcoins? Or will the DAC charge a fee for creating an artistcoin?
Like BitSharesX the revenue streams for the Dac :Your PTS will give you shares in this DAC, or do you mean something else?Yes but how do the shares make money? In other words how does the DAC make a profit to pass on to the shareholders.
just read the first post in this thread.Quote2.2.2 Artistcoins
An artist can decide to create his own coin and start selling them to his fans to fund his career. The artist sets the price of his coin and sells it just as he would sell a baseball card. A limited edition digital token with his name and/or his face on it. These newly created, limited edition artistcoins are now distributed throughout the artist’s fanbase and himself. The income generated by his fans buying up the artistcoins will go straight to his wallet, directly funding his career just like kickstarter would. Only, as we will see below, this type of kickstarter is superior in many ways.
Every time a song is sold on PeerTracks.com, a certain % of that income goes into the market and buys up the lowest ask of that artistcoin, effectively cashing out the seller. That artistcoin is “burned” (taken out of circulation). This mechanism achieves the following:
pays the artist for his content
increases liquidity in that artistcoin (paying off the artistcoin seller)
increases demand in that artistcoin
reduces supply of that limited edition artistcoin
The last three points are what can cause a price increase in that artistcoin.
The more music an artist sells on PeerTracks, the more liquid his artistcoin is. Since every song sale is actually a buy order on the books.
If a user purchased a certain artist’s coin and the artist starts selling songs and albums on PeerTracks, that coin is now worth more than when it was purchased. It is in that user’s self-interest to share and promote this artist’s music in order to reap maximum benefit from the holding of that artistcoin. In other words, the fans are incentivized to generate more music sales for the artists they hold artistcoins of.
That describes how the artistcoin will make money not the DAC.
So will PTS holders be given 10% of all artistcoins? Or will the DAC charge a fee for creating an artistcoin?
Your PTS will give you shares in this DAC, or do you mean something else?Yes but how do the shares make money? In other words how does the DAC make a profit to pass on to the shareholders.
just read the first post in this thread.Quote2.2.2 Artistcoins
An artist can decide to create his own coin and start selling them to his fans to fund his career. The artist sets the price of his coin and sells it just as he would sell a baseball card. A limited edition digital token with his name and/or his face on it. These newly created, limited edition artistcoins are now distributed throughout the artist’s fanbase and himself. The income generated by his fans buying up the artistcoins will go straight to his wallet, directly funding his career just like kickstarter would. Only, as we will see below, this type of kickstarter is superior in many ways.
Every time a song is sold on PeerTracks.com, a certain % of that income goes into the market and buys up the lowest ask of that artistcoin, effectively cashing out the seller. That artistcoin is “burned” (taken out of circulation). This mechanism achieves the following:
pays the artist for his content
increases liquidity in that artistcoin (paying off the artistcoin seller)
increases demand in that artistcoin
reduces supply of that limited edition artistcoin
The last three points are what can cause a price increase in that artistcoin.
The more music an artist sells on PeerTracks, the more liquid his artistcoin is. Since every song sale is actually a buy order on the books.
If a user purchased a certain artist’s coin and the artist starts selling songs and albums on PeerTracks, that coin is now worth more than when it was purchased. It is in that user’s self-interest to share and promote this artist’s music in order to reap maximum benefit from the holding of that artistcoin. In other words, the fans are incentivized to generate more music sales for the artists they hold artistcoins of.
That describes how the artistcoin will make money not the DAC.
So will PTS holders be given 10% of all artistcoins? Or will the DAC charge a fee for creating an artistcoin?
the way i see it as that i can buy with my notes certain peertracks which, if or when, become popular i make money. Also the notes themselve might go up in price just like btsxno .. peertracks is the dacsunlimited or I3 .. for bitsharesX .. there are no peertracks on the blockchain .. only NOTES and ARTISTCOINS! .. and bitassets of course
the way i see it as that i can buy with my notes certain peertracks which, if or when, become popular i make money. Also the notes themselve might go up in price just like btsxYou buy artistcoin and songs with bitUSD, notes will be backing your bitUSD in Bitshare Music.
Awesome introduction. Really explains the key benefits in an easy to understand way. +5%
The % for the coin buy back can be set by the artist? If so is it ensured that the rate can't be decreased after the coin was issued?
