Some people were wondering how this would work, this is how I see it, how about you?

Basically, with this system, assuming a 'better' case scenario, it looks like the founders will become very rich. You, as a photographer, if you get on the ground floor *and* it takes off, will make "some" money (probably better than you are right now) - but it really makes the founders rich.

a) 23% of the coins are reserved for the founders. At the current capitalization (20 cents), that would be about 6 million. However, they are hoping it takes off, like ETH/BTC, etc - so a coin would 'eventually' be worth $200-$300. (So that 6 million is now worth 6 billion. Split up amonst the team members (22), assuming everyone got an even cut (unlikely, but lets say it was that), thats about 270 million/investor.

b) Another 15% is taken for every transaction (buy/sell/buy/sell/buy/sell). If they got a 5% daily trading volume (seems reasonable looking at current crypto charts), that would be 6.75 million coins, and if it was $200 a coin, that would be $675 million/day, in pure "profit". (or 24 billion/year). Split amonst 22 employees/founders (again, assuming it was even), thats about $1 billion/employee per year for basically doing nothing, especially because the system is 'distributed' (i.e., doesn't really cost them anything to maintain).

c) You, as the photographer, might feel you "got" rich if you were on the ground floor (i.e., sold some cheap $0.20 images now, & kept the coins). Likely, you might say get 100-200 sales  (so 200 coins * $200 = $40,000). Maybe you get 2000 sales. Then that's $400k. You'd "feel" good thinking you were rich. (relatively speaking, for very little effort, $40k isn't bad. And $400k of course is a bit better. Definitely nothing like 1 billion, but you could buy a new car, whereas they could buy a city).

That's a "better" case scenario...

Thing is...

a) If it takes off, other people will copy them. It's not really that hard to make a bitcoin blockchain like they have. Granted - they'll have the first mover advantage - but... really depends if they rich critical mass or not. If they don't, it will be very easy for other people to undercut them at say at 10% cut, or 5% cut, etc, etc... (until eventually it gets to say 1%, or 0.01%, etc).
The founders will still make a healthy profit, but - the size of their profit will depend pretty much on how much of the market they were able to capture first. (Probably part of the reason they are doing the '500 "royalty free" image promo).

So very quickly that 15% "cut" won't be attractive anymore, because someone else is offering a "10%" cut, or "5%" cut, etc, etc.

b) There is NO privacy. Aside from the fact they are a relatively unknown company, demanding id verification/etc - and then 'tagging' each image you upload with your details (making it potentially ripe for identity theft, etc)... You'll have customers that become very wary very quickly if they really want "everyone" knowing what types of images/videos/etc they are purchasing... (i.e., lets say a married guy 'purchases' 2000 lingerie images of various women, then realizes his name/info & complete portfolio is available for the world to see). Would have some explaining to do to his wife...

c) The big guys WILL protect their turf VERY aggressively - especially if these guys start getting the "aggressive" growth they are going for. Shutterstock is already starting to that (granted, "late" to the game with the $1.50 "subscriptions" sales people are complaining about) - but - they are getting on it.

So what will happen?

The first people that upload, I do think will make (relatively speaking) significant sales in the first year (just be aware though you will have absolutely *no* privacy associated with your images (imagine your name and face is tagged with every single image you sent), nor will you have *any* privacy in terms of how much $ you are making. If you are fine/comfortable doing that, then go ahead).

I think if they have the right launch strategy - it will be "possible" that the coin within the next 2 years gets to about $10. Definitely not $200 or even $2000, but still enough to make the founders very rich. (So, not 270 million/founder, but 27 million within a year about $100 million/year for doing nothing. Still "not bad"). But as soon as it starts making some waves, you'll very quickly have copycats. (In fact - reading this thread - I don't believe they were the first one to have this idea - wasn't there someone else here that was talking about that?)

If you as a photographer actually start making a "significant" amount of money (for some people, even $200-$300 is "significant", so you haven't even reached $40k) - VERY very quickly "everyone" else will start flooding the system uploading content/etc, so its harder for you to make sales, etc.

