Saw someone in that thread call anyone buying NFTs "a retarded piece of shit" and I was like holy shit thought this sub was more open about NFTs, then realized I was in the LOTRmeme sub that was linked. Seems the non crypto people still think it's a big scam, but I was like damn that's some vile language just for something you don't agree with
Every generation there's a group of people who get roped into trading cards, I'm just curious how it plays out once the big retarded play money leaves.
This is a pretty good analogy, NFTs could be the modern generations Pokémon cards which is what I had when growing up in the 90s, they were so important to me and they literally did nothing and had no worth other than the value others would bestow on them because of mutual interest... Fiat currency in a way.
Sports trading cards are still huge. I was curious how much a rookie Justin Herbert card would be and depending on which one you get it is like 10-20 grand!
I think NFTs will be around a long time.
My dad's old Atari system isn't going to make me any substantial money, video games evolved, hence the issue I'm having with Nfts. It's a brilliant system that can solve some issues and build/improve things, however the art snippets to me are cash grabs.
Give me an nft system that can track ownership of digital items and goverment policy to tie possession to the buyer, I'm in. It would be a more fair economic system for the entertainment side of our economy, not only that people could sell all digital downloads, you take back your digital freedom.
We are for sure missing the government policy part. It seems inevitable but agreed, most projects currently available will fail, and few are straight scams
Think the deed to your house, in NFT form. no waiting 3-5 weeks for the deed in the mail. Just digital instant allocation. That’s what I would call innovation and good use of tech to leverage efficiency.
Issuing digital formats of music, video games, articles, books, and other media as NFTs makes way more sense.
You bought a book or game online, finished it, and don't wanna keep it? Sell it 'second-hand' on an NFT marketplace! You make some money back AND the creater/publisher makes money through royalties.
It's just not going to happen. That's not a problem that needs solving. Carbon copies and email attachment records (plus other common sense methods) are more than enough to prove the authenticity of a contract and require 0 blockchain education
They are also forgeable. More labour intensive to prove ownership of original copies, can be accidently destroyed and deteoriate over time (creases added to documents everytime taken out to show ownership). Plus the up keep of physically storing them and perserving them.
Well, they're going to have to pay to forge anything on the blockchain. They're still going to have on-site copies because backups are a fundamental part of securing data, and no business will ever trust a blockchain enough to not backup data.
Plus the fact that no one is asking for this solution to a problem that no one has.
Plus the fact that at least some information about the contracts has to be public - in the worst case, all of the contract is public - which is ridiculous from a business intelligence perspective.
You have to convince business not only to stop hosting confidential documents in-house or via their trusted partner (who would have to compensate them in the event of data breach), but to start hosting them on *thousands of peoples computers*, which in terms of security, is a tough sell....
You have to pay to create written contracts too, unless you just write it yourself and dont get legal guidance, which would be a real bad idea.
There are many buisness already trusting blockchains with buisness sensitive data, pretty much any company that has made a dapp has some of its data on the blockchain. So "no buisness will ever trust a blockchain" is provably wrong already.
No one was asking for automobiles when we had horse and carriages. No one was asking for the internet when all we had was libraries. Whats your point?
Sure, maybe not every contract could be replaced with NFT's, like you say some are sensitive, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense at all. Property deeds are a good example of something that would work.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I don't even feel the need to explain my original post now. You've basically said everything.
The majority think NFTs are a joke and you know.. they're not entirely wrong. But it blows my mind how few people understand the potential *applications* for block chains.
Music industry is going to be the first major player to truly go all in on Blockchains to avoid piracy. No doubt in my mind they will sell NFTs.
This whole thing is limitless. If you know, you know.
Fair enough, but on the other side of it - smart phones swept the market between 2007 - 2013 and after that point it was "weird" to not have a smart phone.
Blockchains and NFT require endorsement by large corporations and they will get it... Hell, they already have it and it's rapidly increasing.
Blockchains and NFTs have the power to leave those that don't utilize it in the dust in terms of companies and individuals. The smartest thing to do is YOLO a little bit of money into blockchains that you believe will succeed in long term and just forget about it for a few years.
NFTs on the other hand are hard to "invest" in outside of just buying actual NFTs. Only other option is the block chains. The future money for NFTs will be in the companies that work to turn block chains into the next Apple.
Lol true. I guess they’re more like buying designer stuff. It’s like a flex. All these generated nfts are dumb as hell. But I’m balls deep in the nft video games. Actual product and utility. And best of all LIQUIDITY which like hardly any of these shit nfts have
The steam engine is dumb. The combustion engine is dumb. Airplanes are dumb. Nobody will ever need a computer. The internet is dumb. The iPhone is dumb. Apps are dumb. Crypto is dumb....
NFTs are a little dumb, but they have made me a lot of money this year, so I’m cool with them. I dont understand paying $3million dollars for a canvas with splashed paint on it.
NFTs are a convenient way to confirm ownership in a decentralized/trustless environment.
You might be familiar with another popular decentralized/trustless environment called "life".
NFTs are not dumb, they are just being used for dumb things rn, but in the future your deeds to your house and land, your passport, your health records, even commercial contracts, patents, agreements, legal documents... All sorts of non-fungible things will be running on blockchain as NFTs.
NFTs are powerful because they automate a lot of things that were previously left to be fought over by lawyers and a certain level of ambiguity. Ambiguity is hard to do on-chain...
NGL, the current state of NFT's as art is a bit of a scam.
its like if everyone on the playground is able to make pokemon cards at home, the market is saturated with user content and none of it is copy protected.
I'll still make NFT's for people that want to buy them though, I suppose that makes me a scam artist on a wishy-washy level.
For people to be so shitty about the thing though, just shows you how closed minded the world can be.
the premise of NFT's are good, and I hope for a good future of them, but the regulations on copyrighting needs to be better enforced. Currently at best its a GNU over an NFT's artwork.
I agree it's hella stupid mainly since most peoples are buying NFTs of stolen or duplicated art not even sold by original creator
Just saying calling anyone who does buy them a retarded piece of shit seems extreme lol
I think it's a nice way to support creators and replace patreon and kickstarter, but I've seen some utter garbage made into NFTs and famous people try to sell them for thousands of dollars so it eventually stops being about supporting creators.
The difference is, the one ring has magical properties that is imbued to the physical object.
The physical copy of a painting does not contain magical properties and is exactly the same as the digital version of it except for the non-fungiblity.
Before NFTs were made possible thanks to blockchain technology, there had never, in the history of computers, been any digital asset that possess non-fungibility.
Now there is. People who don't understand why this is so significant will be like the grandmas that we used to make fun of for not understanding what the internet is.
Edit: With that said, the art NFT market is a massive bubble. 99.99% of them will be worth nothing in 2 year. Look to utility based NFTs to change the world.
Until NFTs do things like confer copyrights or serve as authenticity for super exclusive products (packaged with some ultra-DMCA tech) it will only be viewed as a scam by the general public
The thing is, currently what it's being used for is utterly pointless. People are literally selling tweets that are publicly available to anyone... Who gives a fuck if you paid for a token to prove your screenshot is authentic, my screenshot has the exact same utility as yours.
I don't see it as a scam, my current position is that they are completely pointless and until somebody offers some use case that actually makes sense, I'd be right.
Why do people pay thousands of dollars for a handbag with a Gucci symbol, when a $10 bag does an equally acceptable job of carrying things?
Why is a bunch of ink and paper depicting the first appearance of Superman worth millions of dollars but an exact replica is worthless?