Like BitSharesX the revenue streams for the Dac :Your PTS will give you shares in this DAC, or do you mean something else?Yes but how do the shares make money? In other words how does the DAC make a profit to pass on to the shareholders.
just read the first post in this thread.Quote2.2.2 Artistcoins
An artist can decide to create his own coin and start selling them to his fans to fund his career. The artist sets the price of his coin and sells it just as he would sell a baseball card. A limited edition digital token with his name and/or his face on it. These newly created, limited edition artistcoins are now distributed throughout the artist’s fanbase and himself. The income generated by his fans buying up the artistcoins will go straight to his wallet, directly funding his career just like kickstarter would. Only, as we will see below, this type of kickstarter is superior in many ways.
Every time a song is sold on PeerTracks.com, a certain % of that income goes into the market and buys up the lowest ask of that artistcoin, effectively cashing out the seller. That artistcoin is “burned” (taken out of circulation). This mechanism achieves the following:
pays the artist for his content
increases liquidity in that artistcoin (paying off the artistcoin seller)
increases demand in that artistcoin
reduces supply of that limited edition artistcoin
The last three points are what can cause a price increase in that artistcoin.
The more music an artist sells on PeerTracks, the more liquid his artistcoin is. Since every song sale is actually a buy order on the books.
If a user purchased a certain artist’s coin and the artist starts selling songs and albums on PeerTracks, that coin is now worth more than when it was purchased. It is in that user’s self-interest to share and promote this artist’s music in order to reap maximum benefit from the holding of that artistcoin. In other words, the fans are incentivized to generate more music sales for the artists they hold artistcoins of.
That describes how the artistcoin will make money not the DAC.
So will PTS holders be given 10% of all artistcoins? Or will the DAC charge a fee for creating an artistcoin?
1) Transaction fees
2) bid/ask overlap
3) Asset creation
4) Shorting related fees
5) Feel like I'm missing some...
So the DAC will allow flexibility is amount of artistcoins issued, and the % of income going to artist and artistcoin holders.
Imagine if someone issued 700 billion artistcoins and the buy back was 0.1% and some guy makes 4 artistcoins with a 50% buy back.
One will be in decimal world, the other in Zimbabwe land, one coin willl be worth 5 million BitUSD and the other 0.0007 pennies.
Yes it is exactly like BitSharesX, only we are isolating a certain type of transaction and making that transaction fee higher.
We want everything to stay low cost of course, but the DAC must generate revenue on song sales.
This means that BitUSD transfers will be slightly more expensive.
So people trading around artistcoins (say 2 kids swaping coins in the school yard) should not be charged a big fee. This fee is cheap. But someone sending BitUSD from his wallet to an artist's wallet (upon song purchase) will see a higher transaction fee.
The goal is for the DAC to make money when music is sold basically.
So the DAC will allow flexibility is amount of artistcoins issued, and the % of income going to artist and artistcoin holders.
Is that necessary? Why not just have all of the income go to the artistcoin holders and have the artist decide the percentage they get by holding on to the appropriate percentage of the artistcoin? So an artist can issue an artistcoin with some supply, keep 50% for themselves, sell the other 50% on the open market. Now when the income from the music sales buys the artistcoin, the artist should get 50% of the effective dividends from the buyback. To realize these gains as BitUSD, they simply sell the appropriate amount of artistcoins on the exchange (they sell only enough to maintain 50% ownership of the new reduced supply of artistcoins). Maybe they can even get away with paying long-term capital gains taxes on some of their earnings instead of income taxes if they can hold off selling some of the artistcoins for over a year (I don't really know for sure, I am not a tax attorney).
We thought of that too. One thing we want to avoid is for artists to have to do anything manually. Artists and bands are solicited by a hundred different music websites that'll do X or Y for them. Having to learn the intricate details of each can be a big deal. We wanted a way for an artist to just put up his music, set his price, sell his coin. Go away! and collect BitUSD.
Is that necessary? Why not just have all of the income go to the artistcoin holders and have the artist decide the percentage they get by holding on to the appropriate percentage of the artistcoin? So an artist can issue an artistcoin with some supply, keep 50% for themselves, sell the other 50% on the open market. Now when the income from the music sales buys the artistcoin, the artist should get 50% of the effective dividends from the buyback. To realize these gains as BitUSD, they simply sell the appropriate amount of artistcoins on the exchange (they sell only enough to maintain 50% ownership of the new reduced supply of artistcoins). Maybe they can even get away with paying long-term capital gains taxes on some of their earnings instead of income taxes if they can hold off selling some of the artistcoins for over a year (I don't really know for sure, I am not a tax attorney).
