Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

seths.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 786 posts

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#181

Post by m12k »

cloudking wrote: post #109
ping_pong wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait so you can create an NFT on a tweet that you don't own? You're just claiming ownership in this NFT universe but it doesn't entitle you to anything related to the tweet does it? Meaning Jack Dorsey who "owns" the tweet didn't create an NFT on the tweet, a 3rd party did?

In this system https://v.cent.co/ anyone can bid for a tweet, and it's up to the actual Twitter user who created the tweet to verify ownership and mint/sell the NFT via their system. All you own by buying it is the token, the real owner of the tweet could delete it any time :) see what I mean about mania?

An NFT really is just a commemorative plaque that says "I own [URL HERE]". It doesn't come with some crypto-backed security that only you can do anything with whatever is at the URL. It doesn't give you any legal rights unless backed by a separate contract (which could just as well have been made without the NFT). All it guarantees is that no other plaque with exactly the same words can exist on that blockchain.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#182

Post by Lazare »

detaro wrote: post #83
Lazare wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I think, is that their art still isn't selling. NFTs aren't art, they are effectively trading cards referencing art. These trading cards are, somewhat mysteriously, selling, and that does get money into the hands of artists which is good, but they're not doing it by encouraging people to buy art or tip artists, and it's hard to see how "everyone can just print trading cards referencing things" is a sustai…

I don't have the impression people buying NFT art consider there to be much difference between the art and what you call a "trading card" referencing art. (sure, many probably buy for speculation, but that happens with meatspace art too) Thought experiment: if they sold a digital art piece in traditional terms, would you consider the printed licensing contract (which is our usual legal tool represent selling a file)…

> if they sold a digital art piece in traditional terms

People do sell licenses to digital art, yes. I've both bought and sold such licenses, primarily on TurboSquid (https://www.turbosquid.com/), a digital market place which has been doing that for over 20 years.

That's neither a trading card nor the art itself, but it's certainly closer to "art" than "trading card", because I get specific legal rights to do specific things with the art, such as use it and reproduce it in a book, website, computer game, etc.

It is worth, I think, asking what is being offered by NFTs that TurboSquid (and it's endless competitors and equivalents for other media types) don't offer. Scarcity? Nothing stops such marketplaces from selling exclusive licenses, and some have tried, although I don't think it's ever been popular.

> the legal meaning of an NFT is less defined, true, but I suspect people will tie licensing contracts into that soon enough

Well, yes. People might start selling some sort of "NFT + rights" package at some point, but they don't come with any now, hence the "trading card" digs. Even if people start adding rights in the future, it's not clear that these rights will be (or will be seen to be) an integral part of the NFT. If I can sell an NFT of my 3D model now, and I can sell the right to use my 3D model in a game now, why would I combine these in a package and not just keep selling them independently?

(Now, one interesting thing is that the rights attached to NFTs would presumably be transferable, while licenses to digital art are currently overwhelmingly non-transferable. That is a big change. But...we could sell transferable licenses now; you don't need NFTs for that, and the concept is currently not popular. I rather think that rather than NFTs true value being that they enable transferable licenses, the transferability of licences attached to NFTs will be a drawback.)

> Especially in art, a lot of this comes ultimately down to social convention

That is true. Art prints are an interesting example; you're basically paying for 1) the right to reproduce an artwork on a single piece of physical media and 2) paying for the artist to do that reproduction for you. Both are legitimate services, but it's odd to find them packaged together like that so frequently. And yet, art prints are a huge and very well accepted part of the art market. If NFTs become widely accepted, they will seem less strange, to be sure.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#183

Post by echelon »

drawkbox wrote: post #174

Short term view NFTs look like a scam or a joke. Long term view we will need digital ownership especially when it comes to content or individual data/items. When the augmented reality spectacle takes over and everyone is looking through AR glasses, rather than through a small device but through their own eyes, digital collectibles will have more value. Shared spaces with others will have collectibles that only exist…

Why are we introducing scarcity to digital goods? That's not a good thing and shouldn't be praised!

We rail against companies selling cosmetic additions to games. It doesn't add value.

We already have "ownership". The legal framework of copyrights, purchase or goods, and licenses.

