191–200 of 297 posts
Prints are a near-perfect replica of any painting, and also professional forgers routinely copy works of, or create original works of, major artists in order to make a lot of money. However prints are typically worth a fraction of the original work, and the moment a forged painting is discovered its value plummets. The value of the NFT is not primarily in how it looks. The value of the NFT is in the provenance, the h…
Have you seen a Newman painting in person? The image of Voice of Fire ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire ) on Wikipedia is completely unremarkable, but it's actually very impressive and powerful to see in person. One of my favourite pieces of visual art. A lot of people like to shit on abstract art and color fields as "a toddler could do it" but there is technical skill and artistry on display. Keith Harin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What matters is who issued it. If you buy an NFT of a Tyler Hobbs painting it's valuable because it was minted by Tyler Hobbs. That one is on one ledger only and even if he himself starts putting it on multiple ledgers it would devalue itself naturally. It's all a social construct.
Sure, if you're going to argue from a position of economic nihilism that the only value anything is determined by what some idiot is willing to pay for it, then you can call that NFT valuable. That isn't much of a discussion though is it? Since I could also call Beanie Babies and tulip bulbs valuable. If I give my friend $100 for a red paperclip and he gives me $100 for a green paperclip could say those paperclips we…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The background of the artist and the piece's history is what gives it value That, and the fact that there is only one, it's not digital, and it can be authenticated (and also the artist is dead, so it is guaranteed there won't be any more). The "value" of an NFT is that there is only one unique occurrance of it in a pile of bits called a blockchain. It is very hard to hang it on a wall. Web3: not satisfied with the…
>The "value" of an NFT is that there is only one unique occurrance of it in a pile of bits called a blockchain. It is very hard to hang it on a wall. It's worst than that because almost all NFTs are only an pointer/URL and the art itself is not on the chain.
I create myartwork.jpeg. Somebody creates an NFT of it. Later, I create an NFT of it. Even later a bunch of people make NFT replicas of both. Which NFT is legitimate? The blockchain doesn't know.
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).
/* FYI, the down arrow is not an indication of agreement, it is an indication of quality. If you disagree with me, at least have the common courtesy to comment. */ It's a shame the acronym NFT has become synonymous with digital images. As a concept it's a huge idea with so much potential. The issue is people now hear NFT, and their mind shuts down thinking it's some stupid monkey picture thing. Everything you can do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> objective measure How would a bunch of subjective meatbags be able to come up with an objective measure? If everyone agreed that X is an objective measure, it could still be wrong. Give me a concrete example of what you think is an objective measure.
Sorry - I edited my comment while you were posting this. Feel free to reply to my full comment, since I address the consequences of this line of reasoning there.
I agree that the example you provided is a more "objective" one, more grounded in physical reality - a tulip costing the same as a 10 years' salary.
> Obviously this is absurd, and history proved it so.
Had the tulips kept their scarcity, and had social interest remained at such high levels, couldn't it have kept its value?
An example I have is gold: people have been hoarding and valuing it for millennia. Sure, it occasionally crashes, but so do a lot of assets. Is it in a constant bubble? Is it overvalued? What is the intrinsic value of gold? It is not very useful in itself, but it is in demand and scarce, as opposed to fiat currency, which is in free fall.
http://pricedingold.com/us-dollar/
I argue that value comes from what people attribute it to be. The markets are an aggregation of such value decisions from many people.
People are seeing NFTs as a kind of payment system of sorts. A modern turn on donations or alms.
Can the likes of the Times, National Review, WaPo, WSJ, etc., use NFTs in lieu of a subscription model?
You buy the rights to “own” an article or whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry - I edited my comment while you were posting this. Feel free to reply to my full comment, since I address the consequences of this line of reasoning there.
Thank you for the response! And sorry for taking so long with mine. I agree that the example you provided is a more "objective" one, more grounded in physical reality - a tulip costing the same as a 10 years' salary. > Obviously this is absurd, and history proved it so. Had the tulips kept their scarcity, and had social interest remained at such high levels, couldn't it have kept its value? An example I have is gold:…
> Had the tulips kept their scarcity,
They did.
> and had social interest remained at such high levels, couldn't it have kept its value?
You mean if the tulip bubble had never burst would we still be paying 10 years of a skilled persons salary for one? Sure.
It’s worth noting that the courts ultimately held the debts owed for Tulip futures to be ‘gambling debts’…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I could have phrased that a little differently so you couldn't pull a quote out of context and miss my point regarding scarcity in a gaming context. In the context of games I was referring to decentralized scarcity. I can recognize the example of a game being better if not everyone has the same cards (but this is still financially motivated since Pokemon is a profit making endeavor). But in that context, what…
How often do we see game servers shut down where the game isnt playable anymore? I think there is something cool about the accumulation of in game assets being in a persons personal owned wallet, and not an account on the game server. That dichotomy has consumer benefits. A game company can disappear, and the players can pick right up where they left off, with a new game, remake, or a reverse engineered copy of the s…
If there is demand, this can and will happen anyway. There are countless examples of fans continuing to mod and/or host games after they were abandoned by the original creators. The only difference is that you want to import your assets from one game to another. The only thing being preserved here are the assets from the old game. The only added value from NFTs is preserving an investment in the old game.
>Why cant financial gain be a PART of the whole? People can both collect pokemon cards, and play with them. It's not mutually exclusive that you have to declare youre one or the other. Although NFTs probably should include a "you opened the wrapper" function, to create additional scarcity as people destroy the value of their items by making them less digitally pristine.
No one is saying that you can't have fun with your Pokemon cards. But Pokemon cards and decentralized digital scarcity are not interchangeable concepts. Decentralized digital scarcity appears to only be motivated by money.