X2Y2 Twitter Space: The Development of AI and Generative Art

Author: X2Y2

Host (X2Y2): @alex_pengfei

Guests:

Wing DAO Researcher CJ

JIM'S FRIENDS Community Founder Jimmy

Genesis Universe CMO Victor

Recording Link

Alex: Today we are actually talking about AI-generated art, which has been quite popular recently, and I invited all the guests to discuss this topic. We will be discussing the recently popular QQL and the earlier established generative art platform ArtBlock, so I want to explore the development and progress of generative art NFTs with everyone. Thank you very much for CJ's support, who is also an old friend of ours, a researcher from WingDao, and has done a lot of research on NFTs. Today we have CJ from WingDao, Jimmy who is the founder of his own community, and Victor from Genesis Universe as the CMO. Let's get started, CJ, please introduce yourself.

CJ: I'm glad to accept X2Y2's invitation to talk about the development of AI and generative art. I'm CJ, but you can call me Chris. I am a researcher at WingDao, which originally started as a traditional lending platform. This year, we added a new feature, which is NFT lending. We now have lending functions for six cold-draw NFTs, and we also support down payment loans. Previously, we mainly focused on the DeFi field, and this year we officially entered the NFT space, that's about it.

Alex: Thank you very much for the support from WingDao and CJ. Let's have a casual chat first; today's topic is quite chill. You think QQL, this NFT generative art, is very popular, and people jokingly call it a ray of light in the bear market, with high selling prices. What are the characteristics of generative art represented by QQL? Why can it make people FOMO during the bear market? Because generally, NFT art pieces sell quite poorly; for example, the first NFT auctioned on OpenSea was by an artist, and it actually sold below the initial price. I wonder why QQL, as a piece of art, is more favored by everyone?

CJ: Actually, I hadn't paid much attention to this area before, but since I'm here today, I looked into it. If you go to OpenSea and check the ranking, you can find OSBlock in the top ten, but when you click in, you find all sorts of random things. OSBlock is a platform for generative art that allows us to generate things using AI, but all the NFTs generated there are under one contract, and when you open it, you can see that all generative art is put into one box. As for QQL being popular recently, generative art has been quite hot since I started playing with NFTs last year because OSBlock often has very popular collections.

Generative art has a significant characteristic, which is the 80/20 rule or the Matthew effect. Most of the trading volume is concentrated in a few leading collections, and you will find all sorts of bizarre generative art on the platform that hardly gets any attention and has very low trading volumes. Recently, QQL was newly released, with a total of around eighty to ninety NFTs, and the floor price shot up very high; it seems to be around seventeen or eighteen now.

Returning to why QQL is popular, this type of generative art clearly shows the Matthew effect. People might be following the artist, who has previously been successful and launched projects that made people a lot of money. When they release a second project, it will also be welcomed, and QQL is a typical example. The founder is named Talor Hopes, right? Earlier this year, he released a hit project on OSBlock, which also had very high trading volume and was very profitable.

If such a creator issues a second NFT, they will naturally receive some attention. Moreover, the entire NFT market has been relatively sluggish recently, with no particularly bright spots. They did a Dutch auction, and it was all sold out at fourteen ETH, which attracted a lot of FOMO due to such a high floor price, and the quantity is not large, only a total of nine hundred pieces. Ultimately, there is an empowerment aspect because QQL is a type of Pass Card that allows you to issue an official NFT on the QQL platform through the Pass Card. I think this might be more attractive than other generative art seen on OSBlock.

Of course, there may be some artistic aspects, and people genuinely appreciate its art, but since I can't really appreciate these algorithmically generated images, I can only analyze the situation of QQL from the perspective of FOMO or market reaction.

Alex: Thank you very much. Other guests have also joined us; welcome Victor, the CMO from Genesis Universe.

Victor: Hello everyone, my time zone is UTC+8, and it's currently evening in China. Let me briefly introduce myself and the project. My name is Victor, and we are a blockchain game called Genesis Universe. Our project is not a short-term rush to catch any trends; it is a long-term blockchain game that serves as a good entry point for users who have not been exposed to digital currencies, making it relatively low in entry barriers. We are optimistic about this in the long run.