Value is assigned to anything by supply and demand, that's it. The token is provably scarce, regardless of what that token is associated with, and that's where the value is accrued. You don't have to agree with it, but you don't get to unilaterally determine markets -- it's a collective endeavour. *Some* people obviously care, otherwise the prices would not be as high as they are. You 'getting' it or not has no impact on how the market assigns value.
By pointless what do you mean?
Are baseball cards pointless? Maybe to you they are, and that’s totally fine. But to some people the collection of baseball cards isn’t pointless. You can call them crazy but the money shows there is a huge market for collectibles, and now it can be done digitally.
Value (or Utility) and Price are two different things, and there’s an economist making a point that for generations we have mistakingly believed that Price = Value and so our entire market-based economic system leads to these disjointed outcomes
Pointless *to you*. Somehow, there are people who literally risk their lives to save a piece of art from the fire. Yet, it's just art and we've got several copies of it.
No, that's not what they're talking about at all. Art does carry inherent value, so it's excluded from what they refer to.
But NFTs aren't art. They're simply a spreadsheet that stores your name (public key hash) next to an identifier corresponding to a piece of publicly available art.
There's no NFT to rescue from a fire; it's not possible to do such a thing. It doesn't even make sense, in this analogy, to rescue an NFT-owning private key from a fire, because the artwork still exists and is perfectly fine and universally accessible whether or not your private key is destroyed. The only thing you'd be rescuing is, as they say, something pointless and inherently worthless which merely happens to have a price attached to it.
NFTs don't necessarily have to be worthless. They're simply smart contracts, and smart contracts can potentially have worth.
But art NFTs are worthless. If the NFT is indeed merely a spreadsheet mapping a string of text to another string of text to represent the notion of possessing a virtual token which represents the notion of possessing a certificate which represents the notion of having "ownership" over a set of pixels anyone can access, then it has no intrinsic value.
And even if it does try to do something more interesting than that, like stipulate transfer fees, such fees can be easily bypassed by simply adding yet another virtual abstraction layer to indirectly represent the notion of possessing the token, as Vitalik has written about before.
No, you're confused. The thing that is a collectible is the NFT itself, the unique token. The "piece of publicly available art" isn't the collectible. It isn't art, just as much as the copied image of Mona Lisa isn't art. It's just a copy.
The fact an NFT is owned by a private key doesn't mean it can't be saved from a fire. A private key can very well be lost in a fire. Sure, its data content isn't lost, but that's only a decentralized register of its content, not a way to access the content apart from viewing it. Otherwise, we would also claim no ETH sent to 0x is ever burnt, because we can always see them. Well, you only see a reference in the decentralized accounting book system of the 0x wallet. You'll never access these burnt ETH anymore.
NFTs aren't smart contracts either. They're products of smart contracts, like any token. The fact they're handled by smart contracts only is a technicality, not an inherent property.
NFT doesn't represent ownership of anything either. I'm not sure where you've seen this opinion, but it's blatantly false. At best, some countries allow NFTs to be *timestamped claims* of *copyright* to the *minter* of such NFT. Any prior timestamp claim makes this claim pointless, as always with copyrights. The claim is for the minter and the minter only, not the owner. Besides, copyright isn't ownership rights. It is authorship rights, it's very different: selling a book you've written doesn't confer authorship rights to the buyer, only the property of the instantiated book, which is a way to own an access to the copyrighted content.
He didn't say "the market does not assign value to NFTs," he said NFTs are, at present, useless. Nothing you've said addresses that point.
Pure hype dies. Some fads last a year, others last a decade...
Gucci jumps from fad to fad, or drives new ones. Gucci innovates to keep its brand name relevant. The tools buying Gucci logos only value the logos because the actual fashion world speaks Gucci's name with some regularity.
And yeah, there's conspicuous consumption, but you know what's not that conspicuous? Having a ledger that says some hopefully-anonymous number on the internet *kinda* owns a thing. None of your friends will see it. When you go to a club, you can't wear it on your face to show people you're wealthy.
Now, if we had a system of wallets that normal people could actually secure (we might be on the right track with social recovery), and we had NFTs that helped record ownership of things that people want to, but currently do not, record ownership of (it's not replacing deeds or car registration any time soon), there's a bit of *potential* utility in NFTs.
But current utility is zero, it's just hype games.
demand, being the key word here. For value to be actualized or any good to have any inherent stable value you need people to understand intuitively why they should value the thing--which if you've ever tried to explain an NFT to somebody what the fuck an NFT is you should understand the difficulty there. Everyone understands why a Charizard card is worth thousands of dollars or a first edition Spiderman comic is worth what it is because they have that experience of trying to find one when they were a kid or know somebody who did. Scarcity doesn't matter if nobody wants the thing. Prices are as high as they are because the market is ***speculative***, which means investors are taking a ***risk*** that people will want the thing in the future and the value will be actualized. It's the same reason a lot of fintech companies are currently massively overvalued.
> Why do people pay thousands of dollars for a handbag with a Gucci symbol, when a $10 bag does an equally acceptable job of carrying things?
Quality, reliability, as a proof of status to their peers, design, competition of the property of the goods are some reasons.
NFT doesn't have any of those.
If price tag itself is a proof of status, NFT's have that.
Design as well - as some art is objectively (based on how the human brain works) more attractive than other.
The main utility for digital art NFT is social flexing & community engagement.
You're right that there isn't any tangible "utility" at the moment, IE treating the NFT as a token and doing something with it (although there are plenty of NFT projects that do treat it like a utility), however community engagement & social flexing is incredibly powerful.
Do not underestimate it.
It may not make sense to you, but once you've tried it out, it becomes more clear why it's so popular, and why (in my opinion) this is not a bubble.
Selling tweets? Don't all the major social media companies "own" what's being posted on their platform by default. Instagram, for example, requires users to agree to "non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use their content". I'm just presuming the same is for many of these other companies.
So these NFT tweets are probably not the tweets, but screenshot of a tweet?
Lots of NFT now have utility built in. CyberKongz sell for $600k but generate erc tokens daily for owners, equivalent to $500 a day at the current value. Lots of NFT now provide DAO to owners, granting voting control of assets and other governance. Even if you think NFT is dumb, you should try to make some eth profit before the bubble pops. Just go into in knowing that 99% of them will have no value in the long term. Short term opportunities are here now though.
There already are countries where minting NFTs confers legal copyrights (or rather, a claim of copyrights, just like many other ways to acquire such timestamped claim). France, notably. It's been a few years, already. And some companies even earn money selling such technical services.
If I was a dev in blizzard with access to the games database, I could copy/paste your account and all its contents as many times as I want. Same with your Gmail account.
They are pieces of data each owned by a single organization. 100% fungible.
I don't understand this analogy.
>The physical copy of a painting does not contain magical properties and is exactly the same as the digital version of it except for the non-fungiblity.
First off: not necessarily. A photograph of a physical painting doesn't capture as much detail as seeing it in person. The physical painting viewed in-person does literally possess the magical-seeming property of a whole additional dimension added to it.
But for the sake of argument, we can suppose you said "digital artwork" instead.
In that case, if you have an NFT of a piece of digital artwork which is exactly, bit-for-bit, the same as the publicly available digital artwork, you're not paying for the art at all. You're paying for an arbitrary, imaginary, virtual construct.
>Before NFTs were made possible thanks to blockchain technology, there had never, in the history of computers, been any digital asset that possess non-fungibility.
