I think it is different when it comes to NFTs and open source coded projects.
Original art will forever be owned by the artist and copying it directly not only shows investors that this new project is quite lazy, but they are also okay with stealing art and not crediting the original or giving respect to the artist. Copying 1-to-1 is not okay.
Even if the project is completely different in their milestones. It is never okay to copy the art. If an “NFT” project can’t even make its own original NFTS then I don’t trust it to make anything.
However…
When it comes to open source coded projects I believe it is okay to copy but only if it is iterated on or changed in some way to make it better than what it is originally.
Open source is so that others can copy the code and make the products even better. That is why Tesla has open patents to improve the technology.
Again, if the project just copies 1-to-1 then why don’t I just use the original. There always has to be some improvement in some area.
My opinion on these questions is straight forward: i’m not a fan of it at all. You simply do not copy paste and expect to be viewed as an ‘original’ project with astronomical creativity etc., hype it up and act like you are the original creator.
Projects/People/Artists need to be creative, make their own stuff, be innovative and be rewarded for it in the end.
For me personally, it was a surprise to see ~85% of the copied NFT collections on ApeNFT . I don’t quite understand what people’s interest in these NFTs is. Maybe the fact is that not everyone is aware of this. In any case, as a supporter of the TRON blockchain, I will make every effort to develop high-quality and original projects on the ApeNFT marketplace and other sites.
Talking about ethereum based projects is very specific. I will make a more general answer.
The huge majority of the projects don’t start from scratch. Not only cause it would be harder but also cause it would be a big loss of time. But there is a difference between being inspired, getting some pieces of ideas here and there, modifying them and doing something better or different and simply copy pasting them.
Projects that simply copy paste some code and put their logo on it don’t deserve credit.
Projects that find some inspiration here and there, have a reflection about it and improve pre-existing products or use the tech to build something else is normal. That’s how the industry goes forward as well.
Definition of a project: an individual or collaborative enterprise that is carefully planned to achieve a particular aim.
If your aim is to be a copy of something that’s fine but It should be at least stated that these are copy/clones and there is no affiliation with the original creators. That’s where the issue lies because these are being packaged as investments without a clear indication of what the actual product is. When you operate under the guise that these are your own then that is
Deceitful and never a good thing from a business standpoint.
Just like there are blue check marks to show validity, there should be yellow check marks to show “copy” to notify investors.
Would love to see more high class NFT projects on Tron with original art work and full roadmap from the off set, TronNetwork is being left behind in the NFT world and don’t get me started on apenft clone projects
@TronLive
A completely Ethereum-cloned project on TRON is not a good idea and should be looked into, if it is that the inspiration is gotten from another chain and it is implemented on Tron seems to be considerable and having to see inspiration from another chain is not a bad idea but having to bring all codes and paste is not really a good idea and that won’t help us (TRON), at all because the goal is to attract more investors from other chain to TRON and not to take them away.
Q. What’s your opinion on a partially Ehereum-cloned project on TRON that is done by a different team than the original author, but with vast improvements and modifications?
Considering this, if an idea is seen from another chain and is been implemented with vast improvement and modification seems good, because this makes the idea new though it was seen from another chain if new and vast improvements are made as well as modification with the goal of making it better seems as not a terrible idea and if this occurs it will be preferable it is mentioned that the idea is gotten from so so chain and some functionality are gotten there as well but more modified now and comes with vast improvement.
But totally copying and pasting without the aim of making it unique and better is not a good one.
Q. What’s your opinion on a completely Ethereum-cloned project on TRON that is done by a different team than the original author?
I agree with this approach. For Chinese users, many of them do not know about ETH projects at all, so Chinese people cannot participate in some very good projects because they do not know English. Therefore, it is a great way for TRON to localize ETH projects
Q. What’s your opinion on a partially Ehereum-cloned project on TRON that is done by a different team than the original author, but with vast improvements and modifications?
I agree with this approach. For any of the following projects, there will be some defects. It is a very good approach to make better improvements on the basis of the original project.
I really hope that the project will be Chinese, so that more Chinese people can participate in it
Also, thank you @SafeMoney@Gordian@mikeweigm for giving your input too. Yes, improvements are definitely good and projects should seek the original author’s permission if they pursue this route. Projects should definitely not try to fake their identity and pretend they are from the original team.
While we are waiting for the judging/voting period to start, let’s have a little survey.
All community members (whether you registered for the S2 hackathon or just a spectator) are welcome to answer the following questions.
A small note for those that weren’t here during Hackathon 2022 Season 1.
For Hackathon 2022 S1, participants published a detailed proposal of what they wanted to build, and the judges & community pick the winners based on the participants’ proposals. Winners will have two months to build their projects based on their proposals. The winners’ prizes will be paid out in multiple milestones based on the objectives that they have accomplished.
For the current Hackathon 2022 S2, all participants have 2 months+ to work on their projects. They will have to submit projects that are completed or projects that are near completion so the judges & the community can try them out during the judging period. The hackathon prizes will be paid out to winners in full after the winners’ announcement.
Q. Do you prefer Hackathon S1 format or Hackathon S2 format? Which one will be better for the community?
Q. We should have about 30 eligible projects to be voted on per track for this season. In S1, community members can vote up to 3 favorite projects per track, how many votes per track do you think we should have this time? • Just 1 vote per track, • 3 votes per track like last time, or • 5 votes per track. Please state your reason too.
S2 format is better as judges can see a working project / idea !
5 votes per track sounds good considering the count of participants… this will create a better spread of votes and also help smaller projects gain some visibility/traction !
Q. Do you prefer Hackathon S1 format or Hackathon S2 format? Which one will be better for the community?
Personally, I prefer S2 Format. Only a project that is close to completion can have the significance of evaluation. Only after the project is close to complete evaluation can it better serve the whole ecology.