Alex: Thank you very much for Victor's self-introduction. I also want to pose this question to you. Although you are from a gaming project, you still have an understanding of NFTs. Recently, a relatively hot NFT called QQL, which is a type of generative art NFT, has emerged. CJ mentioned that the most popular one initially should be OSBlock, and now this generative NFT has become popular again in the bear market. What do you think is the reason for this phenomenon?

Victor: I completely agree with CJ's viewpoint; I think my perspective can be considered a subset of his. Personally, I can't appreciate this so-called art because I specifically looked up what art is in the past few days. In my previous understanding, art seemed unclear, as it stands in opposition to science. For example, the art of war or the art of communication; in my concept, art cannot be strictly defined by rules. Just like science, one is one, and two is two; things that can be reproduced and falsified according to rules are called science, while things that cannot be falsified, cannot be strictly defined by rules, and rely entirely on personal viewpoints are called art.

From this perspective, I specifically looked it up, and people say art is a conscious thing, like having a sense of beauty and viewpoint. There must be a theme, and there should be an attitude towards this theme. This attitude is not a straightforward statement but is expressed through rhetorical devices, and this expression must have corresponding audiences to appreciate it, who then use their feelings to supplement this omitted expression.

I also tried QQL in AI art, although I don't understand where the art is. As mentioned earlier, art still needs a conscious entity or artist to create it, capable of expressing certain human emotions. However, whether AI possesses consciousness is still a matter of debate. Recently, a Google engineer claimed that he had an AI that already possessed human consciousness, but we have doubts about this; we don't know if it truly has consciousness.

A thing without consciousness can be created through various algorithms and combinations, seemingly possessing certain rules or specific patterns. Whether this counts as art is hard to say. I don't believe that in the field of digital currencies, those who FOMO are genuinely trying to understand art from an artistic perspective. I played around and found that even without understanding art, just clicking the mouse and setting some parameters can generate images that don't seem particularly random, which seems somewhat close to my understanding of art. This reminds me of a game where you click and drag those logic blocks together to create RPG Maker, which brings the seemingly lofty things closer to ordinary people.

From an artistic perspective, I think whether it is art is still questionable, especially since true art should also be questioned. Therefore, I particularly agree with CJ's viewpoint, which is still from the perspective of market speculation. Art cannot be falsified; in the bear market, DeFi, blockchain games, or other things, everyone can find ways to measure value. In the bear market, there is nothing that can be poked at; AI art is also something that could not be created by humans before, making it hard to falsify. From the perspective of speculation, things that cannot be falsified have very little resistance, so it may be more about speculation.

Alex: So you think that the inability to falsify art itself leads to the existence of certain objective rules in art, but perhaps the use of AI technology makes it difficult to define whether this art can be considered the same as traditional human-created art? The distinction between the two is somewhat blurred, just like before with ArtBlock. Such things may need time to validate, or in the future, as AI technology develops, this type of art may be more recognized by people.

Victor: Yes.

Alex: Jimmy is the founder of the JamesFriends community.

Jimmy: Hello everyone, I'm Jimmy. I'm really sorry; my computer and phone have been repeatedly adjusting, lagging out and back in, and I've missed a lot of the opening remarks. Now I'm preparing to let my community members come over to communicate with everyone because I'm a novice; I'm mainly here to learn.

Alex: Please briefly introduce your community.

Jimmy: Our community is a serious community established by a group of unserious people. There are no ranks, and there are no chat levels; everything is based on freedom of speech. We might have done three or four hundred transactions, and there are no cooperation managers; everyone is a cooperation manager. Whoever wants to talk about a project can talk about it, and whoever wants to do an AMA can do it. I am the community's mascot, just responsible for deciding whether to do something or not; the real work is done by everyone. So now our community is growing, and after finishing one group, we build a second group, and now we are building a third group. Everyone is quite happy because I don't have any ability to help everyone make money; if I can make everyone happy, then we are happy.

Alex: Earlier, we talked about how QQL, this hot NFT, gives us a glimmer of hope during the bear market, but this type of generative art is not the first time it has been popular. So we want to ask, how does Jimmy view the phenomenon of generative art still making people FOMO during the bear market? Unlike traditional human art, QQL is an NFT created using AI technology. What are your thoughts on this?

Jimmy: As I mentioned earlier, I'm an outsider, so I can only share the thoughts of an outsider. AI may complement original paintings. It seems that AI originates from the scenes in our lives, but later, the paintings created by AI will also inspire and give ideas to real-life painters and artists. In other words, everyone has their strengths.