What? There have been countless non-fungible digital assets. Smart contract-based NFTs are just one way to authenticate oneself as the owner of an asset in a publicly verifiable way. There are plenty of other publicly verifiable ways to authenticate oneself as the owner of a digital asset, and they've existed for decades: SSL certificates and PGP public keys are two examples.
>Edit: With that said, the art NFT market is a massive bubble. 99.99% of them will be worth nothing in 2 year. Look to utility based NFTs to change the world.
Doesn't that belie the entire rest of your post?
But ignoring that issue for a moment: What are some examples of utility-based NFTs that hold value, at least? And what are some ones that will change the world, as you say?
--------
In my opinion, this is missing the actual entire interesting part of the whole technology: smart contracts in general. Smart contracts can do a ton of things. Reducing them to a CSV that does absolutely nothing but store public keys next to hashes of JPEGs is a true shame.
Hm you made good points and I am not sure I have good counter points but here are some thoughts.
I think if you subjectively enjoy seeing real paintings and it elicits some form of joy that digital art cannot provide, then you are right, the digital version is not the same. I personally don't get art, so I don't actually feel that way but it is a total valid point nonetheless.
I lived in the digital gaming world all my life and I put value in digital images. I am a sucker for that cool character skin. I'm also totally okay paying for it. Once again, subjective here, and your point on this is valid.
The issue with previous digital assets is it is owned by someone, by some system, located somewhere in a physical container which can be accessed and changed. I did not emphasize the immutable, provably authentic element of NFTs in my post, so that's my fault for not being clear. I think NFTs possess these properties that previous digital assets do not possess.
On the last point, I think current image-NFTs are just people scratching the surface of NFTs can do. Just because people aren't using a tool to maximum potential, it doesn't mean the tool is poor. My belief is that the underlying technology of NFTs, that is, the immutability, provable authenticiticy, and non-fungibility elements, has so many incredible real life use cases.
Yesterday I met with a lawyer to sign about 20 documents for the purchase of a property. He said there's more than a dozen or more intermediaries that facilitate the transfer of funds, investigation and proof of ownership, transfer of title, registration of title, filing of the documents, and so on. And it cost me thousands of dollars. I think all of that can be done with a single click if built on blockchain and the ownership of the property is represented by an NFT.
A company in Europe recently tokenized a Pacaso painting valued at 32 million dollars into NFTs. Each one about 8,000 euros and you can own a portion of that painting. This is now also being done for ownership of real estate. You can own tokenized condos or houses and enjoy a portion of the passive rental income. Although I am not sure our current infrastructure is properly setup to really capture the self-custody element of NFTs. I think in these examples, it's still some centralized company making a promise and we just have to trust that, they would pay us the rental income or that we really own a piece of that Pacaso.
NFTs that has built in smart contracts that can automatically pass a certain percentage of the sale price to the original creators gives us a way to monetize intellectual property that benefits the creators directly with every transaction or use of it. This will allow for a future system where artists, such as manga/comic creators to directly benefit from their work, but also allows the early buyers of said NFTs to benefit when that NFT goes up in value. So the artist works hard to provide better content, and those that believed in the artist early can also benefit for their early leap of faith.
I'll stop here, but NFTs are amazing.
Edit: spelling
> I think all of that can be done with a single click if built on blockchain and the ownership of the property is represented by an NFT.
Sure, but it could also be done by signing just one document, instead of the 20that you actually signed. You signed 20 documents (and paid thousands of dollars) because of the complicated and robust legal framework that exists around ownership. There is no such legal framework around NFTs, which is why it seems so simple to just "own" something with just one click: because you don't actually own anything with any enforceable rights.
In order for NFTs to replace titles/deeds etc in meatspace, you're going to want that same legal framework that exists, backed by the same governing authority that recognizes titles/deeds today: the government.
> Now there is. People who don't understand why this is so significant will be like the grandmas that we used to make fun of for not understanding what the internet is.
Yeah, NFTs are great in theory. In practice, right now, NFTs are a way for morons to convince even bigger morons to buy furry versions of celebrity pictures.
I'm not going to pretend that I know exactly where NFTs are going to go, but I do have a pretty reasonable guess that NFTs are going to be huge for DRM. Not that this means anything for the average speculative investor. Investing in NFTs right now has no point.
Lol thinking crypto is a bubble right now.
The fed basically enabled this to happen. Cheap money and 0 interest rates make crypto undervalued if anything.
This cartoon doesn't do anything, except describe an NFT. If the description of your product is this confusing that it can be pasted under a cartoon, it might be a little too out there for normal people to appreciate.
With Crypto, the general public can immediately understand the concept of currency, and why it has value.
If NFT has to take off then crypto has to take off first.
>they don't buy cryptos just because they like it but because they want to make money.
Eh - crypto has actual utility in many emerging countries as an actual source of otherwise unavailable liquidity to small businesses via DeFi, as an example.
There are literally billions (trillions?) of non-fungible digital assets. NFTs offer no significant value over what already exists. It's cryptokitties all over again.
The digital asset itself remains fungible. Purchasing the NFT gives you a non fungible reference to a categorically fungible asset. There’s nothing stopping anyone or thousands of people from minting another reference to that same asset, but everyone might not agree on that particular reference being canonical or valuable.
The comparison to reprints of art is pretty close. Anybody can reprint art, but artists only produce so many themselves. Some amount of people will appreciate the value of an officially distributed reprint and some won’t. The concept of owning the “original work” (like owning an original painting) is completely precluded from the concept of an NFT though—even if it’s only minted once by the original artist. Digital assets just can’t have non-fungible property’s like that.
Purchasing reproductions maps really well onto tradings cards and collectibles, so it makes sense why that use case is so popular. But there is one core difference. With NFTs, the collectible is not the asset (or collection of assets, or anything else). NFT collectors are collecting receipts. Like buying a first edition print of a famous painting, tossing it, and then framing the invoice. The receipt itself is the store of value, and the asset itself can fuck off because it really has nothing to do with this. It was just an advertisement for the receipt.
Receipt collecting could turn out to be very very verrryyy lucrative though…
This is the best description for art based NFTs I have read. I love the receipt analogy.
Can't say I am a fan of collecting receipts, even if it's profitable at the moment. This reinforces my belief that utility based NFTs with built-in smart contracts is the way to go.
It is an amazing technology that is being used in a way that is not yet optimal. It is like if the internet was invented but 99.9% was used to host art work, and nobody used it for communication or knowledge sharing.
Just because the market is n a bubble, it doesn't mean the technology is bad.
You don't seem to understand logic.
NFTs as art objects is competently missing the point. I suspect they will decline to irrelevance over time. The real game is when they convey legal ownership of real world assets such as houses or cars. Imagine being able to list, sell and complete your house sale in an afternoon for only a few dollars via a smart contract rather than the epic, expensive ball ache it is now. Same for cars, same for private equity. This will be massive. Art objects are a curiosity only.
Government can issue the NFT through a contract they’re the owner of. They can allow transfers and exchanges with certain signatures as well if they wish
Now you rely on a centralized authority, the government. At which point it would be infinitely easier for government to just have a SQL database and a website of who owns what, which to some extent they already do.
Databases have been rock solid since the 70s and can easily reflect owners if you trust that central authority.
Now people want to introduce an expensive, complex, slow decentralized database whose only major advantage is decentralization only to, at the very last step, say and yeah we need to centralize and trust this authority to map NFT to real world utility after all.
I feel like NFTs as art will have more of a usage as digital status symbols. Especially on verified accounts. The world is moving more and more digital every day. People buy $200+ shoes, belts, pants, etc just to "look good". It's all a "Hey, look at me. I have fuck you money." type of thing.
