ETH Cost for Daz NFT

mwokee

I'm looking at the Daz NFT promo page for the upcoming sale... https://nfp.daz3d.com/ ...and it says the cost is .05/.08 ETH for a maximum of 2 characters (assuming I am reading it correctly). So I go to Google and it says 1 ETH = $3,913 USD. Which makes 0.05 ETH = $195.65. Multiply by two if purchasing two characters. Am I in error here? Am I going to be sorry I didn't join the Discord?

Richard Haseltine

Assuming you have the money the price will have no bearing on whether the products are desirable or not - and therefore will have no bearing on whether you regret not signing up or not.

Ascania

You forgot to add the "gas fees" on top of that.

So yeah, they're an expensive waste of money.

Join the Discord if you want to get some discounts and freebies from the DAZ store and can cope with scammers and spammers inundating you in PMs and know how to keep your account from getting compromised. Ever since I joined I get targeted by all the Discord spam they warn you about.

mwokee

Ascania said:

You forgot to add the "gas fees" on top of that.

So yeah, they're an expensive waste of money.

Join the Discord if you want to get some discounts and freebies from the DAZ store and can cope with scammers and spammers inundating you in PMs and know how to keep your account from getting compromised. Ever since I joined I get targeted by all the Discord spam they warn you about.

I tried joining the Discord but it was a mess. I don't care if I missed out on a free item, it's getting really, really old that Daz promotions are always failing and not worth the bother.

andrushuk1

the next thing you will find is that EVERY THING on the internet will cost money it will all be NFTs if I understand it correctly videos, pics ect..   every thing can be NFT , if you want to watch that video on UTube  well now it will cost u  because everyone will feel like their stuff is worth some thing and it will drive up power costs world wide and have such an environmental imact that the planet will never recover .  That's just one of the things all these ppl that are pushing this stuff are foregetting to tell people.

Richard Haseltine

andrushuk1 said:

the next thing you will find is that EVERY THING on the internet will cost money it will all be NFTs if I understand it correctly videos, pics ect..   every thing can be NFT , if you want to watch that video on UTube  well now it will cost u  because everyone will feel like their stuff is worth some thing and it will drive up power costs world wide and have such an environmental imact that the planet will never recover .  That's just one of the things all these ppl that are pushing this stuff are foregetting to tell people

How would that work? An NFT does not generally have much actual data - usually a link but as I understand it there have been some with little GIF files - so there would still need to be an accessible video for the putative NFT to link to. In any event, this has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

StratDragon

Daz_Travis said:

Hey all! Daz 3D’s debut NFT collection, Non-Fungible People (NFP) is almost here! This hyper-realistic 3D NFT collection is bringing 8,888 stunning, powerful, self-expressive women and non-binary 3D models to the metaverse — each uniquely generated from a pool of over 30K traits. As an additional bonus, we are going to continue dropping an extra daily deal in the Discord channel until December 27th!

Energy consumption required for buyers and more significantly; bidders for NTF transactions are very concerning, my guess is there will be a backlash from the information generation in their teens and 20's who are becoming aware of this. it may become a long term trend, but it appears to come with a very concerning carbon footprint.

Richard Haseltine

Post moved from: The Non-Fungible People Collection is dropping soon!.

plasma_ring

andrushuk1 said:

the next thing you will find is that EVERY THING on the internet will cost money it will all be NFTs if I understand it correctly videos, pics ect..   every thing can be NFT , if you want to watch that video on UTube  well now it will cost u  because everyone will feel like their stuff is worth some thing and it will drive up power costs world wide and have such an environmental imact that the planet will never recover .  That's just one of the things all these ppl that are pushing this stuff are foregetting to tell people.

It's more likely that the real consequences will not be catastrophic, while still making things measurably much worse in terms of usability and the general character of online spaces. There have been plenty of apt comparisons to video game microtransactions and lootboxes, where the argument in defense at their introduction was, "You can ignore it if you want!" and the argument against them was, "Yes, but this will incentivize studios to design games that reward purchases." Naturally, video games are largely now designed to incorporate those monetization models, even if on a small scale. It's not unbearable, but it's worse. 

