51–60 of 404 posts
Please consider changing the OP link to Cleese's actual post on Twitter, which embeds a video of him describing this "work of art": https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1372944852325789704 It's brilliant parody, as usual, from Cleese. Regardless of what you think of NFTs, you will get a good laugh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of the replies to you didnt really touch on what they are, a store of value. It's fair to think of them more like savings accounts. You can buy a replica of a piece of art to look at it. You buy the original to store value. You hope it may appreciate as well. It could end up worthless. But until someone says otherwise, it has the value stored in it. It's just like baseball cards. You can make unlimited indistingu…
Why would you store value in something as unstable as an NFT? NFTs are 100% speculation so the price is basically arbitrary.
I get that all “store of value” are arbitrary and that gold could be other things. But it seems funny to just pick random things and then try to convince others that it’s worthwhile. There are at least certain characteristics needed for a store of value and something completely arbitrary has a bootstrap problem.
I can at least look at art or play with a Black Lotus. Holding an NFT of a piece of art is stupid as a store of value because there are so many better stores (eg, an NFT that conveys ownership rights to a piece of art for example).
Please consider changing the OP link to Cleese's actual post on Twitter, which embeds a video of him describing this "work of art": https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1372944852325789704 It's brilliant parody, as usual, from Cleese. Regardless of what you think of NFTs, you will get a good laugh.
I don't have a Twitter account. Is there another way to see the video?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you store value in something as unstable as an NFT? NFTs are 100% speculation so the price is basically arbitrary.
Is physical art any different? If anything this is a democratization of the wealthy auction scene. A new tier of field to play. Alternative assets come in all shapes in sizes. I can store wealth in gold, comics, wine. Why not my name on a ledger listed as owner of nothing in particular other than the price I paid for it? The amount of hate they get on HN should be a clue that everyone is being over analytical and log…
"Investing" in a Picasso is an investment in a long-term store of cultural value that you speculate will appreciate more quickly than the S&P. Probably because you bet that the 1% will see outsized gains compared to the 99%. Maybe you also like the art and want to be the only person in the world who can display it. Also it can be very useful as a tax dodge.
"Investing" in a new and unknown artist is several things: a) speculation that they will become more famous and that you are tasteful enough to know it early (see: angel investing), b) patronage and participation (see: friends & family rounds), c) conspicuous consumption (see: conspicuous consumption), and finally d) purchase of an expression of art that you enjoy, which may or may not have resale value in the future if your priorities change.
NFTs are confusing because any persistent value is completely dependent on the continued agreement that exclusivity of relationship is valuable and transferable. What's it like to be the eleventh owner of an NFT? Presumably, it'd be pretty meh.
But to your point -- it's psychology not logic. Today's buyers are not looking for a store of value. It's just an exercise in one of two things: vanity or speculation. These are powerful things!
NFTs are stupid. As soon as this craze is over, they'll be illiquid and absolutely worthless.
Of course, this is no reason to try to buy any for that purpose. It will probably be something silly like the first in game item that works across games and platforms or something. Having a red hat that will work across all games and be unique forever, now that’s worth something.
Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…
For example if I sell you a song as an nft you could then license the song to Budweiser to use in a commercial and we both get paid. Think about how difficult this would be to arrange without the nft to handle the contract.
Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…
All of the replies to you didnt really touch on what they are, a store of value. It's fair to think of them more like savings accounts. You can buy a replica of a piece of art to look at it. You buy the original to store value. You hope it may appreciate as well. It could end up worthless. But until someone says otherwise, it has the value stored in it. It's just like baseball cards. You can make unlimited indistingu…
Everyone understands that baseball cards are just like savings accounts!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you store value in something as unstable as an NFT? NFTs are 100% speculation so the price is basically arbitrary.
Is physical art any different? If anything this is a democratization of the wealthy auction scene. A new tier of field to play. Alternative assets come in all shapes in sizes. I can store wealth in gold, comics, wine. Why not my name on a ledger listed as owner of nothing in particular other than the price I paid for it? The amount of hate they get on HN should be a clue that everyone is being over analytical and log…
Yes, physical art, baseball cards, gold and whatnot all have a long history and vast amount of people who participate in the trade.
NFTs in comparison are super new, and the only people who seem to chip in are those who either have some stake in there or bored.
NFTs might be a good store of value eventually. But right now dumping millions in there seems like a huge gamble.
Buying it from such a Legend is what gives it value. It's like Cleese is personally making fun of the buyer! I'm pretty sure this will go down as the Pet Rocks of this era. But... I'm not entirely sure.