> Which one did the creator use? That's the one that has legitimacy and value.
This is exactly the crux. How do I prove who is the original creator? Vitalik's concept of legitimacy is based on EVERYONE participating. Which is simply not the case right now. To use his example:
> Elon selling Elon's tweet is the real thing, and Jeff doing the same is not. Once again, millions of dollars of value are being controlled and allocated, not by individuals or cryptographic keys, but by social conceptions of legitimacy.
> But they could also be a missed opportunity: there is little social value in helping Elon Musk earn yet another $1 million by selling his tweet when, as far as we can tell, the money is just going to himself (and, to his credit, he eventually decided not to sell). If NFTs simply become a casino that largely benefits already-wealthy celebrities, that would be a far less interesting outcome.
Of course. But what if all of the edgelords that love Elon (and happen to also have much of the control of share of wallets for ETH) decide he should make the $1M? Vitalik's view would be "well that's what the public decided". However it assumes that EVERYONE is an active participant with full knowledge of the situation.
And finally he admits himself:
> There are definitely more ideas, but this is an area that certainly deserves more active coordination and thought.
> But this goes far beyond just Ethereum itself. NFTs are one example of a large pool of capital that depends on concepts of legitimacy. The NFT industry could be a significant boon to artists, charities and other public goods providers far beyond our own virtual corner of the world, but this outcome is not predetermined; it depends on active coordination and support.
He's actually just regurgitating the ideas of a direct democracy vs a representative democracy. If the public is not fully engaged and fully informed, then this whole theory essentially breaks down.