91–100 of 297 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> independent of any ledger This seems an arbitrary restriction to me. Why must something be independent of a ledger to have value?
This is a property that NFTs can never have, so claiming that NFTs are equivalent to physical collectibles is certainly false. If you are saying that something requires a ledger entry to have value, then you are simply proving that it has no intrinsic value .
> An intrinsic theory of value (also called theory of objective value) is any theory of value in economics which holds that the value of an object, good or service, is intrinsic, meaning that it can be estimated using objective measures.
If you use "what someone last paid for it" as a measure of intrinsic value, then they have intrinsic value.
I want to be excited about Web3 and feel I'm missing something, given how many smart minds are. But every time someone talks about NFTs on a podcast I feel there are many questions not answered. For example - Kevin Rose has minted 1000 NFT's for "membership" of his podcast VIP group. Users had to pay ~3 ETH (~$12k) for each one - but he hasn't yet told them what the benefits of holding will be, when they'll come, and…
Yes, that is speculation. But there is also great art being sold that you may feel good about owning.
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).
It makes for mega cringe lords like Gary Vee. Dude is like 60 and dresses like a Fortnite teenager so he can peddle NFTs to kids as an investment strategy. I always found him to be annoying and the NFT space basically confirmed it.
nouns.wtf
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 have pretty mixed feelings about NFTs in general. But I am intrigued by the use case of allowing a large number of individuals to patron a given artist (and give them recurring income on subsequent resale of their work). All else being equal, I would prefer to live in a society where artists and other makers have time to follow their passion and create instead of spending their time on some job just to pay the bill…
And what extent is that? There are plenty of ways to send money to an artist, both with crypto and without. What value do NFTs add, as far as patronizing artists?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
However even HN must admit the art world is a real industry, with a lot of big money players, and the reason things have value is not in the quality of the art. I see the same argument rehashed over and over, and it's the same reason HN as a collective never understood or embraced crypto in general - a total lack of understanding combined with a total lack of imagination.
So you're telling me NFTs are exactly like an industry that exists almost entirely to service the ultra-wealthy looking for new ways to hide their assets and/or show off with conspicuous consumption? That's pretty much all I need to hear to decide it's a bunch of BS. Find a use for NFTs that affects those of us without massive disposable income, and maybe I'll be impressed.
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 have pretty mixed feelings about NFTs in general. But I am intrigued by the use case of allowing a large number of individuals to patron a given artist (and give them recurring income on subsequent resale of their work). All else being equal, I would prefer to live in a society where artists and other makers have time to follow their passion and create instead of spending their time on some job just to pay the bill…
People don’t understand what artists used to have to do to make a living. They complain about carbon usage yet I know many talented artists who had to work for BP, Shell and ICE car companies so they could pay their rent. On Tezos the chain is low carbon usage anyway.
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).