What happens to a token holder’s equity if the restaurant fails? With a member owned golf club, there are underlying assets like the land and all the equipment. I guess a restaurant has equipment, but not a lot of it. And it’s highly unlikely the restaurant group will own the building that houses it.
As far as being able to sell your token back to the restaurant, that’s assuming they have the funds to buy it back. I’m old enough to remember the economic downturn of 2008/2009. Plenty of high earners who lost jobs and immediately sold assets. When a couple hundred token holders all want to dump their tokens back to the restaurant what happens? I would assume the cost goes down, but not immediately.
The inclusivity, rentability aspect of an “exclusive” restaurant doesn’t sound like a great idea to me.
Bottom line…what fuck do I know? I hope they make serious $$$$.
All of this stuff is experimental. Nobody knows how it will turn out. Most of the crap websites from the late 90s died but some made it big. I suspect the same will happen in this space.
Ownership of a token does not translate to ownership of the restaurant or a lien on any assets it may possess. The token is for membership/access to the venue, not for equity in its operations or assets owned.
If the restaurant seizes to operate, one would expect the value of the token to decrease significantly, as much of that value is based on access to the restaurant.
Now some may still see some value in the token for its artistic component, in much the same way many have seen value in other digital art tokens. Though I imagine a bulk of the value of the token is and will be centred around the access to the establishment.
The biggest upside of the tokens is really for the restaurant and the owners. They get to outsource much of the funding for the restaurants costs and are able to recoup their investment much faster as opposed to a traditional model.
The supposed upside for buyers of the token (aside from access to the establishment) is the potential for appreciation in price of the token and gaining a profit later.
Neither the restaurant, restaurant owners, nor the minter have any responsibility to purchase back any tokens, nor do they want to, or have any incentive to. Since the equity of the restaurant is separate from the membership of the restaurant, there is no downside to the restaurant if many choose to sell off their tokens at once. The tokens are traded on the open market, and if many are selling their tokens, the price of it would likely drop, but as I noted, that doesn’t impact the restaurant financially (aside from the fact that during that time, there may be less people that want to go to the restaurant). The minters get a transaction fee of 10% (paid by the seller of the token) any time the token is sold. So there’s no incentive for the minter to buy the tokens back, in fact, even if the transaction cost may be lower, they are still receiving some money from it.
Sorry, can you clarify this? You say that “if they do well, then those fans benefit”. How would their fans stand to benefit from some handful of NFTs that they minted?
If the restaurant did well then the NFT would likely increase in value. They’d have access to the restaurant as well. The NFT could be constructed in such a way as to have more utility where the holder is given gifts or even royalties. It’s applicable to the music industry as well.
If the NFT were constructed in such a way as to have the holder receive royalties from the underlying business, most likely what you have is not just a token but also a security. Anybody who tried to do this would likely have the SEC so far up their ass they would know what they had for breakfast that day.
Much of the “innovation” being touted by NFTs are just ways to skirt regulations that exist for a very good reason. Turning everything under the sun into a security is not a good thing like you seem to think it is.
I’m not saying it’s good or bad. It’s what’s happening. The issuer of most NFTs take a royalty whenever they are sold. I’m sure more regulation is to follow.
Did Gary V do something wrong to the wine world? In my limited exposure to him these days, he strikes me a high-energy, straight shooter who has done a lot of interesting things in this world. He has authored multiple 5-star rating books on Amazon, has a littany of successful business ventures, and doing fun things on the bleeding edge of tech. Is this an incomplete picture?
Some people don’t like his on-air persona. It’s a very old school WWF style. Most people who have met him in person thing he’s a really great guy.
I remember bringing my brother to a Jets tailgate with him back in probably 2007. My brother isn’t into wine at all and had no idea who Gary was. Gary had brought a 20 year old bottle of Calon-Segur among others. My brother later told me that he took him aside and wanted to make sure he knew what everything was and if there was anything he could help him with, etc. A fantastic host.
I don’t think he’s done anything wrong to the wine world, although I’m not familiar with his wine-related endeavors since his stint doing Wine Library TV. In the tech world he is regarded as essentially a carnival barker, which is probably why many people here seem to have a favorable impression of him and I do not.
What percentage of restaurants last for more than five years? 10%? How many of them generate profits? Access to the restaurant? NYC has dozens of high end restaurants. There is a significant possibility that tNFT is worthless within a few years.
Absolutely. It’s a huge risk. They’ll have to execute at a very high level. Having said that, I wonder how much investment money comes in for a three star Michelin restaurant. Is it in the neighborhood of 10 million? Back of the envelope calculation on this minting is much higher than $10m. The restaurant group will get royalties on the sale of any NFT as a continuing stream in the event demand stays high. They haven’t spelled out the lease arrangement yet but I would guess they’ll get a cut of that as well.