To give an inappropriate example, it's like fuel cars and electric cars. If there were no fuel cars, would electric cars have come up? I think it's unlikely, but will electric cars definitely eliminate fuel cars? I don't think so either. It's about taking the strengths of both; AI will take the strengths of real-life artists and generate better images, but ultimately, it will be reused by people. This thing seems to be determined by humans, but the painting is done by AI, so I think they complement each other; neither can do without the other.

Alex: I understand. I think this is a new perspective. You didn't say that AI painting will definitely succeed or that human painting will definitely be eliminated; instead, it's a coexistence state. Similar to how abstract art was initially suppressed, while realistic or surrealistic paintings were more popular, abstract art later became all the rage, but realistic painters and other impressionist painters still exist. So I think multiple schools can coexist.

As for NFTs, which are inherently a medium of art, the medium itself is NFTs, and the methods of creation will differ, depending on everyone's expectations and what they want. So this is also a reasonable phenomenon. This ties in quite well with Jimmy's earlier point. How do you think AI will develop in the future art field? Since AI is a genre, will people become more accustomed to using AI for painting? Will this hinder the development of art or become a catalyst for art development, making it better and even developing some new things? Which side do you lean towards?

Jimmy: I think if machines are used more, they will eventually be replaced by another model. AI will eventually be something that gets replaced, so it doesn't necessarily hinder development. The development of any thing accelerates the progress of the industry; it won't hinder anything. Just like when printers came out, people thought they wouldn't need paper anymore with Word documents, but you find that after printers and Word documents came out, people wanted to print more than ever, and the demand for paper increased compared to before. Any development of AI will eliminate a wave of consciousness, and eventually, AI will also be replaced by other forms of consciousness; its role is merely to boost.

I don't think the emergence of any one thing will hinder another; I think every thing can show a good side and can promote or eliminate some inferior things. So I see it as a positive aspect.

Alex: So in your view, while AI may have some potential risks that we may not know about now, you see it as a form of progress that can create new artworks and structures. CJ, do you think AI technology is a progress or a hindrance to current art forms?

CJ: I think it's progress because everyone's level of appreciation and what they appreciate is different. I may not appreciate this kind of thing, but now there are so many people willing to buy it, there must be some who genuinely like it. As long as there are people who like it and a market for it, there is a reason for its existence. Will it become a hindrance? I don't think so because its emergence won't lead those who originally liked realistic styles or ordinary PFPs to dislike PFPs; rather, they like this algorithm. It's not an either-or relationship; I can like both. It's not that if I like A, I can't like B.

Just now, it was mentioned that in the future, AI might be applied. In traditional life, we don't see AI painting very often, but now with NFTs emerging, which are on-chain artworks, AI art may have a longer-term development. Based on on-chain behavior, if you frequently trade on X2Y2 and are also a DeFi player, generating a unique algorithmic NFT avatar based on your historical data is also using AI, but it is unique to you. There may be similar developments, and I think AI shouldn't be seen as a bad thing for NFTs.

Alex: I have a question to follow up with CJ, although it might be a bit tricky. AI generation is not a leap, but there are many voices currently. The creation of AI is somewhat sudden; a painting that originally required an artist can now be well completed by AI. Many of the elements behind a painting come from the artist's thoughts, but AI cannot reflect the artist's thoughts.

For example, a painting is composed of lines and squares, and the artist is quite famous. The last piece was a whole image with only a pure black square, which sold for the highest value in his entire artistic career. When explaining, it was related to his life experiences.

When painting this square, he painted many colored squares, and in the end, all the squares were covered, presenting only a black square. The process of painting involved constantly using black squares and other colored blocks to cover this thing, ultimately presenting a black square. I want to say that if AI were to paint, it would also seem to produce something similar to the black square, but would it lose a lot of the artist's own creative process? Many times, the added value of artworks also remains?

CJ: I think what you said makes a lot of sense. The reason I said it won't hinder is that I'm not actually in the art field, but using AI to create paintings and the artists we usually see are two different groups. Those who create with AI may focus solely on this field and keep deepening their skills, while another group uses brushes, whether on an electronic display or in real life, which may be completely different from AI. If they later dabble in AI, it might just provide some inspiration for themselves. What you mentioned about laziness may apply to artists who specialize in algorithms, but for traditional artists, it seems acceptable.