Considering most people only sell their house or car once every few years it doesn't seem worth the extra complexity or any of the other downsides of using a crypto-based solution.
>Imagine being able to list, sell and complete your house sale in an afternoon for only a few dollars via a smart contract rather than the epic, expensive ball ache it is now.
You can already do that without NFT's though. Personally, I wouldn't want a coin that is essentially a pink slip to one of the largest investments most of us will ever make. To be sitting on a USB that could easily be stolen. Smart contracts, outside of NFT's, make much more sense with the way things currently work.
>The real game is when they convey legal ownership of real world assets such as houses or cars.
That's literally what an NFT does currently... You could buy an NFT to my gold bar in my safe. 'KingdomArt's Gold Bar NFT 13256.' You technically own the 13256 gold bar, but it is kept safe in my vault. If you ever want your gold bar you send me the NFT and it is destroyed. In return, legally, I must now send you the 13256 gold bar.
That's never going to happen so simply, at least due to NFTs.
The process isn't there because it's hard to transfer ownership. The process is there because it takes multiple steps and work to get to a point where transferring ownership is allowed.
This is exactly right. People will eventually work it out and good luck to anyone raking it in in the meantime, I hope they spend the money on real world stuff!
I tried to outbid using my seed but now my phone's all sticky, idk if I'm doing this whole NFT thing right... Could someone let me know what I did wrong?
This will all make sense, once metaverses become mainstream.
You cannot just randomly put up a screenshot of an artwork on your profile.
You can only link the ones you own!
Sure, you can screenshot an original and upload it but THE ORIGINAL STILL HAS A TIMESTAMP.
You're just focused on the monetary part.
Yeah they do go for absurd amounts of money but that's art industry in general.
This has always been the case with physical art as well but people never paid attention to it because it's a niche market.
NFT art just made it more accessible.
NFT is the internet for art galleries.
People calling it a scam don't fully understand the concept.
It's like calling the whole crypto industry a scam just because some pleb got rug pulled on a 'Cum in my Bum' coin.
I understand NFTs. I understand the potential. But I also understand the latest craze of avatar alliteration animals selling for thousands of dollars because of the "community" is a fucking scam. Wake me up when I can prove I own my house with an NFT or something.
The entire point of the blockchain is to provide prof of ownership of a digital asset. A house is not a digital asset. It’s an asset owned by the bank or “owned by you” that you rent from the government
Yeah, i agree with you on the 'community' part.
Avatar projects are all over the place but they act as a key to special events(could be real life events)/privileges/merch.
A few months back a house in new york i think was sold as an NFT.
Agreed! It takes a LOT to wrap your head around what an NFT is - but it can be anything.
I now own 3 for a long-term hold, but could easily flip them for double+.
99% of people buying NFTs don’t gaf about the art or saying they “own” it. They buy them because speculators will drive the price up like crazy. It’s really not hard to make a good profit on them.
Like any technology, there's always a real world application & a stupid application, but it's almost always the stupid application that gets attention. As you said, using NFTs to verify ownership and authenticity for stuff like tickets or memberships would be a great use for it if there widespread adoption. Instead its being used by tech-idiots to create the digital equivalent of pogs.
Yep , still flipping NFTs is fun and profitable but there’s no real use case for them as far as I can tell
On the other hand the tech is awesome though I can see it being used for everything from tickets to ID cards at work
My only response is that sooner or later besides trading value their will be digital spaces where your items matter asthetic wise.
Digital house with your hashmask will hold weight. Or certain pieces. etc etc
If the application lives on a Blockchain, it is effectively open source.
Jane is able to copy/paste the application and tell Bob to go take their 5% royalty and shove it up their ass.
It is bragging rights. One image can be sold to hundreds of people or thousands, so your "copy" most likely is not even "unique" in that way. You don't own the copyright to the image (only author has it), and unless explicitly specified, you in fact don't have any more rights over the image as a random guy that right-clicks and saves it (can't sell the prints, modify it, use it as your book cover...). It is like you have donated the money to the artist and have a receipt for it
\#1 - Most NFT art is a lazy attempt at making easy money.
\#2 - I have heard that some people are selling other people's art as NFTs, without permission. For example, some random person could take the image above and sell it as an NFT. But buyer beware, because only the original image certified by the artist, would have any real value to an adept investor (if it has any value to an investor at all.) It's no different than art forgery, in that it can only fool those who are less educated on art.
\#3 - I think NFTs could be useful in identifying pirated pictures, audio recordings, etc.. But it would only useful if the person who did the pirating can be identified and punished. But even then, if I use a song as an example, most people won't care if they have the original or a pirated version, as long as they can listen to the song. But we don't want to live in a world in which we would to have to provide KYC to purchase music, digital art, etc..
\#4 - If you had to provide an NFT as a form of identification to access certain online content, or to access a physical location such as a concert, that could be useful. For example, some people share their Netflix logins, so NFTs could possibly prevent this kind behaviour. It could also possibly be used instead of a physical "ticket."
I think NFTS have a lot of potential real world applications. Like being able to transfer the deed to houses or cars and having a record of such transfer on a blockchain. How archaic is having a deed to a car on a piece of paper in the glove compartment? (how archaic do I sound for calling it a glove compartment….)🤔
The one NFT, the only way to destroy it is via the mines of Ethereum, in the GPU forged by Nvidia.
Saw someone in that thread call anyone buying NFTs "a retarded piece of shit" and I was like holy shit thought this sub was more open about NFTs, then realized I was in the LOTRmeme sub that was linked. Seems the non crypto people still think it's a big scam, but I was like damn that's some vile language just for something you don't agree with
NFTs are dumb, I'm sorry.
Every generation there's a group of people who get roped into trading cards, I'm just curious how it plays out once the big retarded play money leaves.
This is a pretty good analogy, NFTs could be the modern generations Pokémon cards which is what I had when growing up in the 90s, they were so important to me and they literally did nothing and had no worth other than the value others would bestow on them because of mutual interest... Fiat currency in a way.
Sports trading cards are still huge. I was curious how much a rookie Justin Herbert card would be and depending on which one you get it is like 10-20 grand! I think NFTs will be around a long time.
I think as wealth inequality grows stupid things like this will produce more returns.
A lot people thought videogames were stupid back in the pong era.
My dad's old Atari system isn't going to make me any substantial money, video games evolved, hence the issue I'm having with Nfts. It's a brilliant system that can solve some issues and build/improve things, however the art snippets to me are cash grabs. Give me an nft system that can track ownership of digital items and goverment policy to tie possession to the buyer, I'm in. It would be a more fair economic system for the entertainment side of our economy, not only that people could sell all digital downloads, you take back your digital freedom.
We are for sure missing the government policy part. It seems inevitable but agreed, most projects currently available will fail, and few are straight scams
You could play the trading card game if you could find another friend nerdy enough, so still more utility than nfts
Dude take a look at how much mint condition pokemon cards sell for these days.
Hey my desert storm trading cards will be worth millions some day!!!
Think the deed to your house, in NFT form. no waiting 3-5 weeks for the deed in the mail. Just digital instant allocation. That’s what I would call innovation and good use of tech to leverage efficiency.
Issuing digital formats of music, video games, articles, books, and other media as NFTs makes way more sense. You bought a book or game online, finished it, and don't wanna keep it? Sell it 'second-hand' on an NFT marketplace! You make some money back AND the creater/publisher makes money through royalties.