The most pressing issue for me as a digital artist is how cheerfully adamant NFT-pushers are that everyone will be forced to use NFTs as a guarantee for their work. This thread is a good breakdown of how badly that would suck; the short version is that as soon as platforms decide they're going to protect NFT-holders by algorithmically detecting fraudulent uploads, artists who get their work stolen and minted are going to have an awful time posting anything. If it became a widespread standard, congrats, we now have an internet where you have to pay to guarantee your own work as an NFT to ensure you don't get your own posts taken down because someone else minted an "official" record of it. 

Would it happen to everyone, and would it be so catastrophic that it would ruin everything? No, probably not--everyone would get used to it. But it would be much, much worse and would end up with plenty of people too far under the radar to get traction suffering for it, and it falling short of catastrophe makes it harder to undo once it's in place. This is true of basically any downside of crypto and there's no shortage of very bad, predatory "innovations" that are allowed to exist because the majority of people are just inconvenienced by them rather than ruined. 

mwokee

andrushuk1 said:

the next thing you will find is that EVERY THING on the internet will cost money it will all be NFTs if I understand it correctly videos, pics ect..   every thing can be NFT , if you want to watch that video on UTube  well now it will cost u  because everyone will feel like their stuff is worth some thing and it will drive up power costs world wide and have such an environmental imact that the planet will never recover .  That's just one of the things all these ppl that are pushing this stuff are foregetting to tell people.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Go to a grocery store, buy an apple for 50 cents. Buy an apple for 50 cents worth of NFT, what's the difference? It's just that people are paying $100 for an apple right now because there is a new gimmick. Good for you if you're the one who can sell that apple for $100. It will eventually crash because there aren't enough people to sustain a $100 apple market.

3141592654

mwokee said:

I'm looking at the Daz NFT promo page for the upcoming sale... https://nfp.daz3d.com/ ...and it says the cost is .05/.08 ETH for a maximum of 2 characters (assuming I am reading it correctly). So I go to Google and it says 1 ETH = $3,913 USD. Which makes 0.05 ETH = $195.65. Multiply by two if purchasing two characters. Am I in error here? Am I going to be sorry I didn't join the Discord?

If you are interested in buying NFP NFT's, then you have missed out. The .05 price is for those who earned a whitelist / pre-sale purchase option ... which does take time and effort on discord. In a few days, it will be made public and the price will be .20 ... approximately $800.00 .  If you are not interested in purchasing ... then you have missed basically nothing.

plasma_ring

mwokee said:

andrushuk1 said:

the next thing you will find is that EVERY THING on the internet will cost money it will all be NFTs if I understand it correctly videos, pics ect..   every thing can be NFT , if you want to watch that video on UTube  well now it will cost u  because everyone will feel like their stuff is worth some thing and it will drive up power costs world wide and have such an environmental imact that the planet will never recover .  That's just one of the things all these ppl that are pushing this stuff are foregetting to tell people.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Go to a grocery store, buy an apple for 50 cents. Buy an apple for 50 cents worth of NFT, what's the difference? It's just that people are paying $100 for an apple right now because there is a new gimmick. Good for you if you're the one who can sell that apple for $100. It will eventually crash because there aren't enough people to sustain a $100 apple market.

It's a bad thing because the goal of this mindset is to set up pay gates where there currently aren't any. It's looking at things that are currently free/services of the common good, and thinking, "There's a missed opportunity here. What if people had to pay me, specifically, to access this thing?" 

The people setting up the pay gates may or may not have anything to do with the thing being charged for, like the guy I saw getting roasted over on Twitter for saying he squatted on 1,200 usernames early in the platform's life with the intention of selling them later (some of them names of other people's IPs, or states, etc.). 

frank0314

And those people need to be prosecuted to the fullist extent of the law and made examples of for their theft in which would be a felony for 1 count.

plasma_ring

frank0314 said:

And those people need to be prosecuted to the fullist extent of the law and made examples of for their theft in which would be a felony for 1 count.

There are plenty of cases in which this is perfectly legal, because it isn't technically theft. Ideally, copyright law defends people from having their art stolen and sold without their permission, but it doesn't protect them in a scenario where, say, NFTs become the most common method of granting digital access and the only way you can ensure that no one else charges for digital access to your work is to do it yourself. The person stealing your work is doing something illegal, but they're counting on you not being willing or able to spend the money or effort on taking them down. The third party that mints your NFT to prevent theft is profiting off you feeling the need to do that to avoid the hassle. 