Alex: Thank you very much, but I was just casually asking. Everyone can think from multiple angles. Jimmy, do you have anything you want to echo? The next question is for Victor. Earlier, we talked about AI as a hindrance and a catalyst. The guests' views may lean more towards a new form of art. Do you think this new art could become a trend in the future? Will it become mainstream, or is it just a fleeting niche? Or will people continue to rely on traditional art and handmade paintings, not depending on tools and AI for painting?

Victor: This thing is very likely to coexist because it can be compared to comics. Early comic artists, like Crayon Shin-chan and Akira Toriyama, used crayons to draw, which was true hand-drawing. Later, I remember the same author and the same series of works began to use a lot of computer drawing. Now there are indeed two different styles involved; the texture of hand-drawn and machine-drawn is indeed different. A large part of it may be due to laziness, as you can just drag the mouse, but at the same time, you will find that using a computer to draw can achieve many hand-drawn effects. Gradually, you will discover that from the initial laziness, you can find the original aspects of this technology, which is not just a replacement but also a direction more suitable for new technologies. Things that could not be expressed in hand-drawing can now be achieved through computer drawing.

AI is certainly the same. Now we are exploring. The reason AI is powerful is that it is fed with a lot of data and trained models. Our current AI mainly relies on deep learning, which is done through a large amount of data input. This data does not come from nature out of thin air; it is produced by human activities. Therefore, the data that AI learns about art still comes from humans, and humans provide it with data. For a long time, AI may just learn from humans, and later it may find that what it draws may be what it thinks human art should look like. For a long time, it may just be a template, but one day it may find its own path.

The same word, for example, because I found a tool today, which is AI drawing. For instance, I tried inputting "thinking zombie" and found that what was drawn was completely different from what I imagined. The same thing, our understanding and the perspective of AI may differ. Of course, perhaps at this point, AI has developed its own intelligence and so-called Free Will; it’s just that the way they realize free will is different from ours. On one hand, AI may produce a lazy effect, but one day it may find that it is not just imitating and replacing but truly viewing the world from another perspective.

Art, in essence, is a perspective, a viewpoint. It is how I view the world and express it in an implicit way. The perspective of AI and robots in viewing the world may be different from ours. We all have our limited perspectives, and AI may also have this. Some people prefer to stick to the real world as it is, while others like to view the world through a virtual lens, just like AI.

All of these are possible; it may not be a hindrance. For a period, it may accelerate, and after a while, it may differentiate. Now, some people prefer to watch movies shot on film, while others like movies with very high clarity. Some people like film, while others prefer high definition. Everyone has different choices, and in my view, there should be no such thing as a hindrance.

Alex: I think that’s a great point, especially the example of film. Digital cameras are very common, but there are still people who insist on using film cameras because they feel that film captures photos they like better and has more artistic sentiment. The two are not in conflict, but using the example of film, we can see that as digital camera technology matures, film has been eliminated because the cost of producing film is certainly much higher than that of digital cameras. This is also why, in today's increasingly mature technology, there are still many film enthusiasts who have no choice but to accept this reality.

Now Canon has stopped production, so it’s also a lament for the passage of time. Victor, since AI technology may coexist with existing art in the future and become a trend, there has been a significant controversy recently regarding art NFTs, particularly concerning the X2Y2 address block. This was also anticipated by X2Y2. Some project parties believe they should receive royalties, so they should implement blocking.

However, for pure art projects like ArtBlock, H2Y2 has forcibly added royalties, while QQL is an auction-type artwork, so we actually did not impose royalties forcibly but added them in a community manner. Do you think the behavior of project parties collecting royalties is reasonable for users? Or is it unreasonable? Could you share your views and reasons?

Victor: Whether it is reasonable or not, how should I put it? I might not have much say in this topic because I'm not very familiar with it. But when you mention royalties or copyrights, the term copyright implies that there should be a legal entity protecting certain rights. What we refer to as copyright often pertains to intellectual property, which means ownership. Because intellectual property, whether in art or other inventions, also belongs to me in terms of the right to profit, meaning the right to profit and ownership, along with other rights attached to the product.

