NFT are null pointers with a random price tag
They're more like barcodes.
I wouldn't pay 60 million for a barcode.
NFT Canon
51–60 of 114 posts
Re: NFT Canon
#52NFTs just happen to be the token du jour, and it's a bit sad that a16z is peddling them. There's nothing of value here, and no one will care in 4 years. Remember Crypto Kitties[1]? Don't worry, no one else does either. The idea of "proof of ownership" makes no sense in a digital context, anyway, and the best way forward (if actually trying to solve this problem) isn't with some pump-and-dump token, but rather with DR…
Whatever you think about NFTs, there are plenty of earnest people in the space; they have been trading, building and podcasting for years without any mainstream attention, or in fact, without making money. And yes, people are still trading Cryptokitties.
| there are plenty of earnest people in the space
Of course there are. Scams wouldn't work if everyone involved was in on it.
Re: NFT Canon
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An NFT is like trying to sell art without actually having to create art. An NFT of a tweet maybe. But actually artists do create art and sell it as NFTs.
Sure, but there's no guarantee there won't be duplicates of that work later. Unless the author has a legal contract guaranteeing never to make another NFT of that work again, there's no reason to believe in its authenticity. And call me crazy, but the kind of people selling NFTs don't strike me as trustworthy.
But in the non-NFT world, artists are selling prints of their work, and have been doing so for decades - hardly a fad! Those can be fairly expensive for the top tier, and they work the same way: You trust the artist will not inflate the supply of the same work with additional prints later on.
Re: NFT Canon
#54NFTs just happen to be the token du jour, and it's a bit sad that a16z is peddling them. There's nothing of value here, and no one will care in 4 years. Remember Crypto Kitties[1]? Don't worry, no one else does either. The idea of "proof of ownership" makes no sense in a digital context, anyway, and the best way forward (if actually trying to solve this problem) isn't with some pump-and-dump token, but rather with DR…
VCs are geared to take big swings and bets. Makes total sense that they would buy into anything that has the potential to be a billion dollar idea, even if the likelihood of success is 1-5%.
What's interesting about NFTs to me is that an org like the NBA is one of the most successful - but I guess that makes sense because, as others have posted, they generate all the NFTs and can validate them. So it seems to me that it can be successful in the case where you have a single, centralized owner. Where it breaks down for me is when that ownership is some random person on the interwebs.
NBA Top Shot is also interesting because the number of buyers/sellers seems fair stable/flat - that would indicate to me that it is a relatively small number of people trading with each other because I think the number of buyers/sellers would increase if the overall market was growing - but I could be wrong about that.
Re: NFT Canon
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both of these statements are true: - An NFT can (should) include a hash of the work - Multiple NFTs can exist pointing to the same hash. However: > And it's not like Monet making more paintings, because each painting is unique. Each NFT is also unique in the sense that each NFT itself has an address and its own history. They are distinguishable. They are orderable. > This is an identical digital copy from the same pe…
> So for example, if Jack minted multiple NFTs for the same tweet it would be clear to everyone which one was first. Only the first one would presumably be considered valuable. That's not how I see it at all. Once Jack has been shown to be willing to oversell himself just to make a quick buck, it will immediately devalue everything associated with him, including the original NFT. You're buying into the quality/credib…
> Once Jack has been shown to be willing to oversell himself just to make a quick buck, it will immediately devalue everything associated with him, including the original NFT. You're buying into the quality/credibility/longevity of the creator here, and once it's shown he's a shill there's not much reason to value any of his original "work" highly.
To be clear I don't personally see any value at all in an NFT that doesn't have legal IP rights attached. I think we agree that far.
However:
> it will immediately devalue everything associated with him, including the original NFT
It might. Kind of hard to theorize as to what the result would be. The reason I'm hesitant to jump to that conclusion is because of the timestampy nature of blockchains. It's not as if the market is suddenly flooded with forgeries and nobody can tell what's real. It's baked into the blockchain which one was first. In fact you might argue it would not be possible (economically) for Jack to do this in the first place since nobody would buy the second instance.
Re: NFT Canon
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but there's no guarantee there won't be duplicates of that work later. Unless the author has a legal contract guaranteeing never to make another NFT of that work again, there's no reason to believe in its authenticity. And call me crazy, but the kind of people selling NFTs don't strike me as trustworthy.
But in the non-NFT world, artists are selling prints of their work, and have been doing so for decades - hardly a fad! Those can be fairly expensive for the top tier, and they work the same way: You trust the artist will not inflate the supply of the same work with additional prints later on.
[deleted]
Re: NFT Canon
#57NFTs just happen to be the token du jour, and it's a bit sad that a16z is peddling them. There's nothing of value here, and no one will care in 4 years. Remember Crypto Kitties[1]? Don't worry, no one else does either. The idea of "proof of ownership" makes no sense in a digital context, anyway, and the best way forward (if actually trying to solve this problem) isn't with some pump-and-dump token, but rather with DR…
> they're just trying to get rich.
Aren't you too rich or too poor... Developing really something for getting rich is a reason worth enough. The real problem is long-term courage.
Re: NFT Canon
#58Re: NFT Canon
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
The confusion comes from how NFTs that represent images have become so popular right now (I believe it’s because it’s the easiest use case of an NFT and people want to make a quick buck). NFTs themselves are just a cryptographic representation of something unique. It can be a token that says “you own this image”, but it can also be an in-game virtual item, a software license, a digital trading card, etc... There is s…
Here’s the thing - if it relies on a central authority to say “this is the genuine article” why do you even need a blockchain? A PGP certificate or X.509 is arguably “a cryptographic representation of something unique” EDIT even something like a domain name - which is arguably a better example as only one of such a thing can actually exist in that only one owner can derive the value from it.
I don't like NFTs, but the point of putting it on the blockchain is that it's globally available, verifiable, and immutable. Many versions of a PGP-signed message could exist and be passed around.
Re: NFT Canon
#60The only way that NFTs make sense to me is in some sort of impossible to implement DRM-like system where ONLY the current owners of the media can display it or utilize it. If buying an NFT of a piece of art meant that I could digitally display the file in full resolution, or if it otherwise afforded me some tangible benefit during the period of ownership, I could see it making sense.
As of right now NFTs are basically donations to the artist with more steps and about 1000x the carbon footprint.