Fine artists who are known in the international art market do not take commissions. They also do not give buyers of a piece copyright (obviously both of these things are even more true if they are dead).
You also wouldn't be able to distinguish a fake painted for a few thousand dollars, much less so with a print or digital art, so the physical artifact is somewhat meaningless as well, at least as far as value goes. Collectors buy pieces and keep them in storage. They might buy a piece without ever laying eyes on the physical artifact.
The art market has always run on provenance and certificates of authenticity. You could argue that fine art is bullshit, and you can also that a blockchain is not necessary to keep track of certificates of authenticity, but arguing that the entire concept of art ownership without copyright is bullshit is to ignore what the reality of the art market has always been.
What digital assets are you referring to? During the NFT frenzy, the NFTs in question did not convey any assets that I'm aware of -- they transferred no unique physical artifacts, nor ownership of any copyrights or trademarks.
The NFTs just included public URLs pointing to files, so pepole were effectively buying and selling certificates of authenticity for artwork without owning the actual artwork itself!
However you want, but you can’t prevent it being copied or made “ununique” in any “real” way. Or somehow have control over the means by which it is consumed or produced.
Many places make money off of digital assets, but there’s no pretext of it somehow being scarce.
NFTs are not a good solution to buying artwork. They are a novel concept, but translating that to conventional problems around ownership is difficult and probably not the best solution.
Digital tickets for anything that uses tickets, deeds for transfer of real property, execution of contracts, etc.
Any use case in which some blob of data corresponds to an individually specifiable concrete thing is a suitable use case for NFTs.
The problem with the speculative frenzy a few years ago was that the NFTs in question did not convey ownership over anything -- people were trading the NFTs themselves rather than using them as deeds/contracts/tickets corresponding to some other external asset. If the NFTs were used to convey copyright ownership or exclusive usage rights to the underlying artwork, they'd have made a lot more sense, but as it played out, people were paying huge sums of money for what amounted to tickets to nowhere.
NFTs are a great solution for demonstrating provenance. They can function as digital certificates of authenticity for an asset. Treating them as assets themselves, though, is pretty ridiculous.
In my opinion, you should take the difference between their market salary and the salary they're being offered, and consider that an investment by the employee at the upcoming (not past) valuation.
For example if they're in SF and they're hiring a senior first engineer that would maybe make 250k elsewhere, and they're offering them 125k, and they would take the classic 7% for 125k, then 7% is a good starting point. (Of course if they already have the YC investment, then that would go down dramatically)
If that equity vests over 4 years, then frankly maybe 28% is a better starting point.
But what's fair isn't really relevant. What's relevant is what the market demand and supply is. If there's some dolt who would happily take 1.5% as a first engineer ("founding engineer") for a $125k salary cut, then the founders would be idiots not to take that deal. And frankly, if that $125k salary cut gets them their dream job, then maybe they're not even dumb for doing it.
I think what you are actually describing is that you should value equity at zero. If to work at a startup you would need 28% equity you are describing a founder. That's fine but there is an enormous difference between these two things. There is also the question of where the $125k comes from to pay your base.
Value equity at zero? I am not sure what you mean by that. If an employee sacrifices $500k to work at your company, then it would make sense to compensate them with $500k worth of equity is my point. The 28% is tongue in cheek, if you're so early that the amount of equity needed to compensate your first hire adequately is 28%, your company hasn't really started yet, and maybe you should just consider them a founder.
Bingo - if you need the kind of person whose market rate would be 28% of your company. They are a founder, if your don’t need that person… fine, but the “this is the industry standard” line is bogus.
In my experience, "fair" is almost irrelevant within a capitalist business.
Good capitalist businesses buy at the cheapest price they can, and they owners focus on balancing competing resources (control, dividends, ownership, status, information, etcetera...). However: people run businesses and people are not rational economic actors.
A good question is: what amount of equity can you negotiate? What do you have that will convince owners to share their ownership with you?
If you are negotiating with VC, then I think the game board and the rules of the game are already rigged against founders and employees. VC sets the rules and the mileau to play the long game, and employees are lucky to get a few leftovers.
You can be a founder or join a self-funded startup, that will give you a better chance of "fair" treatment, especially if you have the skills to join people that have high integrity.
In theory if you can marginally add 10% to the business value you should be able to argue to get some amount of that. However measuring an individuals effect on a business is usually really difficult (even consultants or businesses that specialise in increasing value usually only capture a tiny percentage of the value they add).
Also different people bring different resources to a business, and anyone with a monopoly on a resource can negotiate for more shareholding. There are idealistic economic theories for how people should bid in multi-party negotiations. Note that even though multiple people may each increase the value of a business by more than 50%, that doesn't mean each should get 50% of the shares (and obviously can't if more than two want >50%).
Generally if you need to ask for shares then you have already lost the game. Either found a business and put yourself in charge, or have something the owners want and demand ownership.
Disclosure: made small amounts of money as part of a self-funded startup joining high integrity co-founders. I've had little experience of VC funded companies or employee shares. Our SaaS business was doing something we'd done before and it was started decades ago when things were "easier".
I concur. This was on Chris Beiser's "Alpha List" (he asked Twitter what books no one else would recommend that would yield alpha; so far it's a good set of books).
It's interesting that it depends on whether you are in Southern or Northern California[0]. No one says "the 280" or "the 92" or "the 85." But I have heard "the 101" frequently in Norcal.
You hear it in northern cal only from foreigners :-) who have moved here from southern california.
Socal retained the names for freeways much longer than the usage in the north (the bayshore freeway was assigned 101, while, say, 280 or 17 never had names AFAIK). pilingual (does this mean they speak English, Spanish, French, and Southern Californian?) linked to an article that describes this phenomenon in the south.
What’s especially funny is that you adopt the “correct” terminology depending on where the freeway is located. I’m from Northern California and lived in Southern California for a while. When I’d drive to my parents for Christmas, I’d take “the five”. When I’d drive back home after new years, I’d take “highway five”.
I thought it would be cool. I didn't consider the fact I don't actually like it when someone else is driving. I don't like being a passenger even if a person I trust is driving, so why would an AI be different? Apparently I like to drive more than I thought I did.
Also, I didn't realize how many restrictions there would be. You have to keep your hands applying constant tension on the steering wheel, and there's actually a camera that watches your eyes now. So you can't even eat a sandwich without the car freaking out and punishing you for looking at your food too long.
Sometimes the builders are also the carpenters. I would go with one of those because they will do arguably the most important part right, and they will likely have worked with the foundation team before. Electricians and plumbers often have to be certified so there is less concern there.
Getting educated so you can ask questions and observe that they properly seal the house for air and moisture is a good idea. PGH is a good resource and so is Matt Risingers channel (Build Show).
Consider tapping networks. If you find an architect you like they may know a good builder and vice versa.
Matt's channel seems to focus on innovative technology. For a slightly more traditional approach to a "spec" (speculative) house-building process, see
the "Essential Craftsman" series of 150 videos by Scott and Nate Wadsworth
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRZePj70B4IwyNn1ABhJW...
Scott is the builder, and Nate, his son, the videographer and editor. The subject matter is clearly and honestly explained, and the video, sound, and editing is generally professional quality. From survey and site prep all the through to finish and completion, I would recommend it to anyone in the US considering a bespoke or custom home.
This is probably true in the US, but in UK/Europe most buildings are made of brick/stone. People seem to think builders are dumb, but it's a very complicated job really if you are working on lots of different types of housing.
How can I buy a digital asset sold by an artist?