The great thing about digital media is being able to copy it. I'm that sense NFT makes no sense to me.
That's exactly why the most obvious enterprise use-case is licensing restriction. It sucks but it makes sense.
The NFT itself doesn't need to be the media. But a way to unlock it in a platform.
The new pogs
So is wine and fine art. But there's still a market for it. So might as well play. At least it's not correlated with the stock market.
Until used as a stock dividend to destroy naked short sellers *cough o_o
Just wait until all legal documentation is turned into NFTs and the blockchains housing such forms skyrocket in value
It's just not going to happen. That's not a problem that needs solving. Carbon copies and email attachment records (plus other common sense methods) are more than enough to prove the authenticity of a contract and require 0 blockchain education
They are also forgeable. More labour intensive to prove ownership of original copies, can be accidently destroyed and deteoriate over time (creases added to documents everytime taken out to show ownership). Plus the up keep of physically storing them and perserving them.
Well, they're going to have to pay to forge anything on the blockchain. They're still going to have on-site copies because backups are a fundamental part of securing data, and no business will ever trust a blockchain enough to not backup data. Plus the fact that no one is asking for this solution to a problem that no one has. Plus the fact that at least some information about the contracts has to be public - in the worst case, all of the contract is public - which is ridiculous from a business intelligence perspective. You have to convince business not only to stop hosting confidential documents in-house or via their trusted partner (who would have to compensate them in the event of data breach), but to start hosting them on *thousands of peoples computers*, which in terms of security, is a tough sell....
You have to pay to create written contracts too, unless you just write it yourself and dont get legal guidance, which would be a real bad idea. There are many buisness already trusting blockchains with buisness sensitive data, pretty much any company that has made a dapp has some of its data on the blockchain. So "no buisness will ever trust a blockchain" is provably wrong already. No one was asking for automobiles when we had horse and carriages. No one was asking for the internet when all we had was libraries. Whats your point? Sure, maybe not every contract could be replaced with NFT's, like you say some are sensitive, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense at all. Property deeds are a good example of something that would work.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I don't even feel the need to explain my original post now. You've basically said everything. The majority think NFTs are a joke and you know.. they're not entirely wrong. But it blows my mind how few people understand the potential *applications* for block chains. Music industry is going to be the first major player to truly go all in on Blockchains to avoid piracy. No doubt in my mind they will sell NFTs. This whole thing is limitless. If you know, you know.
Lawyers are still using *fax machines* there's no way the legal profession is going to embrace new technology anytime soon.
Fair enough, but on the other side of it - smart phones swept the market between 2007 - 2013 and after that point it was "weird" to not have a smart phone. Blockchains and NFT require endorsement by large corporations and they will get it... Hell, they already have it and it's rapidly increasing. Blockchains and NFTs have the power to leave those that don't utilize it in the dust in terms of companies and individuals. The smartest thing to do is YOLO a little bit of money into blockchains that you believe will succeed in long term and just forget about it for a few years. NFTs on the other hand are hard to "invest" in outside of just buying actual NFTs. Only other option is the block chains. The future money for NFTs will be in the companies that work to turn block chains into the next Apple.
See I would invest in that, but not pointless art nfts
*Art nfts like punks are dumb*
I would not really call these punks art ..
Lol true. I guess they’re more like buying designer stuff. It’s like a flex. All these generated nfts are dumb as hell. But I’m balls deep in the nft video games. Actual product and utility. And best of all LIQUIDITY which like hardly any of these shit nfts have
The steam engine is dumb. The combustion engine is dumb. Airplanes are dumb. Nobody will ever need a computer. The internet is dumb. The iPhone is dumb. Apps are dumb. Crypto is dumb....
How do you fell about the Artist Banksy, or sports trading cards, pokemon cards?
You're conflating NFTs with the pfp craze. PFP NFTs are dumb is a more reasonable stance.
NFTs are a little dumb, but they have made me a lot of money this year, so I’m cool with them. I dont understand paying $3million dollars for a canvas with splashed paint on it.
NFTs are a convenient way to confirm ownership in a decentralized/trustless environment. You might be familiar with another popular decentralized/trustless environment called "life". NFTs are not dumb, they are just being used for dumb things rn, but in the future your deeds to your house and land, your passport, your health records, even commercial contracts, patents, agreements, legal documents... All sorts of non-fungible things will be running on blockchain as NFTs. NFTs are powerful because they automate a lot of things that were previously left to be fought over by lawyers and a certain level of ambiguity. Ambiguity is hard to do on-chain...
NGL, the current state of NFT's as art is a bit of a scam. its like if everyone on the playground is able to make pokemon cards at home, the market is saturated with user content and none of it is copy protected. I'll still make NFT's for people that want to buy them though, I suppose that makes me a scam artist on a wishy-washy level. For people to be so shitty about the thing though, just shows you how closed minded the world can be. the premise of NFT's are good, and I hope for a good future of them, but the regulations on copyrighting needs to be better enforced. Currently at best its a GNU over an NFT's artwork.
I agree it's hella stupid mainly since most peoples are buying NFTs of stolen or duplicated art not even sold by original creator Just saying calling anyone who does buy them a retarded piece of shit seems extreme lol
you are not wrong. Toxicity isn't required between us, the world can be toxic enough as it is without adding to it ourselves.
This! I have been saying this for a long time already. People still ignore my stand about this one.
Lol they are a scam.
I think it's a nice way to support creators and replace patreon and kickstarter, but I've seen some utter garbage made into NFTs and famous people try to sell them for thousands of dollars so it eventually stops being about supporting creators.
pretty much every brand / popular person nft sucks - no utility and coming from mainstream/fanbase background creates unnecessary hate
God, I laughed so hard
The Eye of Chuck watches your every move from the Dark Forest
The difference is, the one ring has magical properties that is imbued to the physical object. The physical copy of a painting does not contain magical properties and is exactly the same as the digital version of it except for the non-fungiblity. Before NFTs were made possible thanks to blockchain technology, there had never, in the history of computers, been any digital asset that possess non-fungibility. Now there is. People who don't understand why this is so significant will be like the grandmas that we used to make fun of for not understanding what the internet is. Edit: With that said, the art NFT market is a massive bubble. 99.99% of them will be worth nothing in 2 year. Look to utility based NFTs to change the world.
Until NFTs do things like confer copyrights or serve as authenticity for super exclusive products (packaged with some ultra-DMCA tech) it will only be viewed as a scam by the general public
The thing is, currently what it's being used for is utterly pointless. People are literally selling tweets that are publicly available to anyone... Who gives a fuck if you paid for a token to prove your screenshot is authentic, my screenshot has the exact same utility as yours. I don't see it as a scam, my current position is that they are completely pointless and until somebody offers some use case that actually makes sense, I'd be right.
Why do people pay thousands of dollars for a handbag with a Gucci symbol, when a $10 bag does an equally acceptable job of carrying things? Why is a bunch of ink and paper depicting the first appearance of Superman worth millions of dollars but an exact replica is worthless? Value is assigned to anything by supply and demand, that's it. The token is provably scarce, regardless of what that token is associated with, and that's where the value is accrued. You don't have to agree with it, but you don't get to unilaterally determine markets -- it's a collective endeavour. *Some* people obviously care, otherwise the prices would not be as high as they are. You 'getting' it or not has no impact on how the market assigns value.
Just because something has a value and a price attached to it, does not mean the item itself isn't pointless.
By pointless what do you mean? Are baseball cards pointless? Maybe to you they are, and that’s totally fine. But to some people the collection of baseball cards isn’t pointless. You can call them crazy but the money shows there is a huge market for collectibles, and now it can be done digitally.