Now, using smart contracts, we have already guaranteed these rights. Smart contracts can distinguish between simple content copying and true original ownership, which is traceable on-chain. People won't just copy and paste a boring ape's image. The profit rights can also be handled through smart contracts. After creating a work, it can be sold freely, but each transaction automatically collects a percentage of five or two percent as a share. Therefore, through technology, we can reduce the original costs of protecting these rights through traditional means. So from this perspective, as long as it is something that already exists, and now it can be done at a lower cost, it is inherently reasonable from this angle.

Alex: We have another guest helping to discover the Generative Alpha community. I wonder how you view the issue of AI art NFT copyright after listening to our discussion? It seems like you suddenly became a listener. So let's continue to ask CJ how he views the copyright issue of AI art and NFTs. Should royalties be collected? Some people say this counts as art, but isn't it just various copies? It seems to lack significant artistic value, yet it is very centralized, forcibly requiring royalties. What is your take on this matter?

CJ: Actually, I don't think royalties need to be paid; there shouldn't be royalties in the secondary market. If everyone clearly states how much should be collected when the NFT is sold initially, I think collecting is fine. When discussing this issue, because X2Y2 previously returned royalties to buyers, I think that's great, but when doing this, it still avoids some risks, fearing that the reaction would be too large, so they didn't cancel the royalties for "real artworks." There is a boundary that is hard to define; why can OSBlock collect royalties, but PFP project parties or those selling ten thousand collections of algorithmically generated projects shouldn't? Is it because they invested different amounts of time? Some OSBlock projects only take a few minutes, while some creators may spend one or two years.

Whether we collect royalties shouldn't be based on how much time was invested or what the content is; it should consider why we collect them. Royalties include the taxes we pay in our lives, and the purpose of paying taxes is? We pay taxes, and the government helps us build infrastructure and develop the country, improving our living standards. That's the meaning of our payment. I find it quite strange for project parties to collect royalties because they already collected a royalty when selling the NFT in the primary market. When we buy government bonds and government-supported bonds, we are also exempt from taxes. What is the logic behind tax exemption?

Because when buying this thing, we are actually supporting the government and the country, so there shouldn't be a second taxation. Returning to the perspective of project parties, collecting royalties feels like when we buy stocks and hit a stock, promising to use one hundred billion to do what was promised in fundraising, but after a year, they say, "Sorry, this didn't go well, and now we have no money to survive; the company is going to go bankrupt. Can we collect a two percent transaction fee or call it royalties, and the royalties will keep our company alive?"

Everyone should think about this logic. Is it reasonable to collect royalties in the secondary market? I think it is very unreasonable unless it is clearly stated at the beginning that an NFT sold for 0.5 ETH is only enough to complete the first and second steps of the roadmap, and future steps three and four will rely on collecting royalties to continue. If this is made clear from the start, I can understand the forced collection of royalties because it was clearly stated from the beginning. Many project parties receive money without saying what they will do with it, without detailing how much the team’s salary is, and once it’s used up, it’s just used up, and then they say they should collect royalties.

Many NFT project parties are soft rogues, and many times NFT projects rise based on community and NFT holders slowly promoting them. In this case, what qualifications do those project parties have to collect so-called royalties? My attitude towards this issue is quite clear: unless it is agreed upon from the beginning, I think they shouldn't collect.

Alex: Very clear, thank you for your sharing. Personally, I think this is about gentlemen's agreements; agreements should be made clear. The reason this issue is so controversial is that many project parties did not make clear agreements at the beginning. Many times, because they are the project parties, they can modify many regulations, and later clarify these matters. As long as it is not made clear in advance, many times this thing will have variables, and once there are variables, people may feel very uncomfortable. What’s going on with this project party? Are they trying to scam us again? Many people will be unhappy, but I agree with CJ's viewpoint. I wonder what Jimmy thinks about the issue of royalties for artworks?

Jimmy: To be honest, I don't really care about the issue of royalties because whether it is reasonable or not depends on whether the project is strong. If it is strong enough, just like OpenSea, I don't really understand NFTs, but if they collect one percent, ten percent, or twenty percent, you have to endure it, right? If a project is strong, it will dominate you. The reasonableness of this thing completely depends on whether one side is strong. Just like in war, is it reasonable for the US to attack Iraq or anywhere? Why is the tax in Nevada zero? Is it reasonable?