And then I think there will be some news stories talking about people's privacy/etc being compromised, people will "sell off" their coin for fear of losing value. You'll also get market manipulation as some people discover how to manipulate the system to get rich (not much different from the stock market in the 1900's, except now this is all digital).

So... I think you'll see a spike at the launch, a spike probably 3-4 months after that, and then as other people catch on (competitors, agencies, etc) - it will very quickly die down, and maybe settle on $3-$4 a coin. So, if you want to "get rich" (i.e., "maybe" $20-$40k within a year), are comfortable with no privacy, then it would probably be a good idea to upload your portfolio now, and then maybe sell whatever coins you have within 6-7 months before the price drops (mind you - I think I read somewhere that they said they would not allow cash outs until that was implemented 'within a year'. So maybe wait 2-3 months after cashouts become a possibility).

I think for the founders, its a great model if they can sell it. It will make them rich for relatively little effort.

So we'll see.

Some people were wondering how this would work, this is how I see it, how about you?

Basically, with this system, assuming a 'better' case scenario, it looks like the founders will become very rich. You, as a photographer, if you get on the ground floor *and* it takes off, will make "some" money (probably better than you are right now) - but it really makes the founders rich.

So, just like any other business then?

thats about $1 billion/employee per year for basically doing nothing, especially because the system is 'distributed' (i.e., doesn't really cost them anything to maintain).

Wow, that's great!

If they do basically nothing, I have a few questions:

� Why are there now no less than three active threads discussing them here by us?

� Why doesn't each and every contributor here have their own successful site making a billion or so a year? Or even just 10 million?

Makes you think...

Thanks, very interesting.

A couple of points:
I don't see any privacy problem, no more that the ones you could have in traditional agencies that own your ID card, transactions, earnings history ecc.
I don't believe your data will be digitally printed in every image, there should be a "pseudo" name with a unique hash, and after this noone can look in your wallet to see how much you earn.
That means probably a little more privacy than traditional agencies.

Other point: if they get 15% of every transaction, it means that is in their interest to push the market side, because they will earn more. So I don't believe that the business is only or mostly for financial reason, if it would in this way there could be simply no fees and 100% for authors (according to you, the company will be however very rich)

If other companies will arrive lowering their fee to 10% or 5%, well this is only a good news for us: it's exactly the opposite of what happens from years, where agency gives to contributors less and less

re: privacy - difference here is agencies supposedly keep that information private. this one tags every single image with your name (not pseudonym, according to their site). And right on their site they do say they tag every image. Not a hash. But the actual details. And have your personal ID to back it up. And so yes - someone can look at your wallet, trace it, and see precisely how much you earn.

For the market site - while yes it is true they are interested in transactions - they are more interested in the 'velocity' of transactions. They don't care if you make money or not - what they care about is you buying/selling/buying/selling their coins. And because the price of the coin will most likely be volatile just like bitcoin, etc - you'll have a coin one day worth $200, and the next day worth $50, so a photographer say with 100 coins might think "cool! I'm rich, 100 * 200 = $20,000". And then the next day, those same 100 coins only worth $5,000. And you'll most likely get more panicked photographers, so more likely to sell then say try and hold.

So basically - they will most likely be encouraging lots of buying/selling/buying/selling, and each time that happens - they take 15%.

Because they are doing that though - it will most likely keep the price of the coin low. I.e., every time there is some "inflation" (more demand for the coin, and people willing to pay more for it) - they skim 15% off the top, and all of the sudden the coin is worth less.

So, ultimately, with most things like this... I think the investors will get rich (i.e., $50 million+ each). A few photographers (by luck, portfolio size, being the first in, etc, etc) will get "relatively speaking" rich (between $20k-$400k). And then everyone else will make maybe $100-$200/month from it, if they chose to continue using it, and they don't mind each image being tagged with their ID, and customers don't mind their entire purchase history being completely transparent...

re: privacy - difference here is agencies supposedly keep that information private. this one tags every single image with your name (not pseudonym, according to their site).