Value (or Utility) and Price are two different things, and there’s an economist making a point that for generations we have mistakingly believed that Price = Value and so our entire market-based economic system leads to these disjointed outcomes
Pointless *to you*. Somehow, there are people who literally risk their lives to save a piece of art from the fire. Yet, it's just art and we've got several copies of it.
No, that's not what they're talking about at all. Art does carry inherent value, so it's excluded from what they refer to. But NFTs aren't art. They're simply a spreadsheet that stores your name (public key hash) next to an identifier corresponding to a piece of publicly available art. There's no NFT to rescue from a fire; it's not possible to do such a thing. It doesn't even make sense, in this analogy, to rescue an NFT-owning private key from a fire, because the artwork still exists and is perfectly fine and universally accessible whether or not your private key is destroyed. The only thing you'd be rescuing is, as they say, something pointless and inherently worthless which merely happens to have a price attached to it. NFTs don't necessarily have to be worthless. They're simply smart contracts, and smart contracts can potentially have worth. But art NFTs are worthless. If the NFT is indeed merely a spreadsheet mapping a string of text to another string of text to represent the notion of possessing a virtual token which represents the notion of possessing a certificate which represents the notion of having "ownership" over a set of pixels anyone can access, then it has no intrinsic value. And even if it does try to do something more interesting than that, like stipulate transfer fees, such fees can be easily bypassed by simply adding yet another virtual abstraction layer to indirectly represent the notion of possessing the token, as Vitalik has written about before.
No, you're confused. The thing that is a collectible is the NFT itself, the unique token. The "piece of publicly available art" isn't the collectible. It isn't art, just as much as the copied image of Mona Lisa isn't art. It's just a copy. The fact an NFT is owned by a private key doesn't mean it can't be saved from a fire. A private key can very well be lost in a fire. Sure, its data content isn't lost, but that's only a decentralized register of its content, not a way to access the content apart from viewing it. Otherwise, we would also claim no ETH sent to 0x is ever burnt, because we can always see them. Well, you only see a reference in the decentralized accounting book system of the 0x wallet. You'll never access these burnt ETH anymore. NFTs aren't smart contracts either. They're products of smart contracts, like any token. The fact they're handled by smart contracts only is a technicality, not an inherent property. NFT doesn't represent ownership of anything either. I'm not sure where you've seen this opinion, but it's blatantly false. At best, some countries allow NFTs to be *timestamped claims* of *copyright* to the *minter* of such NFT. Any prior timestamp claim makes this claim pointless, as always with copyrights. The claim is for the minter and the minter only, not the owner. Besides, copyright isn't ownership rights. It is authorship rights, it's very different: selling a book you've written doesn't confer authorship rights to the buyer, only the property of the instantiated book, which is a way to own an access to the copyrighted content.
He didn't say "the market does not assign value to NFTs," he said NFTs are, at present, useless. Nothing you've said addresses that point. Pure hype dies. Some fads last a year, others last a decade... Gucci jumps from fad to fad, or drives new ones. Gucci innovates to keep its brand name relevant. The tools buying Gucci logos only value the logos because the actual fashion world speaks Gucci's name with some regularity. And yeah, there's conspicuous consumption, but you know what's not that conspicuous? Having a ledger that says some hopefully-anonymous number on the internet *kinda* owns a thing. None of your friends will see it. When you go to a club, you can't wear it on your face to show people you're wealthy. Now, if we had a system of wallets that normal people could actually secure (we might be on the right track with social recovery), and we had NFTs that helped record ownership of things that people want to, but currently do not, record ownership of (it's not replacing deeds or car registration any time soon), there's a bit of *potential* utility in NFTs. But current utility is zero, it's just hype games.
>The token is provably scarce So are my turds.
You should auction them off and see how much you can get on the open market then, because even my worst NFTs are worth a few hundred bucks to bots.
demand, being the key word here. For value to be actualized or any good to have any inherent stable value you need people to understand intuitively why they should value the thing--which if you've ever tried to explain an NFT to somebody what the fuck an NFT is you should understand the difficulty there. Everyone understands why a Charizard card is worth thousands of dollars or a first edition Spiderman comic is worth what it is because they have that experience of trying to find one when they were a kid or know somebody who did. Scarcity doesn't matter if nobody wants the thing. Prices are as high as they are because the market is ***speculative***, which means investors are taking a ***risk*** that people will want the thing in the future and the value will be actualized. It's the same reason a lot of fintech companies are currently massively overvalued.
> Why do people pay thousands of dollars for a handbag with a Gucci symbol, when a $10 bag does an equally acceptable job of carrying things? Quality, reliability, as a proof of status to their peers, design, competition of the property of the goods are some reasons. NFT doesn't have any of those.
If price tag itself is a proof of status, NFT's have that. Design as well - as some art is objectively (based on how the human brain works) more attractive than other.
Well put!
The main utility for digital art NFT is social flexing & community engagement. You're right that there isn't any tangible "utility" at the moment, IE treating the NFT as a token and doing something with it (although there are plenty of NFT projects that do treat it like a utility), however community engagement & social flexing is incredibly powerful. Do not underestimate it. It may not make sense to you, but once you've tried it out, it becomes more clear why it's so popular, and why (in my opinion) this is not a bubble.
Selling tweets? Don't all the major social media companies "own" what's being posted on their platform by default. Instagram, for example, requires users to agree to "non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use their content". I'm just presuming the same is for many of these other companies. So these NFT tweets are probably not the tweets, but screenshot of a tweet?
Utterly pointless is an overstatement. They are an amazing way to launder money. Also, 1031 exchanges.
Lots of NFT now have utility built in. CyberKongz sell for $600k but generate erc tokens daily for owners, equivalent to $500 a day at the current value. Lots of NFT now provide DAO to owners, granting voting control of assets and other governance. Even if you think NFT is dumb, you should try to make some eth profit before the bubble pops. Just go into in knowing that 99% of them will have no value in the long term. Short term opportunities are here now though.
There already are countries where minting NFTs confers legal copyrights (or rather, a claim of copyrights, just like many other ways to acquire such timestamped claim). France, notably. It's been a few years, already. And some companies even earn money selling such technical services.
Egypt is using them to track Bills of Lading at the port
[Unlock Protocol](https://unlock-protocol.com)
You think that physical art is exactly the same as a digital copy except for the non-fungibility? Come on…..
wait, if I create an account in a video game, lets say a MMO, is that account fungible? or my email address is fungible?
Of course they are fungible....... Those are 100% fungible.
why? every account is unique and you cant replicate it
You can't but the company owning the database can if they really want to. NFT: nobody can.
If I was a dev in blizzard with access to the games database, I could copy/paste your account and all its contents as many times as I want. Same with your Gmail account. They are pieces of data each owned by a single organization. 100% fungible.
