41–50 of 297 posts
Is it physically possessing something? Is it a receipt? Is it provenance? Is it the ability to destroy something permanently? Is it the ability to deny others access? Is it irrefutable and verifiable proof, without trusting any single entity, that an entity holds an exclusive status relative to a good?
I love this. What a great way to show, not tell. The FAQ is brilliant: "Why would I want to create a replica?" Many NFTs have [rocket emoji] in price and are not affordable for most people. This allows you to still own a replica of a famous NFT. Think of it like an exact print of a favorite piece of art. The source of the NFT will be exactly the same as the original and it will even show up in your crypto wallet. "Ho…
I have to be honest. I view NFTs as one of the dumbest things to come out of the crypto space. I see the use cases, but frankly I don’t think it’s innovative nor does it solve something in a really unique way. Part of the point of digital assets are that they can be copied. If you don’t want to copy them, you can validate with the issuing authority (which is virtually all NFTs as it is).
This is so obvious to me that it is tough to stop myself from believing that everyone knows this and is just ignoring it in an attempt to make a quick buck. There are much better arguments for cryptocurrency. I happen to think they are generally overvalued and overhyped, but there is also real utility at the heart of it that people can believe in and project forward. NFTs seem to be stupid all the way down.
A Michael Jordan rookie card is worth tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on grade. If I print a Michael Jordan rookie card onto cardstock, it will be worth basically nothing. The reason that something is valuable to collectors is the social contract between creator and recipient. The value in NFTs exists by that same social contract. You can't ignore that relationship when criticizing them, otherwise…
> The reason that something is valuable to collectors is the social contract between creator and recipient. No, it’s because the valuable object is physically scarce, and exists as a material historical artifact independent of any ledger . NFTs have never and will never have these attributes. You can't ignore this reality when advocating for them, otherwise you're peddling a fantasy.
This seems an arbitrary restriction to me. Why must something be independent of a ledger to have value?
I have to be honest. I view NFTs as one of the dumbest things to come out of the crypto space. I see the use cases, but frankly I don’t think it’s innovative nor does it solve something in a really unique way. Part of the point of digital assets are that they can be copied. If you don’t want to copy them, you can validate with the issuing authority (which is virtually all NFTs as it is).
Not surprised that this is the top comment, it seems to be the overwhelming sentiment on HN, which is unfortunate. My perspective is that it's very early for NFTs and the large majority (you included) are fixating on what you're seeing in the space today, or put differently, you're being shortsighted. Mark your comment down and revisit it in a few years, having an opinion on the sidelines is just fine. Now let the do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A MJ rookie card is worth a lot because it’s MJ, the best ball player of all time. How is a NFT drawn by a random artist of a random image worth so much?
If we're steelmanning the argument, then I think you'd have to ask what makes an NFT of a digital artwork by a famous digital artist worth so much.
I have to be honest. I view NFTs as one of the dumbest things to come out of the crypto space. I see the use cases, but frankly I don’t think it’s innovative nor does it solve something in a really unique way. Part of the point of digital assets are that they can be copied. If you don’t want to copy them, you can validate with the issuing authority (which is virtually all NFTs as it is).
Not surprised that this is the top comment, it seems to be the overwhelming sentiment on HN, which is unfortunate. My perspective is that it's very early for NFTs and the large majority (you included) are fixating on what you're seeing in the space today, or put differently, you're being shortsighted. Mark your comment down and revisit it in a few years, having an opinion on the sidelines is just fine. Now let the do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not copies though. They are replicas. The original is still unique. You're buying an entry on the blockchain and the scarcity of that is real.
How can you tell the whether a given piece is original? You'd have to build a database of all NFTs in order to check. And perhaps the new image is slightly altered making it original.
I guess one important thing to understand in these discussions is who exactly are you worried about?
-The original creator?
-The initial purchaser/minter from the original creator's collection?
-The person that currently owns the item in that collection?
-The replicator?
-The replicator that tries to sell a replicant?
-A future buyer that is trying to figure out which one to buy?
These are all distinct people with distinct realities. But people arbitrarily talk about a random one of these market participants as an indictment of the entire NFT concept, when each one is experiencing something unique that is either the same as the existing art world or better. Out of all 6 market participants, none of them encounter something worse than the non-NFT art world. Out of all 6, some of them encounter something better.
I have to be honest. I view NFTs as one of the dumbest things to come out of the crypto space. I see the use cases, but frankly I don’t think it’s innovative nor does it solve something in a really unique way. Part of the point of digital assets are that they can be copied. If you don’t want to copy them, you can validate with the issuing authority (which is virtually all NFTs as it is).
I had this opinion too, but if you think about something like trading cards or any other “limited” collectibles that were mass produced, rather than one of a kind art, it’s sort of the same thing with regards to artificial scarcity.
When Kellog's is making NFTs, it devalues the entire platform.
Trading cards aren't a fitting analogy, because only a few companies were/are in that business, and they each ran specific product lines. They're more similar to old lego sets in that sense.
NFTs are pogs.