Spencer on Nostr: There are many caveats to that statement: 1) The artist determines other splits *so ...
There are many caveats to that statement:
1) The artist determines other splits *so long as those other splits are to another Wavlake account*
2) The number of splits is limited
3) 100% of funds flow to the Wavlake node *first* and then are divided up behind the scenes; the funds are fully custodied by Wavlake and you must ask permission to withdraw them.
4) Any of those policies can be changed at any moment in the future at their whim.
It is foolish for artists to give up all of their negotiating power in that manner. That structure does not solve any of the exploitation problems in the music industry, and it's not decentralized or independent.
Contrast that with a truly decentralized publishing method where you are the custodian of your own value and you can write in as many splits as you wish and you don't need to custody any of those splits; all parties can remain financially soverign.
1) The artist determines other splits *so long as those other splits are to another Wavlake account*
2) The number of splits is limited
3) 100% of funds flow to the Wavlake node *first* and then are divided up behind the scenes; the funds are fully custodied by Wavlake and you must ask permission to withdraw them.
4) Any of those policies can be changed at any moment in the future at their whim.
It is foolish for artists to give up all of their negotiating power in that manner. That structure does not solve any of the exploitation problems in the music industry, and it's not decentralized or independent.
Contrast that with a truly decentralized publishing method where you are the custodian of your own value and you can write in as many splits as you wish and you don't need to custody any of those splits; all parties can remain financially soverign.