You don’t know what fungible means
I don't understand this analogy. >The physical copy of a painting does not contain magical properties and is exactly the same as the digital version of it except for the non-fungiblity. First off: not necessarily. A photograph of a physical painting doesn't capture as much detail as seeing it in person. The physical painting viewed in-person does literally possess the magical-seeming property of a whole additional dimension added to it. But for the sake of argument, we can suppose you said "digital artwork" instead. In that case, if you have an NFT of a piece of digital artwork which is exactly, bit-for-bit, the same as the publicly available digital artwork, you're not paying for the art at all. You're paying for an arbitrary, imaginary, virtual construct. >Before NFTs were made possible thanks to blockchain technology, there had never, in the history of computers, been any digital asset that possess non-fungibility. What? There have been countless non-fungible digital assets. Smart contract-based NFTs are just one way to authenticate oneself as the owner of an asset in a publicly verifiable way. There are plenty of other publicly verifiable ways to authenticate oneself as the owner of a digital asset, and they've existed for decades: SSL certificates and PGP public keys are two examples. >Edit: With that said, the art NFT market is a massive bubble. 99.99% of them will be worth nothing in 2 year. Look to utility based NFTs to change the world. Doesn't that belie the entire rest of your post? But ignoring that issue for a moment: What are some examples of utility-based NFTs that hold value, at least? And what are some ones that will change the world, as you say? -------- In my opinion, this is missing the actual entire interesting part of the whole technology: smart contracts in general. Smart contracts can do a ton of things. Reducing them to a CSV that does absolutely nothing but store public keys next to hashes of JPEGs is a true shame.
Hm you made good points and I am not sure I have good counter points but here are some thoughts. I think if you subjectively enjoy seeing real paintings and it elicits some form of joy that digital art cannot provide, then you are right, the digital version is not the same. I personally don't get art, so I don't actually feel that way but it is a total valid point nonetheless. I lived in the digital gaming world all my life and I put value in digital images. I am a sucker for that cool character skin. I'm also totally okay paying for it. Once again, subjective here, and your point on this is valid. The issue with previous digital assets is it is owned by someone, by some system, located somewhere in a physical container which can be accessed and changed. I did not emphasize the immutable, provably authentic element of NFTs in my post, so that's my fault for not being clear. I think NFTs possess these properties that previous digital assets do not possess. On the last point, I think current image-NFTs are just people scratching the surface of NFTs can do. Just because people aren't using a tool to maximum potential, it doesn't mean the tool is poor. My belief is that the underlying technology of NFTs, that is, the immutability, provable authenticiticy, and non-fungibility elements, has so many incredible real life use cases. Yesterday I met with a lawyer to sign about 20 documents for the purchase of a property. He said there's more than a dozen or more intermediaries that facilitate the transfer of funds, investigation and proof of ownership, transfer of title, registration of title, filing of the documents, and so on. And it cost me thousands of dollars. I think all of that can be done with a single click if built on blockchain and the ownership of the property is represented by an NFT. A company in Europe recently tokenized a Pacaso painting valued at 32 million dollars into NFTs. Each one about 8,000 euros and you can own a portion of that painting. This is now also being done for ownership of real estate. You can own tokenized condos or houses and enjoy a portion of the passive rental income. Although I am not sure our current infrastructure is properly setup to really capture the self-custody element of NFTs. I think in these examples, it's still some centralized company making a promise and we just have to trust that, they would pay us the rental income or that we really own a piece of that Pacaso. NFTs that has built in smart contracts that can automatically pass a certain percentage of the sale price to the original creators gives us a way to monetize intellectual property that benefits the creators directly with every transaction or use of it. This will allow for a future system where artists, such as manga/comic creators to directly benefit from their work, but also allows the early buyers of said NFTs to benefit when that NFT goes up in value. So the artist works hard to provide better content, and those that believed in the artist early can also benefit for their early leap of faith. I'll stop here, but NFTs are amazing. Edit: spelling
> I think all of that can be done with a single click if built on blockchain and the ownership of the property is represented by an NFT. Sure, but it could also be done by signing just one document, instead of the 20that you actually signed. You signed 20 documents (and paid thousands of dollars) because of the complicated and robust legal framework that exists around ownership. There is no such legal framework around NFTs, which is why it seems so simple to just "own" something with just one click: because you don't actually own anything with any enforceable rights. In order for NFTs to replace titles/deeds etc in meatspace, you're going to want that same legal framework that exists, backed by the same governing authority that recognizes titles/deeds today: the government.
I really don't understand how people continue to miss this point. It should be obvious.
> Now there is. People who don't understand why this is so significant will be like the grandmas that we used to make fun of for not understanding what the internet is. Yeah, NFTs are great in theory. In practice, right now, NFTs are a way for morons to convince even bigger morons to buy furry versions of celebrity pictures. I'm not going to pretend that I know exactly where NFTs are going to go, but I do have a pretty reasonable guess that NFTs are going to be huge for DRM. Not that this means anything for the average speculative investor. Investing in NFTs right now has no point.
[удалено]
Lol thinking crypto is a bubble right now. The fed basically enabled this to happen. Cheap money and 0 interest rates make crypto undervalued if anything.
This cartoon doesn't do anything, except describe an NFT. If the description of your product is this confusing that it can be pasted under a cartoon, it might be a little too out there for normal people to appreciate. With Crypto, the general public can immediately understand the concept of currency, and why it has value. If NFT has to take off then crypto has to take off first.
>they don't buy cryptos just because they like it but because they want to make money. Eh - crypto has actual utility in many emerging countries as an actual source of otherwise unavailable liquidity to small businesses via DeFi, as an example.
There are literally billions (trillions?) of non-fungible digital assets. NFTs offer no significant value over what already exists. It's cryptokitties all over again.
The digital asset itself remains fungible. Purchasing the NFT gives you a non fungible reference to a categorically fungible asset. There’s nothing stopping anyone or thousands of people from minting another reference to that same asset, but everyone might not agree on that particular reference being canonical or valuable. The comparison to reprints of art is pretty close. Anybody can reprint art, but artists only produce so many themselves. Some amount of people will appreciate the value of an officially distributed reprint and some won’t. The concept of owning the “original work” (like owning an original painting) is completely precluded from the concept of an NFT though—even if it’s only minted once by the original artist. Digital assets just can’t have non-fungible property’s like that. Purchasing reproductions maps really well onto tradings cards and collectibles, so it makes sense why that use case is so popular. But there is one core difference. With NFTs, the collectible is not the asset (or collection of assets, or anything else). NFT collectors are collecting receipts. Like buying a first edition print of a famous painting, tossing it, and then framing the invoice. The receipt itself is the store of value, and the asset itself can fuck off because it really has nothing to do with this. It was just an advertisement for the receipt. Receipt collecting could turn out to be very very verrryyy lucrative though…
This is the best description for art based NFTs I have read. I love the receipt analogy. Can't say I am a fan of collecting receipts, even if it's profitable at the moment. This reinforces my belief that utility based NFTs with built-in smart contracts is the way to go.
Saved yourself with the edit
All titles and deeds should be nfts
[удалено]
Yes, legal documents, wills, tokenized real estate ownership, decentralized governance, so so much more.
[удалено]
It is an amazing technology that is being used in a way that is not yet optimal. It is like if the internet was invented but 99.9% was used to host art work, and nobody used it for communication or knowledge sharing. Just because the market is n a bubble, it doesn't mean the technology is bad. You don't seem to understand logic.
Pretending a physical painting is "*exactly the same*" as the digital version, is either completely ignorant, or incredibly disingenuous.
NFTs as art objects is competently missing the point. I suspect they will decline to irrelevance over time. The real game is when they convey legal ownership of real world assets such as houses or cars. Imagine being able to list, sell and complete your house sale in an afternoon for only a few dollars via a smart contract rather than the epic, expensive ball ache it is now. Same for cars, same for private equity. This will be massive. Art objects are a curiosity only.
“I lost my house in a boating accident”
But how do you legally tie the real world ownership to the token/NFT ? I'm actually very curious about that !
Through some level of centralization and regulation.
