Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

seths.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 786 posts

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#31

Post by Lazare »

Osmose wrote: post #10
snissn wrote: post #5

It’s easy for a famous entrenched artist who mass produces their work thanks to legacy infrastructure to talk down on this but I’m seeing lots of independent creator artist friends making some money for their work

What property of NFTs has suddenly made them make money where previously they weren't? Like how did adding NFTs to the mix suddenly make their art start selling?

The problem I think, is that their art still isn't selling. NFTs aren't art, they are effectively trading cards referencing art.

These trading cards are, somewhat mysteriously, selling, and that does get money into the hands of artists which is good, but they're not doing it by encouraging people to buy art or tip artists, and it's hard to see how "everyone can just print trading cards referencing things" is a sustainable anything.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#32

Post by nerdwaller »

sneak wrote: post #18
moultano wrote: post #14

Tip the artists you love. If you want you can send them money by paying for prints, or buying originals, but ultimately just send them money. There's no need for it to be transactional. If there are artists in the world that make things a little more beautiful for you, you can just pay them for that, without any need for it to be tied to something concrete.

Buying an NFT directly from the artist could be seen as this form of tipping. Buying one from anyone else is clearly not.

As far as I understand it, some NFTs are built where the original creator gets some percentage of every sale.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#34

Post by TheDong »

anonporridge wrote: post #8

The possibilities of NFTs fascinate me, especially for portable, digital identities and assets that transcend any specific virtual realm and can't be arbitrarily erased by any central authority. But I also won't put a single sat in any of them right now.

> portable, digital identities and assets that transcend any specific virtual realm

Why not just have a government or trusted company sign things rather than an NFT? If the UN says "we will digitally sign digital passports", that seems strictly better than an NFT for identity. Without a central authority to verify identity, how do you solve the problem of a thousand people creating NFTs saying they're john doe living at location X? Don't you need someone to validate it, at which point you have a central authority?

Or is this for digital assets like "I own this git repository", which you can already do by signing it with your gpg key and then distributing it via ipfs or such?

> can't be arbitrarily erased by any central authority.

Sure they can be. If a government creates a law saying "anyone that processes NFTs must first put them through this list of NFTs to filter, must filter them out, etc, or go to prison", well, now NFTs are effectively erased.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#35

Post by sollewitt »

ajiang wrote: post #23

Regardless of what you think of NFTs, you have to recognize that the author's only counterargument against NFTs is that they're bad for the "rest of us" due to externalities that everyone else has to pay. The "rest of us" don't pay for the electricity use. The ETH miners are paying for it directly. And creators and buyers are paying for it indirectly through ETH usage. It isn't an externality. That's like saying the…

"This is bad because of externalities, the externalities are big and will grow" is exactly why we don't have general nuclear power, saying it's the only argument doesn't make it a weak argument.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#36

Post by purple_ferret »

ajiang wrote: post #23

Regardless of what you think of NFTs, you have to recognize that the author's only counterargument against NFTs is that they're bad for the "rest of us" due to externalities that everyone else has to pay. The "rest of us" don't pay for the electricity use. The ETH miners are paying for it directly. And creators and buyers are paying for it indirectly through ETH usage. It isn't an externality. That's like saying the…

> you have to recognize that the author's only counterargument against NFTs is that they're bad for the "rest of us

No, I think he makes a valid point that they're intentionally misleading and a scheme to sucker someone out of money.

Let's look at Jack Dorsey's 'minted' first tweet.[0]

This is in no way gives to exclusivity to 'owning' this tweet. It literally is just 'owning' the rights to 'Valuable's' NFT of this tweet (if they even are committing, legally, to never create another NFT of it). There are no limit of companies that can do exactly what they are doing and 'selling' this tweet in the same way, nor is Jack Dorsey committing never to accept those 'sales'.

To me, it seems like an outright scam that anybody but Twitter is trying to do this.

[0]https://v.cent.co/tweet/20

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#37

Post by jamesgreenleaf »

NFTs make perfect sense for representing a claim on things that can be used, like event tickets or in-game virtual goods. But as certificates layered on top of collectibles... I'm not so sure.

With something like CryptoKitties, you can do something with the tokens (play a virtual pet game). But with something like CryptoPunks you're essentially paying for digital beanie babies, which are worse than real ones since anyone can display and enjoy the image you paid for.

You can brag about owning such-and-such an image, but only as long as enough other people desire images from that particular set. When a set's popularity wanes, so does your token's value, and your ability to show it off.

I'm always happy to see artists being paid for their work, and if they can make some money during this craze - more power to them. Beyond a few creators being rewarded, it seems like this is going to be 90% bubble (with plenty of hucksters), and 10% real use cases that stand the test of time.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#38

Post by thinkingkong »

Maybe NFTs for collectibles isnt ideal but Im wondering if there are some more - lets say - utilitarian uses of this concept that we havent discussed yet. The other day I tried buying a bike. Id really like to know it wasnt stolen, and somehow being able to tie a real world representation into a virtual single item good would be somewhat useful.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#39

Post by Proven »

nerdwaller wrote: post #32
sneak wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying an NFT directly from the artist could be seen as this form of tipping. Buying one from anyone else is clearly not.

As far as I understand it, some NFTs are built where the original creator gets some percentage of every sale.

That's how it already works for DRM-protected content, without the overhead of NFTs.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#40

Post by ajiang »

sollewitt wrote: post #35
ajiang wrote: post #23

Regardless of what you think of NFTs, you have to recognize that the author's only counterargument against NFTs is that they're bad for the "rest of us" due to externalities that everyone else has to pay. The "rest of us" don't pay for the electricity use. The ETH miners are paying for it directly. And creators and buyers are paying for it indirectly through ETH usage. It isn't an externality. That's like saying the…

"This is bad because of externalities, the externalities are big and will grow" is exactly why we don't have general nuclear power, saying it's the only argument doesn't make it a weak argument.

When the cost is directly paid by the actor, it isn't an externality. It is the literal opposite of what externality means.
Post reply on HN