By the way, you make a clear distinction between PeerTracks and the BitShares Music DAC, which is great. But I don't understand the mechanics of how the BitUSD to pay for the music and buy the artistcoin works. The whitepaper is not clear on this. The only reason people are paying money for the music download is because PeerTracks is providing the download in exchange for the money. Does the DAC itself provide a mechanism to set song prices and keep track of payments and license rights of those songs on the blockchain, which then PeerTracks monitors and gives the payer the download? Or does the music buyer pay the BitUSD to PeerTracks in exchange for the music download which PeerTracks then uses to buy up the appropriate artistcoin and pay the artist? If PeerTracks really is just a frontend to the DAC, shouldn't that mean that an artist should in theory be able to use the DAC (with other open source clients) to sell music to their fans directly without PeerTracks involved at all (even though this obviously will not be as convenient as using the PeerTracks interface)?Good question Arhag. PeerTracks holds no funds.. ever. The blockchain takes care of everything. CUE THE MUSIC! "Can't be stopped, can't be touched, can't be..."
Are you increasing the fixed fee of BitUSD transfers for music purchases or is there a percentage fee as well? If you are able to distinguish between a regular BitUSD transfer between addresses and a music purchase with BitUSD (which I assume you have to be able to do in order to use a percentage of the BitUSD for music purchases to buy the appropriate artistcoins), then you have a lot of flexibility in how you charge fees. Keep fixed fee transfers of Notes, BitAssets, and user-issued assets (artistcoins) low just like BitShares X, but then add a small percentage fee (maybe 2%?) in addition to the tiny fixed transaction fee on music purchase transactions.
So the DAC will allow flexibility is amount of artistcoins issued, and the % of income going to artist and artistcoin holders.
Is that necessary? Why not just have all of the income go to the artistcoin holders and have the artist decide the percentage they get by holding on to the appropriate percentage of the artistcoin? So an artist can issue an artistcoin with some supply, keep 50% for themselves, sell the other 50% on the open market. Now when the income from the music sales buys the artistcoin, the artist should get 50% of the effective dividends from the buyback. To realize these gains as BitUSD, they simply sell the appropriate amount of artistcoins on the exchange (they sell only enough to maintain 50% ownership of the new reduced supply of artistcoins). Maybe they can even get away with paying long-term capital gains taxes on some of their earnings instead of income taxes if they can hold off selling some of the artistcoins for over a year (I don't really know for sure, I am not a tax attorney).
I second that. The knowledge that the artists will actually receive their income through the same artistic coins that the investors are buying will lead to much more interest by investors/sponsors and much higher price, than if they buy some artistcoin that will be producing some unclear returns and the artists' interest how big such returns are is pretty uncertain (and even potentially opposite if % of music sales goes to artistcoins' holders and the rest to him/her).
We thought of that too. One thing we want to avoid is for artists to have to do anything manually. Artists and bands are solicited by a hundred different music websites that'll do X or Y for them. Having to learn the intricate details of each can be a big deal. We wanted a way for an artist to just put up his music, set his price, sell his coin. Go away! and collect BitUSD.
Is that necessary? Why not just have all of the income go to the artistcoin holders and have the artist decide the percentage they get by holding on to the appropriate percentage of the artistcoin? So an artist can issue an artistcoin with some supply, keep 50% for themselves, sell the other 50% on the open market. Now when the income from the music sales buys the artistcoin, the artist should get 50% of the effective dividends from the buyback. To realize these gains as BitUSD, they simply sell the appropriate amount of artistcoins on the exchange (they sell only enough to maintain 50% ownership of the new reduced supply of artistcoins). Maybe they can even get away with paying long-term capital gains taxes on some of their earnings instead of income taxes if they can hold off selling some of the artistcoins for over a year (I don't really know for sure, I am not a tax attorney).
What you suggest is excellent in my opinion, but we might at first launch it with the pre determined split. Without the artist having to sell off some coins to cash out.
So the DAC will allow flexibility is amount of artistcoins issued, and the % of income going to artist and artistcoin holders.
Is that necessary? Why not just have all of the income go to the artistcoin holders and have the artist decide the percentage they get by holding on to the appropriate percentage of the artistcoin? So an artist can issue an artistcoin with some supply, keep 50% for themselves, sell the other 50% on the open market. Now when the income from the music sales buys the artistcoin, the artist should get 50% of the effective dividends from the buyback. To realize these gains as BitUSD, they simply sell the appropriate amount of artistcoins on the exchange (they sell only enough to maintain 50% ownership of the new reduced supply of artistcoins). Maybe they can even get away with paying long-term capital gains taxes on some of their earnings instead of income taxes if they can hold off selling some of the artistcoins for over a year (I don't really know for sure, I am not a tax attorney).
I second that. The knowledge that the artists will actually receive their income through the same artistic coins that the investors are buying will lead to much more interest by investors/sponsors and much higher price, than if they buy some artistcoin that will be producing some unclear returns and the artists' interest how big such returns are is pretty uncertain (and even potentially opposite if % of music sales goes to artistcoins' holders and the rest to him/her).