Any time a for-profit venture aims to mainstream a method of dealing with a problem without actually solving the root cause of that problem, it's creating a situation that incentivizes never solving the problem in order to keep the profit opportunity alive. 

frank0314

It is a new fad so with time they will strengthen everything up like they do with all things. Filling in loopholes in the laws, extra security processes, validating that it's your work instead of just taking your word for it. IMO the whole NFT system needs a lot of work and a lot of this work should've been done before hand. There are way to many people taking advantage of the current situation and how things are being ran. Honestly it's not that much of a shock to me that this is all going on.

Richard Haseltine

plasma_ring said:

frank0314 said:

And those people need to be prosecuted to the fullist extent of the law and made examples of for their theft in which would be a felony for 1 count.

There are plenty of cases in which this is perfectly legal, because it isn't technically theft. Ideally, copyright law defends people from having their art stolen and sold without their permission, but it doesn't protect them in a scenario where, say, NFTs become the most common method of granting digital access and the only way you can ensure that no one else charges for digital access to your work is to do it yourself. The person stealing your work is doing something illegal, but they're counting on you not being willing or able to spend the money or effort on taking them down. The third party that mints your NFT to prevent theft is profiting off you feeling the need to do that to avoid the hassle. 

Any time a for-profit venture aims to mainstream a method of dealing with a problem without actually solving the root cause of that problem, it's creating a situation that incentivizes never solving the problem in order to keep the profit opportunity alive. 

An NFT is not the art - it is, generally, a link to the art. In the case of selling a link to someone else's art the person may put up a copy of the art on the sale page, and that would be an infringement that could be pursued in the usual way.

plasma_ring

Richard Haseltine said:

plasma_ring said:

frank0314 said:

And those people need to be prosecuted to the fullist extent of the law and made examples of for their theft in which would be a felony for 1 count.

There are plenty of cases in which this is perfectly legal, because it isn't technically theft. Ideally, copyright law defends people from having their art stolen and sold without their permission, but it doesn't protect them in a scenario where, say, NFTs become the most common method of granting digital access and the only way you can ensure that no one else charges for digital access to your work is to do it yourself. The person stealing your work is doing something illegal, but they're counting on you not being willing or able to spend the money or effort on taking them down. The third party that mints your NFT to prevent theft is profiting off you feeling the need to do that to avoid the hassle. 

Any time a for-profit venture aims to mainstream a method of dealing with a problem without actually solving the root cause of that problem, it's creating a situation that incentivizes never solving the problem in order to keep the profit opportunity alive. 

An NFT is not the art - it is, generally, a link to the art. In the case of selling a link to someone else's art the person may put up a copy of the art on the sale page, and that would be an infringement that could be pursued in the usual way.

Yes. My point is that "the usual way" is so prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to pursue that people are already giving up dealing with NFT theft on places like DeviantArt and shuttering their accounts because they're getting notifications that their entire galleries are being stolen. OpenSea is now refusing to honor takedown requests in favor of telling people to file a DMCA claim, which means their personal information can end up being sent to the person stealing their work. 

If NFTs become so mainstream that most social media sites have infrastructure for protecting NFT owners, what we will probably see is a copyright strike system similar to the one on YouTube, which throws plenty of false positives. There are relatively well-known YouTubers who have spent months trying to get their accounts back after a mistaken copyright flag, or who have been targeted by malicious claims YouTube didn't look deeper into. In most cases, a big enough account can make enough noise and get the strike cleared. It sometimes takes a lawsuit, if they have the money and time to pursue one. Most people don't. 

That would leave most people's realistic options at: accepting the risk that your own work will be flagged because someone else minted it as an NFT and you didn't, minting it as an NFT yourself before posting it, or not posting at all. Most of these flagging systems have not had enough work or money put into them to be accurate; they're meant to show that the company Did Something, as with Tumblr's NSFW ban completely missing most hardcore bot accounts and flagging SFW images. 

To be clear, the perfectly legal rent-seeking behavior in this case is not the person stealing the art (although the people stealing the art are unlikely to be stopped, punished, or prosecuted because they're operating at scale). It's the platform saying, "Oh, I see people are stealing your art! :( It's a good thing we have this blockchain setup here specifically designed to ensure you never have to worry about filing a DMCA takedown notice or having your art sold as an NFT without your permission. All you have to do is mint it right here on our site, and you can sell it as an NFT yourself. That will be $10-$70, please."

