Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Yeah, I saw that, and the other guy's video he linked. He talks about ETH being responsible for 0.02% of global emissions, and NFTs being 3% of that. The thing is, NFTs are just starting. The promoters of NFTs don't want for NFTs to stay where they are, but rather to expand by orders of magnitude. And the more transactions there are, the more computations will be required to validate each transaction. Any graph showing electricity consumption of BTC or ETH shows that electricity consumption has grown dramatically, even over the past year, and it's projected to increase. What's more, they ignore the fact that around half of the miners of all cryptocurrencies are in China, where a very large percentage of the electricity comes from coal-burning power plants. Proof-of-Stake is to replace Proof-of-Work for Ethereum sometime next year, but PoS is unproven on a large scale and will still require computation.
One source frequently provided to defend cryptocurrencies in discussions of environmental costs is the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index. If you look at their consumption graph, you can see that there is an awful lot of wiggle room in their estimate of energy consumption. The yellow line is their estimate, but they also show the upper and lower bounds of what it could be. It also shows the direction consumption is headed in. What's more, it's extrapolated from consumption figures reported by miners in China, which isn't the world's most reliable source of information.
What's more, neither Andrew, who seems pretty defensive in his video, nor the other guy declare their personal stake in the cryptocurrency market. Reputable finance reporters declare any financial stakes in any entities they review on for good reason. I personally own about CDN 1k worth of BTC I bought in late 2016 for about CDN 15. Things were a little different then.
No offense, but I think you both have the cart before the horse.
The purpose is not to sell Daz Studio users on NFTs, but rather to sell NFT creators on Daz Studio. They're trying to expand their user base by showing their platform can be used to make NFTs, as a means of advertising.
I really hope that isn't true, because it's a fairly silly idea. Siince you can just use your cellphone and a basic photo editor to make these images. Or just Microsoft Paint...
I dont' normally weigh in on these forums, but methinks daz bought the majik beans from some snake-oil-bean-counter-shyster that has no clothes nor tangible content?
I thought that billion-coin-pyramid-scheme was a bit too obvious, too. There have been too many scams and/or exposures of scams that have come out of that whole convid operation.
Sure, NFT sound great - just like bit con, ethercon, billion con and even our (current) fiat currency is a scam and/or pyramid scheme when you think about it.
I'm NOT saying it's NOT real, but like all those other miriads of pyramids - you're gonna have to find 2 (or more) friends to join in on it. I'm an old and disabled person that survived that whole convid pyramid scheme last year but my computer didn't fare well. and to understand that the new and improved daz3d build on a 64-bit computer MUST have an nVidia RTX-2060, well, this is no country nor platform for us old men. it's been real and it's been fun and at times it's been real fun at times, but like i said - it's not because of a lack of interest (on my part) but my alienware pos-r5 was designed to fail 2 weeks out of warranty. Thank you to all the creators and to the (original) daz staff and those (current) staffers that know it's (supposed) to be about the ART and not necessarily the artists.
Not sure what you mean. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, the Diigitals uses Daz Studio to create his Shudu images. They are advertising Daz Studio to people who want to make NFTs starring their digital models.
Only because I don't see many sales coming from that avenue. I don't see the people buying these things are very interested in spending a lot of time creating the images.
Rather I see it the other way around where DAZ thinks their existing artist base might buy into this.
And here I was for that counter to lead to something new and exciting and useful, how wrong was I in hoping for any of that..
Exactly. Big countdown and advertisements everywhere, only to find out it's something that 99% of customers will not use. This new venture seems so pretentious.
Maybe this is a weird way of actually getting NFTs out there with some artistic value. I looked through some of the "recently sold" NFTs through the ones up for sale here and thought it was a joke. They're icons, pixel art that would take any of us 5 minutes to make, things we clear out of our browser history. It's still wasteful and pointless, but maybe it *could* put some money into the hands of people with artistic talent?
That is exactly what I thought as well
I still belife it is a to early First April Joke
From the press release:
Yeah, they're trying to lure in NFT creators.
Some of the artists who've made tons of money off this use Daz assets, including beeple and Jason Ebeyer. I don't think Blake Kathryn does, although her models kind of have the same look. But they were early adopters on Nifty Gateway, and their work really does look like collectible keepsakes. If it weren't for the very real harm associated with NFTs, I could understand why someone would want to buy one of Blake's keys or bust sculptures, and early on I think people involved viewed it as a form of patronage. I can even understand why someone would consider it revolutionary to start a system where people more or less bid to donate money to artists, for which they "receive" a token worth emotional value while contributing real monetary value to the artist's work.