Sorry but I missed this point. Where is written this?

And right on their site they do say they tag every image. Not a hash. But the actual details. And have your personal ID to back it up. And so yes - someone can look at your wallet, trace it, and see precisely how much you earn.

I don't understand.
If someone can see that an image is mine (like easily can be done now, as a lot of editor write the author and the agency where image come from...) how can this give access to my wallet? No I'm sorry this is not true. What can be see is only that a specific image, from a specific contributor, has been used for specific place. None knows how much the image has been payed, how many times ecc ecc
If this would be true it could kill the business in less than a second.

For the market site - while yes it is true they are interested in transactions - they are more interested in the 'velocity' of transactions. They don't care if you make money or not - what they care about is you buying/selling/buying/selling their coins. And because the price of the coin will most likely be volatile just like bitcoin, etc - you'll have a coin one day worth $200, and the next day worth $50, so a photographer say with 100 coins might think "cool! I'm rich, 100 * 200 = $20,000". And then the next day, those same 100 coins only worth $5,000. And you'll most likely get more panicked photographers, so more likely to sell then say try and hold.

For what I have understand they choose their own cryptomoney, and not (for example) bitcoins exactly not to fall in this volatile

If bitcoin etc is supposedly so incredibly secure, as I have read often on such threads on msg, how come:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/moment-undercover-cops-pounce-on-500k-bitcoin-hacker-on-board-train-a3829071.html
Because for every one who is caught, there will be many more uncaught, as with all other types of criminal.

It�s no doubt blockchain is complex and not user friendly at its current position; I do believe this will change overtime, just like the days of early internet. The benefits blockchain can bring does outweigh its drawbacks (IMO). I�ve thrown together a list of benefits I can see blockchain bringing stock photography. Obviously my opinion and others may see negatives where I see positives

Community governance
Also known as DAO enables token holders to have a say in the business model, mechanics and project direction through community voting.
[4.1  DAO Proposal and Voting]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C4UPA9-9o2cOLJOEYMIVwN_Fi3Ebtn2YcRua58hQ7_0/edit#heading=h.e9x558a4uqw8

Decentralised payments and cashouts
Bypassing institutions such as paypal who have at times blocked users accounts, while giving contributors the ability to cashout through a variety of crypto exchanges. As merchant services in crypto begin to expand you will soon be able to buy goods, services and even pay bills without the need to exchange crypto to fiat

Copyright registrations and time-stamping
To help mitigating image theft a large chunk of the current Blockchain stock projects are building in copyright protocols on the blockchain. Where an image is time-stamped with authors details upon upload, removing the process of copyright registration through 3rd parties.
�Each ownership declaration will be registered on the blockchain�
[Pg 12 - Copyrights claims & disputes]
https://www.wemark.com/whitepaper.pdf

In-house image tracking
Some of the blockchain stock photo outlets are building in image tracking with copyright infringement takedowns /or payment requests. This will be built directly into some of the contributor access portals.
https://medium.com/photochain/photochain-and-copytrack-announce-key-copyright-partnership-2fd05a4923fa

Trustless transactions
Building the image sales data onto the blockchain will eliminate underhanded sales seen in the past by agencies doing dodgy deals, all image sales will be immutable and viewable by the contributor with the amount exchanged during point-of-sale.

Brand awareness
A lot of the blockchain projects in ICO gain quite a considerable following from investors /bounty hunters and contributors. During this process, countless articles, videos and social media posts circulate about the project helping upstart the brand awareness of a project. Having investors also holding a vested stake of the project, will also bring further brand awareness beyond ICO.

Decentralised funding
Historically stock photo start-ups haven�t had the funding to compete with the big boys, ICOs could break this trend with some of the most successful tokensales hitting into the $100�s of millions. This of course all depends on the success of the project during crowdsale.
https://www.coinist.io/biggest-icos-chart/

The long term marketing sustainability is a note of concern for me, I hope the projects can allocate enough of the day-to-day revenue  towards bypassing sales stagnation.