As I've been busy in Lightning Network for over a year now, I can see this is going to cause big problems. Lightning's cost basis is marginal unless you have huge amounts to invest and you don't care about returns. Higher transaction fees for opening and closing channels will have to push up fees on Lightning. As I'm working back to back with Hive (zero fee) I just look at Lightning and laugh at how ridiculously complicated it is: if its cost to use rockets up too, it's completely pointless.
But the most stupid part of using Bitcoin for NFTs is they miss one of the most important aspects of NFTs on a proper smart contract layer: ongoing compensation for the original artist through a cut in future trades.
I don't see NFTs in their ridiculous speculative light, but as a way of truly supporting a content creator you like and in a way that starts to form a community around the content. And also as a reward for participation which can be given out. BTC Ordinals lack all of this.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I agree with your take on the BTC Ordinals... I'm think that they might be just a flash in the pan. I hadn't really thought about the knock-on effect for Lightening. I've only used that in passing.
But I'm still not really sure about the ongoing royalties for the original artist. I'm pretty sure that you are aware of the debate about this on the Ethereum side of things. They aren't enforceable at the smart contract level as things stand at the moment... and although there was much made of this to lure in artists (and I would dearly love it to be true...), I don't think it is a thing (at the moment...).
Even as an artist (albeit as a musician...), I'm still not convinced that the NFT thing is everything that it has been promised to be.
The work we're doing in Podcasting 2.0 to release albums as podcast rss feeds with Lightning streaming payments I think will be bigger for artists than NFTs.
The community building work that @spknetwork is putting forward is another important part.