Great article. I think that the old world brought a curated bunch of musical artists that were promoted to great success. I doubt that the Crypto transformation of the music industry is going to offer a valid alternative to traditional music releasing. While it may offer freedom and the ability of anyone to try to become a musical artist, it will become inundated with mediocrity. For as long as there has been the patron/artist relationship, there was always an arbitrator of talent. The masses do not know how to identify that. Crypto music success will be defined by “hype.” Which fades quickly. True sustainable value will continue to be built by traditional entities, albeit using new blockchain technology.
Hi there, apologies for the very late reply. Christmas etc. I completely agree with your comment. For me, the focus is on Crypto enabling alternative modes of creating a business for a creator, rather than it changing how music is released. Arguably, anyone can already try to become an artist, it's never been easier to release music, and creating friction by changing that is a losing path. Furthermore the platforms that have aggregated listeners, and by extension positioned themselves as the tastemakers and not going to give that up. This is really about disruption of the financing of the supply side of the market. But as you rightly say, traditional entities are already well positioned to react to it. The question comes down to how much this becomes an innovators dilemma, i.e. how much accommodating a new model threatens their established business, and what the risk tolerance will be towards that.
Good write up but surprised that you didn’t mention RCRDSHP. Millions in sales, thriving community and secondary market, and more than a hundred well-known EDM artists/brands signed up. Running on Flow, the greenest most consumer-friendly blockchain out there.
You mentioned 300-600 musical artists as total number involved in crypto music. Does that count 170 artists (as of Dec 24, 2021) at RCRDSHP? Totally unclear why you would find that "not interesting" if your 300-600 figure is anywhere near accurate.
Really great article. How do you see the interaction with the existing streaming platforms evolving? If artists don’t monetise via royalties do the steaming platforms still exist for promotion and audience building but monetisation happens in the crypto native spaces via other means? Or how do you think independent artists will think about growing audiences if there is a relatively low ceiling on the crypto native spaces?
Streaming isn't going anywhere. It's an incredible product for consumers and unparalleled in terms of audience reach for creators. What could happen though is that an increasing number of creators essentially abandon it as a means to make money and focus on other verticals. At that point streaming really is just a promotion tool. I mean, that's kinda already the case for most creators, except the complicated rights picture and friction exists. Move forward a few years and if enough creators chose that route then streaming becomes cheaper to run, and for consumers, increasing it's growth in users. This is the co-existance period I was talking about. Crypto in this regard is one of a few options for monetisation away from royalties.
Dan, fantastic article—I love your roadmap and the metrics by which to measure progress. As a UX strategist/designer, I couldn't agree more that there is considerable work to be done before it can go mainstream. I'm excited to contribute on that front.
Thanks so much, I'm glad it helped! Yes there's lots to do, but also we've come a long way in the past few years too. Some times it's important to take a step back and look at the larger context.
Great article feel like glass.xyz is like a youtube approach
Great article. I think that the old world brought a curated bunch of musical artists that were promoted to great success. I doubt that the Crypto transformation of the music industry is going to offer a valid alternative to traditional music releasing. While it may offer freedom and the ability of anyone to try to become a musical artist, it will become inundated with mediocrity. For as long as there has been the patron/artist relationship, there was always an arbitrator of talent. The masses do not know how to identify that. Crypto music success will be defined by “hype.” Which fades quickly. True sustainable value will continue to be built by traditional entities, albeit using new blockchain technology.
Hi there, apologies for the very late reply. Christmas etc. I completely agree with your comment. For me, the focus is on Crypto enabling alternative modes of creating a business for a creator, rather than it changing how music is released. Arguably, anyone can already try to become an artist, it's never been easier to release music, and creating friction by changing that is a losing path. Furthermore the platforms that have aggregated listeners, and by extension positioned themselves as the tastemakers and not going to give that up. This is really about disruption of the financing of the supply side of the market. But as you rightly say, traditional entities are already well positioned to react to it. The question comes down to how much this becomes an innovators dilemma, i.e. how much accommodating a new model threatens their established business, and what the risk tolerance will be towards that.
Good write up but surprised that you didn’t mention RCRDSHP. Millions in sales, thriving community and secondary market, and more than a hundred well-known EDM artists/brands signed up. Running on Flow, the greenest most consumer-friendly blockchain out there.
Thanks, but I don't really find rcrdshp or flow that interesting really, sorry.
You mentioned 300-600 musical artists as total number involved in crypto music. Does that count 170 artists (as of Dec 24, 2021) at RCRDSHP? Totally unclear why you would find that "not interesting" if your 300-600 figure is anywhere near accurate.
Really great article. How do you see the interaction with the existing streaming platforms evolving? If artists don’t monetise via royalties do the steaming platforms still exist for promotion and audience building but monetisation happens in the crypto native spaces via other means? Or how do you think independent artists will think about growing audiences if there is a relatively low ceiling on the crypto native spaces?
Streaming isn't going anywhere. It's an incredible product for consumers and unparalleled in terms of audience reach for creators. What could happen though is that an increasing number of creators essentially abandon it as a means to make money and focus on other verticals. At that point streaming really is just a promotion tool. I mean, that's kinda already the case for most creators, except the complicated rights picture and friction exists. Move forward a few years and if enough creators chose that route then streaming becomes cheaper to run, and for consumers, increasing it's growth in users. This is the co-existance period I was talking about. Crypto in this regard is one of a few options for monetisation away from royalties.
Thanks for expanding. Great points.
Dan, fantastic article—I love your roadmap and the metrics by which to measure progress. As a UX strategist/designer, I couldn't agree more that there is considerable work to be done before it can go mainstream. I'm excited to contribute on that front.
Thanks so much, I'm glad it helped! Yes there's lots to do, but also we've come a long way in the past few years too. Some times it's important to take a step back and look at the larger context.