NFTs are barcodes. People are selling cryptographic barcodes.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#184

Post by soulofmischief »

jamesgreenleaf wrote: post #37

NFTs make perfect sense for representing a claim on things that can be used, like event tickets or in-game virtual goods. But as certificates layered on top of collectibles... I'm not so sure. With something like CryptoKitties, you can do something with the tokens (play a virtual pet game). But with something like CryptoPunks you're essentially paying for digital beanie babies, which are worse than real ones since an…

Cryptopunks will always have mindshare as an early mover. In the collectible world it will maintain decent value. More than the original purchase prices.

In many worlds, image NFTs you own are displayed with special indicators that they are yours. You can print out a picture of the Mona Lisa, but its not going to have the same impression as the real painting.

Original Beanie Babies are worth a fortune.

This craze is happening because many people realize that at the least, there is sustained value in first-mover NFTs of various types. Before dismissing this as yet another craze or bubble, consider that a digital world where 90% of NFTs are worthless is no different than real life with commoditized art.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#185

Post by klipt »

arnarbi wrote: post #159
klipt wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The artist can sign a message including your public key. The message is verifiable using the artist's public key. If other people copy it, they're just copying the proof that it belongs to you. If you want to sell it to someone else, you sign a message saying you give it to them and so on, forming a "chain" of signed transactions.

Any owner can sign as many receipts of sale as they want.

Can't an artist also mint as many NFTs as they want?

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#186

Post by thepasswordis »

Osmose wrote: post #10
snissn wrote: post #5

It’s easy for a famous entrenched artist who mass produces their work thanks to legacy infrastructure to talk down on this but I’m seeing lots of independent creator artist friends making some money for their work

What property of NFTs has suddenly made them make money where previously they weren't? Like how did adding NFTs to the mix suddenly make their art start selling?

Access to markets. Like it or not, there are many, many wealthy cryptocurrency holders. NFTs are a way of exposing the new artist class to the new rich.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#187

Post by quantumsequoia »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #120
Lazare wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I think, is that their art still isn't selling. NFTs aren't art, they are effectively trading cards referencing art. These trading cards are, somewhat mysteriously, selling, and that does get money into the hands of artists which is good, but they're not doing it by encouraging people to buy art or tip artists, and it's hard to see how "everyone can just print trading cards referencing things" is a sustai…

Think of it as a certificate of authenticity. If it's not made/endorsed by the artist it's not worth anything.

That still doesn't make any sense to me. Would anybody have paid for a physical certificate of authenticity for a digital file pre-NFTs? If the NBA started selling certificates of authenticity for video clips that didn't come with any intellectual property ownership or exclusive ability, people would have laughed and would have never paid millions for them

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#188

Post by Lazare »

scsilver wrote: post #78
Lazare wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I think, is that their art still isn't selling. NFTs aren't art, they are effectively trading cards referencing art. These trading cards are, somewhat mysteriously, selling, and that does get money into the hands of artists which is good, but they're not doing it by encouraging people to buy art or tip artists, and it's hard to see how "everyone can just print trading cards referencing things" is a sustai…

People pay for mods and skins all the time. People will pay secondlife furniture. They will pay to be be able to display it in their VR houses. They will display it like badges on their forum avatars. The speculation and whales will being the capital to generate a steady market and build out the partnerships and incentives for customers. Once people are used to digital wallets, sending a few bucks for instant deliver…

> People pay for mods and skins all the time. People will pay secondlife furniture. They will pay to be be able to display it in their VR houses. They will display it like badges on their forum avatars.

All of those are neat ideas which do not require NFTs, and are not enabled by NFTs. People already pay for Second Life furniture.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#189

Post by Animats »

scsilver wrote: post #70
jamesgreenleaf wrote: post #37

NFTs make perfect sense for representing a claim on things that can be used, like event tickets or in-game virtual goods. But as certificates layered on top of collectibles... I'm not so sure. With something like CryptoKitties, you can do something with the tokens (play a virtual pet game). But with something like CryptoPunks you're essentially paying for digital beanie babies, which are worse than real ones since an…

You obviously wont be displaying your rare nft art collection in the west wing of your 2-bit, thirdlifeVR mansion.

That may be Decentraland's business model.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#190

Post by elefanten »

arnarbi wrote: post #159
klipt wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The artist can sign a message including your public key. The message is verifiable using the artist's public key. If other people copy it, they're just copying the proof that it belongs to you. If you want to sell it to someone else, you sign a message saying you give it to them and so on, forming a "chain" of signed transactions.

Any owner can sign as many receipts of sale as they want.

What stops an original owner (of the to-be-digitized asset) from selling an NFT on the same thing multiple times? Perhaps on multiple different platforms?
Post reply on HN