31–40 of 89 posts
It has all the hallmarks of an MLM or Ponzi scheme. Lots of people hyping it up, hoping to sell on their "asset" to a bigger fool. You can't restrict ownership of digital goods. Decades of DRM have shown us that.
Either way I don’t think there is value in ‘DRM but on a blockchain’.
Q: What's to stop me taking sometime else's art I find online, claiming it's mine, turning it into a NFT and making money from it? A: Absolutely nothing ... I think?
This guy made a few hundred thousand by doing just that. https://mobile.twitter.com/muratpak/status/13585748601721569...
Q: What's to stop me taking sometime else's art I find online, claiming it's mine, turning it into a NFT and making money from it? A: Absolutely nothing ... I think?
This guy made a few hundred thousand by doing just that. https://mobile.twitter.com/muratpak/status/13585748601721569...
https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-andy-warhol-colored-mona-l...
All these articles gloss over the technical side (which is really not complicated, because there's very little THERE). And gloss over the demand side (sure, people want to "own" the art even when "own" means absoluely nothing in that context). I can only assume that on the demand side there's a mixture of stupid money ("I don't know what this is but it seems like it might be the next big thing so I'm buying") and people working one of various angles.
At least some artists are getting paid stupid amounts of money, if someone's got to get a windfall it might as well be them. But let's not pretend thing actually makes sense as an overall thing.
NFT sellers are dodging the elephant in the room: Buying an NFT is more like buying a print of an artwork than buying the artwork itself. Or more accurately, a link to a print of the artwork. Yes, using crypto and blockchain you can prove that this was the first NFT print of the artwork, but that's it. It's an expensive way to proclaim that you have the keys controlling the NFT that links to the print of the artwork,…
It has all the hallmarks of an MLM or Ponzi scheme. Lots of people hyping it up, hoping to sell on their "asset" to a bigger fool. You can't restrict ownership of digital goods. Decades of DRM have shown us that.
It's not about not allowing access to people--it's about provably being the person named "owner" of a given good.
Like this? https://lunarland.com/
It has all the hallmarks of an MLM or Ponzi scheme. Lots of people hyping it up, hoping to sell on their "asset" to a bigger fool. You can't restrict ownership of digital goods. Decades of DRM have shown us that.
You can't restrict ownership of physical goods or art really, it's just that there's "authentic" goods and "fake" goods. So you're right you can't restrict possession of digital goods but you can restrict the right to sell a digital good because any potential buyers will want to know what they're buying is "authentic". CSGO skins go for thousands with the rarest going for tens of thousands, you can download them and…
Yes, there are servers that will let you try out custom skins and knives but you can't play an official game with them. The knives also offer different animations which look cooler than the default one. It's slightly different to me in that there's no inherent usefulness of the NFT's (at least currently - maybe in some metaverse future they have a use).
It doesn't seem like people really want to "own" the NFTs, they are viewing them only as investments which means eventually someone will be left holding the bag. In contrast, people DO want to own the CSGO skins and knives.
NFT sellers are dodging the elephant in the room: Buying an NFT is more like buying a print of an artwork than buying the artwork itself. Or more accurately, a link to a print of the artwork. Yes, using crypto and blockchain you can prove that this was the first NFT print of the artwork, but that's it. It's an expensive way to proclaim that you have the keys controlling the NFT that links to the print of the artwork,…
Re: wash trading, that also happens in the art world with shell companies.
I think the reason it doesn’t make sense is that when you buy art IRL you actually own the original which can’t be duplicated. This is not true of a JPEG. I can perfectly duplicate it. Now where it might make sense is if everyone views the asset through an authoritative “viewer”. For example cryptokitties website. In that case it somewhat makes sense. As an analogy if I create a private World of Warcraft server and g…