Winning Competitions: Artistry or Speculation?

One of the highlighted features of Motiondesign.school is the opportunity to “Win Competitions.” The homepage explicitly states: “Join weekly art competitions for a chance to win $1000, where you’ll showcase your talents alongside a diverse group of other participants.” On the surface, art competitions are a positive way to foster creativity, challenge skills, and gain recognition.

Read more about motiondesign.school:
motiondesign.school Review & First Look
motiondesign.school Alternatives
Motiondesign.school: Unpacking the “Learn Skills” Phase
The Certification Process: A Tangible Testament?

Many artists participate in such events to build their portfolios and connect with peers.

However, in the context of Motiondesign.school’s overall model, which integrates the earning of “$eMotion tokens” and “educational battles,” the nature of these competitions becomes a significant point of concern.

The key ethical issue revolves around whether these competitions are truly merit-based artistic contests or if they contain elements of maysir (gambling or games of chance) or gharar (uncertainty). If participation requires using $eMotion tokens, and these tokens have a speculative value or are acquired through problematic means, then the competition itself becomes tainted. Similarly, if the “chance to win $1000” is influenced by anything other than pure artistic merit—such as popular voting that can be manipulated, or if the judging process is opaque or tied to token incentives—it could resemble a lottery rather than a genuine artistic contest. A legitimate educational platform should encourage artistic excellence and healthy competition based on skill and effort, without introducing financial risk or speculative elements that undermine the integrity of the process.

Nature of “Art Competitions”

The website refers to them as “art competitions,” which implies a focus on creative skill and aesthetic quality.
Important aspects to clarify:

• Judging Criteria: Are the judging criteria for these competitions clear, transparent, and solely based on artistic merit and technical execution?
• Expert Judges: Are the competitions judged by impartial, qualified industry professionals?
• Submission Process: Is the submission process straightforward and free from any entry requirements that involve speculative assets?

The $1000 Prize: Incentive or Risk?

The offer of a $1000 prize is a substantial incentive.

While prizes are common in competitions, the source and conditions of this prize are crucial.
Concerns arise if:

• Entry Fee: Is there an entry fee, especially one paid in $eMotion tokens, whose value is speculative? If so, it could be seen as maysir.
• Funding Source: How is the prize money funded? If it’s directly from participants’ “staked” tokens or from a pool that includes speculative elements, it’s problematic.
• Fairness of Winning: Is the “chance to win” truly based on skill, or does it involve any random selection process, which would make it akin to a lottery?

Showcasing Talents Alongside Other Participants

This aspect suggests a positive environment for peer learning and creative exchange, which is beneficial for aspiring artists.
Positive elements of such competitions:

• Motivation: Encourages students to push their creative boundaries.
• Portfolio Building: Provides opportunities to create high-quality work for a portfolio.
• Networking: Connects artists within the community.

However, these benefits are overshadowed if the core mechanism involves problematic financial incentives. The Certification Process: A Tangible Testament?

The Connection to $eMotion Tokens

The explicit mention of earning “$eMotion tokens” in the “Learn Skills” section, combined with the “Win Competitions” feature, suggests an intertwined system.
If earning tokens is a prerequisite for entry, or if tokens are awarded for participation regardless of winning, or if winning leads to more tokens rather than direct cash, it complicates the ethical assessment.

An ethical approach would be for competitions to be purely merit-based, with transparent judging, and with prizes (if any) coming from legitimate, non-speculative sources, without requiring any form of financial risk from participants.