As long as you are strong, you are reasonable. If you think it is unreasonable, it is because it is not strong enough. So I don't get too hung up on royalties; the significance of this is not very great. The discourse power is always in the hands of the strong side or the side with consensus. It doesn't necessarily have to be rational, but I think whoever is strong gets to decide. I don't care much about this; I'm not too concerned about it because I don't really understand it. If I am dependent on others, whatever they set is what it is. I won't discuss my entangled feelings about this.

CJ: Jimmy hit the nail on the head. Your logic is actually quite right. One advantage of Web3 is that since OpenSea charges two and a half percent, if you enter this industry from the beginning, it seems quite normal. But if you have done transactions in traditional secondary markets, a stock exchange or a brokerage may charge a fee of three or two and a half per ten thousand for opening an account, and if you have stronger bargaining power, it could be even lower than one per ten thousand. This is hard for high-frequency traders to endure, but for Web3, it seems that everyone just accepts OpenSea's two and a half percent.

In the long run, the market won't remain this way. Now there are X2Y2 and various NFT exchanges emerging, and X2Y2 has reduced the transaction fee to zero point five percent. This is actually a very good direction for healthy market competition. We may not care who ultimately wins, but at least we have a choice in transaction fees. This includes when doing lending; some competitors charge lending fees, but our fees are zero. We are definitely gaining more users to use our products through this method, as we are the latecomers. However, as more competitors and project parties continue to enter this industry, it will no longer be the case that the strong can decide everything.

Five years from now, whether X2Y2 or Win is still around, the rates for royalties, transaction fees, or lending platform fees will definitely be very, very low. The reason for this is not that those project parties have suddenly developed a conscience or want to give back to ordinary users; it is simply because project parties like us have emerged in the historical development of the industry, and it is the emergence of project parties that can say no to these matters that will make the industry stronger.

Jimmy: CJ is absolutely right. Any regulations, including membership systems and charging mechanisms, exist for a reason, but when they are eliminated, it is also destined to be eliminated. In the end, we all vote with our feet. No matter how good you are, if I don't choose you, you are of no use. Whether it is malicious competition or healthy competition, in the end, it is the consumers or fans who vote with their feet. When I leave, I won't greet you, and I won't leave a message on OpenSea. When I eliminate you, I won't greet you either; it’s the same.

BinaryEva: The topic we just discussed is how to view generative art and AI art. We are a data analysis platform focused on serving the generative art field, so we are very optimistic about the future of generative art and AI art. It needs to be clarified that generative art did not emerge because of blockchain and crypto; it has existed since the early twentieth century or even the late nineteenth century, and many people have been supporting this field.

Going further back, in the twentieth century, there was Dadaism, which everyone has heard of to some extent. It essentially opposed traditional art and the traditional aesthetic order, challenging the idea that random and accidentally produced beauty is true beauty. We do not need to be confined to a fixed creation of an artist or a fixed form of art; this has already become a new direction in art development since the twentieth century.

Because it is inherently anti-traditional art, this matter, with the development of blockchain, further allows generative art to have more practical forms of expression, and the ideological alignment is also very consistent. Generative art itself pursues this random and accidental beauty, opposing traditional art, which is very consistent with our opposition to traditional methods of rights confirmation. Currently, well-known generative artists like Tailor Hobs and Dimitry have done a lot of historical popularization of generative art, so purely from an artistic perspective, the direction of generative art has a certain degree of certainty. Why can crypto allow generative art to explode better? On one hand, there is a technical fit, and on the other hand, the artistic forms are similar, and it provides better trading methods and rights confirmation for generative art.

A personal discovery I made recently is that although everyone says the overall trading volume on OpenSea has decreased by ninety-five to ninety-seven percent from the end of last year to now, many generative artists are very unconvinced and are competing. Why not take a look at the trading volume on FX? In the past, our general perception was that during the NFT bear market, there was a significant increase in trading volume, which has grown from a small platform to one with a very large audience and many professional artists. So from this perspective, we are also very optimistic about the development of generative art and AI art. I wanted to share our understanding because our team has been focused on researching generative art since the hot phase of avatar art, which is PFP.

Alex: I see you are also collaborating with X2Y2.

BinaryEva: We are building our own marketplace, and X2Y2 has given us great support.

Alex: We want to help the development of NFT artworks.

BinaryEva: Returning to the issue of royalties, earlier everyone talked about the strong having reasonable logic, but I personally feel that we are not against royalties; rather, we oppose the idea that everyone takes high royalties for granted as reasonable.