This is the core of every single pitch I've heard for why NFTs are supposedly good for small artists, and when small artists say, "I don't want to do that, actually, I want sites to give me the tools we've actually asked for to protect our work" the response tends to be, "Oh, don't worry! :) You'll be forced to when every site incorporates NFTs into everything." 

Richard Haseltine

plasma_ring said:

Richard Haseltine said:

plasma_ring said:

frank0314 said:

And those people need to be prosecuted to the fullist extent of the law and made examples of for their theft in which would be a felony for 1 count.

There are plenty of cases in which this is perfectly legal, because it isn't technically theft. Ideally, copyright law defends people from having their art stolen and sold without their permission, but it doesn't protect them in a scenario where, say, NFTs become the most common method of granting digital access and the only way you can ensure that no one else charges for digital access to your work is to do it yourself. The person stealing your work is doing something illegal, but they're counting on you not being willing or able to spend the money or effort on taking them down. The third party that mints your NFT to prevent theft is profiting off you feeling the need to do that to avoid the hassle. 

Any time a for-profit venture aims to mainstream a method of dealing with a problem without actually solving the root cause of that problem, it's creating a situation that incentivizes never solving the problem in order to keep the profit opportunity alive. 

An NFT is not the art - it is, generally, a link to the art. In the case of selling a link to someone else's art the person may put up a copy of the art on the sale page, and that would be an infringement that could be pursued in the usual way.

Yes. My point is that "the usual way" is so prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to pursue that people are already giving up dealing with NFT theft on places like DeviantArt and shuttering their accounts because they're getting notifications that their entire galleries are being stolen. OpenSea is now refusing to honor takedown requests in favor of telling people to file a DMCA claim, which means their personal information can end up being sent to the person stealing their work. 

If NFTs become so mainstream that most social media sites have infrastructure for protecting NFT owners, what we will probably see is a copyright strike system similar to the one on YouTube, which throws plenty of false positives. There are relatively well-known YouTubers who have spent months trying to get their accounts back after a mistaken copyright flag, or who have been targeted by malicious claims YouTube didn't look deeper into. In most cases, a big enough account can make enough noise and get the strike cleared. It sometimes takes a lawsuit, if they have the money and time to pursue one. Most people don't. 

That would leave most people's realistic options at: accepting the risk that your own work will be flagged because someone else minted it as an NFT and you didn't, minting it as an NFT yourself before posting it, or not posting at all. Most of these flagging systems have not had enough work or money put into them to be accurate; they're meant to show that the company Did Something, as with Tumblr's NSFW ban completely missing most hardcore bot accounts and flagging SFW images. 

To be clear, the perfectly legal rent-seeking behavior in this case is not the person stealing the art (although the people stealing the art are unlikely to be stopped, punished, or prosecuted because they're operating at scale). It's the platform saying, "Oh, I see people are stealing your art! :( It's a good thing we have this blockchain setup here specifically designed to ensure you never have to worry about filing a DMCA takedown notice or having your art sold as an NFT without your permission. All you have to do is mint it right here on our site, and you can sell it as an NFT yourself. That will be $10-$70, please."

This is the core of every single pitch I've heard for why NFTs are supposedly good for small artists, and when small artists say, "I don't want to do that, actually, I want sites to give me the tools we've actually asked for to protect our work" the response tends to be, "Oh, don't worry! :) You'll be forced to when every site incorporates NFTs into everything." 

An NFT is not any kind of proof of copyright claim, so your penultimate paragraph makes no sense at all. The NFT itself doesn't steal your art, the promo page (and possibly the page the NFT points to) do.

I agree about the major drawback you point out with with the DMCA, that for individuals without a lawyer they involve exposing personal details, but that is a general issue and has no connection with NFTs.

Ascania

Richard Haseltine said:

plasma_ring said:

frank0314 said:

And those people need to be prosecuted to the fullist extent of the law and made examples of for their theft in which would be a felony for 1 count.

There are plenty of cases in which this is perfectly legal, because it isn't technically theft. Ideally, copyright law defends people from having their art stolen and sold without their permission, but it doesn't protect them in a scenario where, say, NFTs become the most common method of granting digital access and the only way you can ensure that no one else charges for digital access to your work is to do it yourself. The person stealing your work is doing something illegal, but they're counting on you not being willing or able to spend the money or effort on taking them down. The third party that mints your NFT to prevent theft is profiting off you feeling the need to do that to avoid the hassle. 