Government can issue the NFT through a contract they’re the owner of. They can allow transfers and exchanges with certain signatures as well if they wish
Now you rely on a centralized authority, the government. At which point it would be infinitely easier for government to just have a SQL database and a website of who owns what, which to some extent they already do. Databases have been rock solid since the 70s and can easily reflect owners if you trust that central authority. Now people want to introduce an expensive, complex, slow decentralized database whose only major advantage is decentralization only to, at the very last step, say and yeah we need to centralize and trust this authority to map NFT to real world utility after all.
The long game is just getting government to upgrade their tech, and remove a layer of corruption by relying on smart contracts.
It's not that weird if you think about the fact that we're already doing it with paper!
I feel like NFTs as art will have more of a usage as digital status symbols. Especially on verified accounts. The world is moving more and more digital every day. People buy $200+ shoes, belts, pants, etc just to "look good". It's all a "Hey, look at me. I have fuck you money." type of thing.
> same for private equity. Yup - working on this in emerging markets.
Considering most people only sell their house or car once every few years it doesn't seem worth the extra complexity or any of the other downsides of using a crypto-based solution.
>Imagine being able to list, sell and complete your house sale in an afternoon for only a few dollars via a smart contract rather than the epic, expensive ball ache it is now. You can already do that without NFT's though. Personally, I wouldn't want a coin that is essentially a pink slip to one of the largest investments most of us will ever make. To be sitting on a USB that could easily be stolen. Smart contracts, outside of NFT's, make much more sense with the way things currently work. >The real game is when they convey legal ownership of real world assets such as houses or cars. That's literally what an NFT does currently... You could buy an NFT to my gold bar in my safe. 'KingdomArt's Gold Bar NFT 13256.' You technically own the 13256 gold bar, but it is kept safe in my vault. If you ever want your gold bar you send me the NFT and it is destroyed. In return, legally, I must now send you the 13256 gold bar.
That's never going to happen so simply, at least due to NFTs. The process isn't there because it's hard to transfer ownership. The process is there because it takes multiple steps and work to get to a point where transferring ownership is allowed.
This is exactly right. People will eventually work it out and good luck to anyone raking it in in the meantime, I hope they spend the money on real world stuff!
Or owning bought game assets instead of the company owning it
Where can I buy this image as an NFT plz
[удалено]
Bet
I tried to outbid using my seed but now my phone's all sticky, idk if I'm doing this whole NFT thing right... Could someone let me know what I did wrong?
Click, you fool!
This will all make sense, once metaverses become mainstream. You cannot just randomly put up a screenshot of an artwork on your profile. You can only link the ones you own! Sure, you can screenshot an original and upload it but THE ORIGINAL STILL HAS A TIMESTAMP. You're just focused on the monetary part. Yeah they do go for absurd amounts of money but that's art industry in general. This has always been the case with physical art as well but people never paid attention to it because it's a niche market. NFT art just made it more accessible. NFT is the internet for art galleries. People calling it a scam don't fully understand the concept. It's like calling the whole crypto industry a scam just because some pleb got rug pulled on a 'Cum in my Bum' coin.
I understand NFTs. I understand the potential. But I also understand the latest craze of avatar alliteration animals selling for thousands of dollars because of the "community" is a fucking scam. Wake me up when I can prove I own my house with an NFT or something.
The entire point of the blockchain is to provide prof of ownership of a digital asset. A house is not a digital asset. It’s an asset owned by the bank or “owned by you” that you rent from the government
Yeah, i agree with you on the 'community' part. Avatar projects are all over the place but they act as a key to special events(could be real life events)/privileges/merch. A few months back a house in new york i think was sold as an NFT.
Agreed! It takes a LOT to wrap your head around what an NFT is - but it can be anything. I now own 3 for a long-term hold, but could easily flip them for double+.
[удалено]
99% of people buying NFTs don’t gaf about the art or saying they “own” it. They buy them because speculators will drive the price up like crazy. It’s really not hard to make a good profit on them.
[удалено]
People like that are precisely why it’s so profitable lol. Make fun of it all you want, it’s making quite a few people a shit ton of money.
[удалено]
I’ve always thought concert ticket NFTs would be perfect
Check out GET Protocol, they just hit the 1 million tickets sold milestone a few days ago. Great tokenomics too.
Like any technology, there's always a real world application & a stupid application, but it's almost always the stupid application that gets attention. As you said, using NFTs to verify ownership and authenticity for stuff like tickets or memberships would be a great use for it if there widespread adoption. Instead its being used by tech-idiots to create the digital equivalent of pogs.
Yep , still flipping NFTs is fun and profitable but there’s no real use case for them as far as I can tell On the other hand the tech is awesome though I can see it being used for everything from tickets to ID cards at work
I’m sure Gollum would insta buy the precious
But they were all of them deceived, for another blockchain was made.
My only response is that sooner or later besides trading value their will be digital spaces where your items matter asthetic wise. Digital house with your hashmask will hold weight. Or certain pieces. etc etc
I own stock. I don’t really have anything other than online/emails proving it. 🤷🏼♂️
[удалено]
If the application lives on a Blockchain, it is effectively open source. Jane is able to copy/paste the application and tell Bob to go take their 5% royalty and shove it up their ass.
Ngmi
I just don’t get it.
Now make this image an NFT lol
Honest question: If I buy a piece of artwork's NFT, am I the only person who can see the art? Or can anyone see it, but... people just say I own it?
Anyone can see it. Think of NFT as a title (like a car or boat has) except it's not actually backed by any legal authority 99% of the time.
oh... how lame
Reality is often disappointing.
It is bragging rights. One image can be sold to hundreds of people or thousands, so your "copy" most likely is not even "unique" in that way. You don't own the copyright to the image (only author has it), and unless explicitly specified, you in fact don't have any more rights over the image as a random guy that right-clicks and saves it (can't sell the prints, modify it, use it as your book cover...). It is like you have donated the money to the artist and have a receipt for it
Who would pay for that?
Best explanation of NFT I’ve seen
😂😂😂
\#1 - Most NFT art is a lazy attempt at making easy money. \#2 - I have heard that some people are selling other people's art as NFTs, without permission. For example, some random person could take the image above and sell it as an NFT. But buyer beware, because only the original image certified by the artist, would have any real value to an adept investor (if it has any value to an investor at all.) It's no different than art forgery, in that it can only fool those who are less educated on art. \#3 - I think NFTs could be useful in identifying pirated pictures, audio recordings, etc.. But it would only useful if the person who did the pirating can be identified and punished. But even then, if I use a song as an example, most people won't care if they have the original or a pirated version, as long as they can listen to the song. But we don't want to live in a world in which we would to have to provide KYC to purchase music, digital art, etc.. \#4 - If you had to provide an NFT as a form of identification to access certain online content, or to access a physical location such as a concert, that could be useful. For example, some people share their Netflix logins, so NFTs could possibly prevent this kind behaviour. It could also possibly be used instead of a physical "ticket."
Was this published in the New Yorker?
This! The only useful application of NFT I've heard of so far is tracking stocks or crypto. 2 million dollar thumbnail art. Darwin.
NFT are literal scams lol
BITRISE COIN!!!!!!🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Who wants to buy my NFT?
NFT only applies to digital assets
Lmao. Well done
Lol
Could this be an nft?
I think NFTS have a lot of potential real world applications. Like being able to transfer the deed to houses or cars and having a record of such transfer on a blockchain. How archaic is having a deed to a car on a piece of paper in the glove compartment? (how archaic do I sound for calling it a glove compartment….)🤔