A more healthy development state should be that the entire NFT market has many different forms; some are PaaS, some are avatar-based, some have game elements, and some are art-based. Depending on their characteristics and positioning, they can choose whether to use royalties as a long-term funding support for future development, which is more important. Just like I personally also like many avatar projects, if a project promises from the beginning to be CC0 and is initially a free mint, then collecting royalties to continuously expand the IP is a rational choice.

If the initial market issuance price is very high and they still want to maintain high royalties for a long time, it may not be that reasonable. If the entire market breaks free from the original high royalties being seen as reasonable and challenges this, perhaps in the future, project parties will also make a more reasonable choice regarding their positioning and how to support future normal development. Providing a choice gives NFT consumers and collectors the opportunity to choose actively. Discussing this topic from an equal perspective, or choosing from an equal perspective, I think this is a more reasonable choice and is also why X2Y2, as a platform that supports art and artists setting royalties, still chooses to collaborate with X2Y2. I think X2Y2 is the same; it is not against royalties but wants to open up greater possibilities for everyone to choose freely.

Alex: Just to echo, many things are not set in stone because this industry is still very early. We cannot say that having royalties is definitely wrong or definitely right, but maintaining such high royalties is indeed unreasonable. Throughout this process, there will always be people saying either no royalties or reducing them, or even proposing incentives for those with royalties. Various plans will emerge, and whichever plan the market recognizes will be voted on with their feet. We can see how the market goes.

As time progresses, this issue will definitely be resolved, but we don't need to rush. After all, we are in a bear market, and everyone is huddling together to stay warm, thinking about how to survive, which is the most important thing. I believe that by 2024, as the market gradually warms up, there will definitely be a relatively general solution that will be adopted and accepted by most people, just like modern NFTs, where everyone has already gotten used to using artwork, which is a commonplace thing.

But before 2020, from 2016 to 2017, everyone didn't know what a reasonable solution for trading NFTs was or what was suitable. At that time, there were various OTC options. I personally think this is related to the development of the times. BinaryEva said it very well; maintaining an open mindset to view any changes or things is the most important. Whether it is art NFTs or not, whether it is artwork or not, it needs to accept the criticism of the world. After all, how to earn money from others more dignifiedly is more acceptable to everyone, and perhaps this is a very long-term topic.

BinaryEva: We are in the crypto field, and every depth has significant differences. The most similar aspect is that everyone is relatively rebellious or has a high demand for their discourse power. Therefore, regarding the future development of the NFT market, whether there are royalties or not, how many royalties are set, and various types developing, it is indeed this attitude of more openly accepting various changes in the future. We will actively and proactively provide various participants with the space to choose. From the perspective of a project party, this is what we should do.

Alex: Do any other audience members or guests have anything they want to say or ask? You can speak freely.

Jimmy: I was just listening to BinaryEva's voice and didn't hear the content.

Alex: I think BinaryEva's content is actually more valuable.

BinaryEva: Next time, I’ll use a voice changer, okay?

Jimmy: I want to listen a bit longer; is it over?

Alex: No worries, there will be a recording later; you can savor it.

BinaryEva: I want to add one point. Recently, I've seen many artists discussing their views on AI art and generative art, believing that they may be two different factions. AI and generative art are different things, and there is another direction where AI technology can be used more in the generative art field. I want to think about what that artist's name is; one artist named Evona Tao has released some projects that are generative art supported by AI technology.

Recently, in the small field of generative art, AI art will also experience a part of the explosion. It is evident that many people's acceptance levels are increasing. Personally, I believe that AI art, regardless of whether it is art or not, will generate some artworks or images and videos. This will definitely be a direction for future generative art, but whether it can generate things that have artistic appreciation value still needs to consider the artistic behavior of the artist and the skills and techniques behind the art they create.

Alex: AI is more of a technology, not the entirety and essence of art. The essence of art is still to experience one's own thoughts. Even ArtBlock incorporates its own thoughts, customizing based on hash keys, and how to delineate at each time point still has a relatively conceptual aspect. So it is not purely randomly generated, so there are still differences. There will be various types of art in the future, and everyone can pay attention to that. Thank you very much for BinaryEva's presence, and I look forward to a smooth collaboration with you in the future.