Any time a for-profit venture aims to mainstream a method of dealing with a problem without actually solving the root cause of that problem, it's creating a situation that incentivizes never solving the problem in order to keep the profit opportunity alive. 

An NFT is not the art - it is, generally, a link to the art. In the case of selling a link to someone else's art the person may put up a copy of the art on the sale page, and that would be an infringement that could be pursued in the usual way.

There is still a legal argument to be made that by minting an NFT of somebody else's art you are deriving a profit off it you are not entitled to and that can be argued in court to infringe on the copyright holder's rights. As far as I know such a case has not yet been brought to the courts though, so we do not have any legal clarity on it yet.

frank0314

Ascania said:

Richard Haseltine said:

plasma_ring said:

frank0314 said:

And those people need to be prosecuted to the fullist extent of the law and made examples of for their theft in which would be a felony for 1 count.

There are plenty of cases in which this is perfectly legal, because it isn't technically theft. Ideally, copyright law defends people from having their art stolen and sold without their permission, but it doesn't protect them in a scenario where, say, NFTs become the most common method of granting digital access and the only way you can ensure that no one else charges for digital access to your work is to do it yourself. The person stealing your work is doing something illegal, but they're counting on you not being willing or able to spend the money or effort on taking them down. The third party that mints your NFT to prevent theft is profiting off you feeling the need to do that to avoid the hassle. 

Any time a for-profit venture aims to mainstream a method of dealing with a problem without actually solving the root cause of that problem, it's creating a situation that incentivizes never solving the problem in order to keep the profit opportunity alive. 

An NFT is not the art - it is, generally, a link to the art. In the case of selling a link to someone else's art the person may put up a copy of the art on the sale page, and that would be an infringement that could be pursued in the usual way.

There is still a legal argument to be made that by minting an NFT of somebody else's art you are deriving a profit off it you are not entitled to and that can be argued in court to infringe on the copyright holder's rights. As far as I know such a case has not yet been brought to the courts though, so we do not have any legal clarity on it yet.

That is a civil matter which occured from a crimal matter, theft, in which you file a civil action for recouping fees (lawyer and court), profits from the sale and possibly damages. The theft portion is a felony because 1. it's a computer crime, 2. possible value of such art, 3. it's an internet crime. Both adults or juveniles will be charged with felonies and as an adult in regards to the juvenile. The crimal portion still take place and sets the presadence for the civil case. Even if you somehow miracly losing the criminal case because you can't prove your work any longer due to getting rid of the original files or losing them on a HDD that died, which there are many other ways of proving ownership, you can still win the civil case. It happens thousands of times a year for many different reasons including theft of all incomposing art forums (writers, painters, stetchers, modelers, etc.). As far as the NFT trial process and recouping the money s/he has made on such art, is yet to be seen, but it in all probability will be no different than any other case of art theft in similar circumstances where the criminal managed to get a copyright with false documents..

I'd have to say in my experience probably 85% of the time the overwhelming majority of lawyers will take the case without funds until the case is won or settled and you are awarded a $ amount. You will have to go through a rigerious interview process for this type of case but as I said, in most cases it costs you nothing up front, at least in my experience with many different types of lawyers and courts. I have actually investigated and recommended charges for the prosecutors a couple times for different online crimes. In the US each state and venue within that state has their own version of federal and state laws so all laws are different in each state to a degree. Some are harsher than another states for the same crime.

Hylas

Ascania said:

 

Join the Discord if you want to get some discounts and freebies from the DAZ store and can cope with scammers and spammers inundating you in PMs and know how to keep your account from getting compromised. Ever since I joined I get targeted by all the Discord spam they warn you about.

Can you say more about this?

I'm new to Discord - yes, I joined for the freebies, but I was already thinking about joining anyway, for reasons unrelated to DAZ.

I'm not buying NFTs or doing anything like that. Is there anything specific I should or shouldn't do, aside from common sense things?

Now... where did I put my credit card? I don't want to miss out on this investment opportunity by this Nigerian Prince...

PerttiA

Hylas said:

Now... where did I put my credit card? I don't want to miss out on this investment opportunity by this Nigerian Prince...

Don't bother with the prince, her mother the widow of the recently deceased king holds the motherload... 

nakamuram002

No NFT for me.  I refuse to use "currency" such as Etherium and Bitcoin.  Especially when I don't know exactly what is for sale.

