Author @Pummelpaffpaff


A collection of @Pummelpaffpaffs thoughful collector insights. Many thanks to Pummelpaffpaff for sharing these tweets with us.


NFTs are establishing as the newest form of expression in visual arts. Artists who are the quickest to recognize the structural changes technically, analytically and artistically will represent the future stars of the art world.


"new sales record, highest price ever!"

Prices are easy to manipulate. More importantly, who bought the work? Is the "pedigree" and where the work is going transparent and verifiable? Only then does a record become valuable & sustainable.


Artists who not only use Twitter to shill their drops - but also give insights into their real work process, workplace and life as source of their inspiration, are more "holistic" and thus enhance their (nft)-work. Give them extra levels & value.


If you want to resell, there are different strategies. The stupidest is undercut existing offerings. That leads to a downward spiral for individual works & entire market.

In the long run it is wiser to choose the second cheapest price or higher.


If I haven't known an artist for long or it's difficult to validate his authenticity, I do my research in a variety of ways.

Very often I use the Google image search - I check whether the images may have just been stolen and copied elsewhere.


Most 0-tz works are not even worth the effort of putting them in your wallet.

= they can harm an artist's portfolio faster than they are useful. A marketing approach that serious artists should use cautiously + hesitantly, consciously in small doses.


If an artist buys his own work, for example to manipulate the charts of the best-selling artists, that's a vulgar scam. To other artists and also to decent collectors.

I keep a personal black list for such actors (on which I have @xsullo, for example)


Just because an artist is successful on ETH does not mean that they will also be successful on Tezos. It's likely, not a given.

In addition, examine the intention of the artist, why he places himself on another chain: greed recognizable = hands off!


The value, the price of an NFT or other digital objects increases with its freedom.

If it's transferable, available and usable on many platforms, it is more valuable. If it's bound to one platform, it's greatly reduced in value.


When an artwork has dropped & first ones are sold, you can only increase the price on the primary market - not decrease it. A price reduction is unfair to all previous, loyal, early buyers who felt they paid too much as a result. Exception: single items.

Display Tezos NFTs on any screen for free. https://diyframe.xyz


If, without exception, every single work by an artist is offered on the secondary market and some are not unavailable, that is an indication for me that the fan community of this artist is still fragile and not resilient in the long term.


Royalties - great invention & important for the economic success of an artist. But 20% is like a limit, as a buyer I feel higher royalties excessive. I check the height before buying, I rarely or never buy works with 25% royalties.


Occasionally I use the "bid function" from objkt because it gives me the opportunity to communicate my personal price limit (public & binding). I never take part in auctions, they usually do not lead to success/purchase and only cost time & attention.


Raffles are no tool for sustainable community building. They primarily attract "paper hands". If an artist uses raffles often (eg on Twitter) a collector can rarely expect a sustainable long-term increasing secondary market with such artists.


Mass vs Class - If an artist mints his works on different chains, I take a close look: Is there a own concept for each chain? All accounts maintained or orphaned? Bad: double mints, i.e. the same work uploaded several times & copy minting his own works.


Yes - I look to see if an artist collects himself. If so, that's a good indicator of how much he himself believes in digital art and whether he feels connected to the "artist community". If given: good sign.


On PFP/Avatar projects, I rarely invest in concepts that have rarity traits at their core. Because RARITY in architecture produces nfts for a few winners, but many losers. The risk is too high. This is lottery, not a sensible investment.


I rarely consider editions of 50 or more as a long-term investment. Editions of 5 to 15 copies are felt currently the "golden ratio" between scarcity & edition and subjectively a good store of value. Exceptions prove the rule. :-)


Before I buy new work by an unkown artist, I check whether he has an strong secondary market. For analysis, I use royalties tool from @NFTBiker. That helps to assess whether I'm buying an investment or for the eternal private collection.


Artists who don't maintain their social media channels tend not to buy their works or buy them less. Because Twitter & Co. are one of the most important sources of trust and authenticity for me as a collector.


If an avatar-project, no matter who or well-known the initiator is, can't come up with more than a "PFP", I don't buy = waste of money. The times without a serious white paper & possibly subsequent Metaverse, Play2earn or AR-experience are over.

for ten tez or less

support to young & new & upcoming artists from around the world. Insider tips on unknown artists with potential. Low risk, high potential

Follow @Pummelpaffpaff on Twitter.