Well the artist will have some of his own coin as well.
So far, when a song sells for say 1BitUSD.
0.8 bitUSD could go to the artist's wallet paying him in a liquid form. Without him having to liquidate anything.
say 0.05BitUSD was the fee
And 0.15 BitUSD goes to the buy back mechanism.
I know you understand this already.
Now the thing to realize is that the artist might have kept say, 50% of the artistcoins. So he still has a stake in it's value.
As an analogy, we can look at the artist profile as a company.
You have income = 1 BitUSD
You then have 2 expenses
1. the 0.05 BitUSD in fees (service/network/bandwidth)
2. The artists salary 0.80 BitUSD
The "company" is left with 0.15 BitUSD of PROFIT
This profit is what is distributed to the "shareholders" (Artistcoin holders).
Now in a company, say Apple, Steve jobs has a CEO salary. A liquid form of weekly spendable income. But he also held shares in the company, incentivizing him to make the shares worth more and more.
This is the approach we are taking SO FAR.
I do like the simplicity of having 100% going to the coin, and nothing as an artist salary. I can see some band's cashing out and selling off all their coins accidently. There is no Undo button for that. The band basically just gave up 100% of stake in their own profile "company".
To introduce the non-trader world to this tech, we are taking baby steps. User experience first. That can change over time when people WANT to go into the "advanced settings"
So peertracks never handles any funds. We just see that BOB the user that has an account with PeerTracks paid Britney and we let him take the file. PeerTracks should have made up the cost of the bandwidth by the transaction fees (whether the Notes PeerTracks will hold will be enough to repay the bandwidth costs, we don't know yet. If it's not enough then a fee will be charged for that)
As it is now PeerTracks does not make any money for sales of the artist coin or songs. So the only way to make money it is to buy NOTES and hope to make enough profit to cover bandwidth cost and development. This model can't work, i.e if a company in China want's to make PeerTrackChina I will have 0 incentive to go all this trouble to build it. It is much easier to just buy the NOTES and make a profit and not bother with all trouble building the website bandwidth etc. Or even better they will clone Bitshare Music and they will lunch on a different chain.Agreed. Each company will set their own fee. Some companies might set their fee to 0% if they can cover costs some other way and attract more artists/users to their platform because of that low fee.
So if we want Bitshares Music to become the music DAC that everybody will use, then others company needs to have the incentive to build on top of it. I think the best way will be that each company should be able to set a percentage of the sales that is going as profit.
No PeerTracks will definitely have some Notes. But it's impossible to calculate just how much revenue those will generate. Maybe those Notes will cover costs, maybe not. If not, then we will have no choice but to charge a extra % for the service.
..whether the Notes PeerTracks will hold will be enough to repay the bandwidth costs.. But you are saying that PeerTrack does't hold any NOTES or funds ??
( If it's not enough then a fee will be charged for that) The fee that PeerTrack will charge will be coded in the front(PeerTrack website) or it will be integrated in the back end( Bitshare Music Dac) ?It would be front end of course.
One more think. Why you don't take a small fee that goes directly to Bisthares Music Foundation in that way there will a continuous flow of founds that will be use by the Foundation for the development and other project of the DAC, so there will be less need to inflate the Notes supply. I.E. 80% goes to the artist, 17% goes to buy back, 2% you burn that goes to Notes holders and 1% you don't burn you put in the Foundation account .
What determines the price of a song?
Can you please refer to artist coin as artist shares? It would be many times more sensiblethey can't .. for legal reasons if I recall correctly ... shares have a legal implication while "coins" are much like baseball collection cards (citing cob here :) )
Can you please refer to artist coin as artist shares? It would be many times more sensiblethey can't .. for legal reasons if I recall correctly ... shares have a legal implication while "coins" are much like baseball collection cards (citing cob here :) )
if we it wasn't for regulations I would totally agree!
Mppph [frustrated] then they should go with "artist cards." Coin is not an intuitive term for DACsIf you wouldn't think about crypto coins and instead imaging a collectible coin such as
So peertracks never handles any funds.
So peertracks never handles any funds.
Cob, does that mean that Peertracks definitely wont be accepting any fiat for music purchases? I thought the plan was to accept fiat which is use to buy BitUSD for music purchases on the blockchain.
If peertracks wont take any fiat, that means the only avenue for sales is from existing Notes holders correct? If I want to promote an artist an pump his artistcoins, I need friends to put in their fiat into his songs.