WendyLuvsCatz

I have never received spam from Discord though I haven't used it for over 2 years.

AbyssalEros

@Hylas:

First, right-click on the icon of the Non-Fungible People server on your left screen site.

Go to Privacy Settings and revoke the allowance that server members can send you direct messages.

If you are also part of other Discord servers and have the same issues with spamming/untrustworthy server members, do there either the same or left-click (or right-click) the gear icon (User Settings) on the lower left, next to your username.

Go there to Privacy & Safety and revoke the allowance for direct messages by server members in general.

As you are already inside the User Settings, continue with the following steps.

A bit farther down in Privacy & Safety, revoke at least the allowance that everyone could add you as a friend.

Also, farther down again, under Rich Presence, you better revoke both allowances.

Depending on your personal preferences, now search in the general User Settings under App Settings for Advanced, click on it, and turn off „Show your Game Library.“

Click also on Activity Status under Activity Settings and deactivate „Display current activity as a status message.“

Second, if all the notifications annoy you, right-click again on the server icon of Non-Fungible People and hover over Notification Settings, and select either @mention or Nothing. In addition, you can also suppress notifications by putting a checkmark in one or both suppress options.

This should suffice for starters.

Hylas

Thanks, that was really helpful!

AbyssalEros

You are welcome.

WendyLuvsCatz

ah so it is the people in your Discord groups that spam you.

That explains it, mine were only my friends.

Ascania

Hylas said:

 

Can you say more about this?

Somebody sending you a link is not your friend. Enticing offers are not. Use the standard security precautions,same as your email and DAZ3D account.

WendyLuvsCatz said:

I have never received spam from Discord though I haven't used it for over 2 years.

I didn't either. Then I joined the DAZ3D discord.

McGyver

I'm not sure why anyone would chose to name their chat service/social media site something that means disagreement or disharmony... from what I understand they started out as VoIP for gamers, but still... You'd think maybe "Harmony" or something upbeat if you are trying to sell it as something gamers might use to coordinate strategy for teams... I suppose it works if you eventually hope to become the next Facebook, then you can just tell your critics "Yo, the name literally means disagreement, confusion and strife... what else were you expecting?"

Now I'm starting to wonder if naming my meditation and inner tranquility app "Quarrel" was a good idea... I think "Altercation" would have been a much better name... oh well.

But as far as the spam is concerned... are we talking the salty synthetic pork product or the annoying crappy jerk based product?

Db3d

plasma_ring said:

andrushuk1 said:

the next thing you will find is that EVERY THING on the internet will cost money it will all be NFTs if I understand it correctly videos, pics ect..   every thing can be NFT , if you want to watch that video on UTube  well now it will cost u  because everyone will feel like their stuff is worth some thing and it will drive up power costs world wide and have such an environmental imact that the planet will never recover .  That's just one of the things all these ppl that are pushing this stuff are foregetting to tell people.

It's more likely that the real consequences will not be catastrophic, while still making things measurably much worse in terms of usability and the general character of online spaces. There have been plenty of apt comparisons to video game microtransactions and lootboxes, where the argument in defense at their introduction was, "You can ignore it if you want!" and the argument against them was, "Yes, but this will incentivize studios to design games that reward purchases." Naturally, video games are largely now designed to incorporate those monetization models, even if on a small scale. It's not unbearable, but it's worse. 

The most pressing issue for me as a digital artist is how cheerfully adamant NFT-pushers are that everyone will be forced to use NFTs as a guarantee for their work. This thread is a good breakdown of how badly that would suck; the short version is that as soon as platforms decide they're going to protect NFT-holders by algorithmically detecting fraudulent uploads, artists who get their work stolen and minted are going to have an awful time posting anything. If it became a widespread standard, congrats, we now have an internet where you have to pay to guarantee your own work as an NFT to ensure you don't get your own posts taken down because someone else minted an "official" record of it. 

Would it happen to everyone, and would it be so catastrophic that it would ruin everything? No, probably not--everyone would get used to it. But it would be much, much worse and would end up with plenty of people too far under the radar to get traction suffering for it, and it falling short of catastrophe makes it harder to undo once it's in place. This is true of basically any downside of crypto and there's no shortage of very bad, predatory "innovations" that are allowed to exist because the majority of people are just inconvenienced by them rather than ruined. 

It seems to complicated to go very far. Just trying to figure out Discord is something most people won't want to deal with it.