The influx of random uploads happened when it became a speculator's market and buyers rushed to invest, because now people are throwing whatever they can out there and hoping someone with more money than sense buys it before the bubble bursts. While I don't think the work on offer here is Bad Art, they are essentially Daz marketing renders with a few simple mograph effects and two of them use the company's stock characters out of the box. They are definitely more attractive than some of the stuff I've seen up for sale, but IMO they're closer in spirit to throwing .pngs at the wall and seeing what sticks. And the random buying frenzy is already on the edge of collapse as people realize there are no safeguards in place to make their ostensible investment worth more than a whistle in the wind.
Some NFT's have been sold, but not a single one from the DAZ Studio section. Not even a bid there, Shudu is running not too bad, I suppose. Two items sold, four items with a bid.
You're right, some have sold. Here's to hoping this project had high overhead.
Honestly the most charitable interpretation I can manage for this is that they sincerely believed people were purchasing art for its own sake, and thought the quality of their pieces and the added value of the unlocks compared favorably with most of the other stuff on OpenSea. But the signal-to-noise ratio is so bonkers, and just in a few minutes of poking around I've mostly seen activity that looks suspiciously like people using generic alt accounts to bid on their own work.
Yep. Nailed it. The emperor has no clothes.
There's a difference between the Shudu NFTs and the Studio NFTs.
Proceeds from the Shudu NFTs, while it's unclear whether all or in part, will go to support Black Girls Code. Studio NFTs will go to support, well, Tafi.
By the way, I only learned through this that Daz is a subsidiary of Tafi. I'd thought it was the other way around.
So did I, especially since the Wikipedia page says Daz spun off Tafi as their game-ready assets division in 2016.
It sounds like Google and Alphabet, where the parent company was spun up to encompass multiple brands.
Call me Eeyore, but I think it's more likely to put money into the hands of thieves stealing the work of people with artistic talent. Someone posted an eye-opening article yesterday from CNN and it scared the bajeezus out of me. Any digital artist should be scared...even ones who spend the $$$ to go to the copyright office. Art theft happened before, but NFT's stand to make things much easier and more lucrative for scumbags...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/30/tech/nft-hacking-theft-environment-concerns/index.html
I use a watermark on my artwork, but I always put it out of the way so as not to obscure the art...going forward, it's going to be moved into obnoxious territory, so I apologize ahead of time to anybody who would actually want to see me art.
I know, right???
This has definitely been an eye-opening experience — it's certainly putting Tafi under a microscope, and not necessarily in a good way.
I too thought Tafi was yet another spin-off subsidiary of Daz 3D... like Morph3D? (which failed I guess? Morph3d now just redirects to Tafi).
Tafi
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/tafi
Daz 3D
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/daz-3d
There used to be much more transparency from the former CEO, Dan Farr... not so much under James Thornton.
Long time supporters of Daz 3D and its mission deserve better.
we don't deserve anything, it's a private company and they finally let our blindfolds slip.
Probably should be thanking them for that and keeping some alternatives up our sleeves, I do.
In today's internet climate, yup slap that watermark right in the center of the image. If someone wants it gone they can pay for it.
Agreed! And limit resolution. No need to post a 6000x4000px poster when 900x600px will do.
A handy thing at DeviantArt is that you can set the display resolution without having to reduce the resolution of the original. Unless you allow downloads, viewers can only save-as at the displayed resolution. That feature would be a useful one for Daz to add.
Sadly, watermarks are incredibly easy to remove with modern retouching tools — and A.I. upscaling technology is getting really good these days.
Your best line of defense is copyright law — but anonymity and decentralized cryptocurrencies make it very hard to go after criminals that are minting stolen (or derivative) works.
NFTs could be great for living artists to get financial support from their art by every sale/resale of the NFTs that they legitimately minted, but these platforms need better methods of authenticity certification at the minting level, to ensure the art is actually coming from the real original creator, and that it does not violate copyrights, EULAs, etc.
Proceed with caution...
You do what we can to make the theft more difficult. Failing that, you tear down your galleries and go hide under a rock somewhere. Not much profit in that, though, is there?
And this is why the entire concept scares the rabbit poobles out of me...it's going to be an open season free-for-all for art thieves to just walk down the aisles of the store and empty the shelves right into their pockets without fear of reprisal.