Cob, does that mean that Peertracks definitely wont be accepting any fiat for music purchases? I thought the plan was to accept fiat which is use to buy BitUSD for music purchases on the blockchain.
If peertracks wont take any fiat, that means the only avenue for sales is from existing Notes holders correct? If I want to promote an artist an pump his artistcoins, I need friends to put in their fiat into his songs.
So peertracks never handles any funds.
Cob, does that mean that Peertracks definitely wont be accepting any fiat for music purchases? I thought the plan was to accept fiat which is use to buy BitUSD for music purchases on the blockchain.
If peertracks wont take any fiat, that means the only avenue for sales is from existing Notes holders correct? If I want to promote an artist an pump his artistcoins, I need friends to put in their fiat into his songs.
What determines the price of a song?
The artist.
What determines the price of an Iphone cover on ebay? The seller!
ebay has no say in how much a product sells for on their platform.
What determines the price of a song?
The artist.
What determines the price of an Iphone cover on ebay? The seller!
ebay has no say in how much a product sells for on their platform.
Is there any other selling model? For example, Google Music has 'monthly subscription (https://play.google.com/about/music/allaccess/#/)' that you can listen to whatever you want with $9.99/month. In Taiwan, east asia and many other places, people would prefer this model than paying for each song. Considering this mode does not mean to invest any specific artist, I think the fee for monthly subscription should charged as Notes, and then:
1. shared between artists.
2. or used to buy and burn artistcoins of songs that were listened.
What determines the price of a song?
The artist.
What determines the price of an Iphone cover on ebay? The seller!
ebay has no say in how much a product sells for on their platform.
We should create a ranking/tracking system like Billboards is to music in general. Would have create a ranking algorithm like google search that tracks, downloads, streams, votes, and other engagement metrics to rank the artist. This would create a good competition between the artist and their fans. This all leads up to some king of awards shows like the Grammy/AMAs.
What determines the price of a song?
The artist.
What determines the price of an Iphone cover on ebay? The seller!
ebay has no say in how much a product sells for on their platform.
Is there any other selling model? For example, Google Music has 'monthly subscription (https://play.google.com/about/music/allaccess/#/)' that you can listen to whatever you want with $9.99/month. In Taiwan, east asia and many other places, people would prefer this model than paying for each song. Considering this mode does not mean to invest any specific artist, I think the fee for monthly subscription should charged as Notes, and then:
1. shared between artists.
2. or used to buy and burn artistcoins of songs that were listened.
It might be too ambitious to roll out all at once, but I do see potential for multiple streams of income. In a subscription based (or free ad based) model, you can pay the artist in proportion to how many listens they received, while using a weighting system to increase the pay/airtime on artists who get voted up while decreasing the pay/airtime for those who get voted down.
What determines the price of a song?
The artist.
What determines the price of an Iphone cover on ebay? The seller!
ebay has no say in how much a product sells for on their platform.
Is there any other selling model? For example, Google Music has 'monthly subscription (https://play.google.com/about/music/allaccess/#/)' that you can listen to whatever you want with $9.99/month. In Taiwan, east asia and many other places, people would prefer this model than paying for each song. Considering this mode does not mean to invest any specific artist, I think the fee for monthly subscription should charged as Notes, and then:
1. shared between artists.
2. or used to buy and burn artistcoins of songs that were listened.
I personally hope that music stays separate from the super dac but figures out a way to use BitUSD from the super dac chain.+5%
What determines the price of a song?
The artist.
What determines the price of an Iphone cover on ebay? The seller!
ebay has no say in how much a product sells for on their platform.
I think this decision could be a mistake. The market should determine the price of a product or service rather than the seller. I do understand why you would want artists to try and determine it but it's likely that if the artists get it wrong then it would encourage piracy or fans simply wont buy it at all.
Can we have a market based option for artists who want to let the market or the fans determine the price?
And presumably the artist could change their price couldn't they? So if they are not getting the immediate result they want, they just move price to what the market will take. The market determines the result in the end anyway.What determines the price of a song?
The artist.
What determines the price of an Iphone cover on ebay? The seller!
ebay has no say in how much a product sells for on their platform.
I think this decision could be a mistake. The market should determine the price of a product or service rather than the seller. I do understand why you would want artists to try and determine it but it's likely that if the artists get it wrong then it would encourage piracy or fans simply wont buy it at all.
Can we have a market based option for artists who want to let the market or the fans determine the price?
I believe each artist would make a realistic price. If he/she prices the song high, he/she will have less sales but higher margin (and getting high-spenders). In the end, the market demand will influence the artist in his/her pricing decision. And the artists can select the market segment they like to serve.