Hey but there’s a JPEG in this thread that is worth twice this. HFSP (with me)
1 Like
i do think there is value in being the first to do the gospels, sure. it could absolutely be enhanced to something real by having like, you know, some megachurch pastor promoting it, maybe throw him 50k or something for some tweets
lol
I read it. It doesn’t contradict what I’m saying. If I buy the ranch he’s talking about, that means that 1) I “own it”, by social agreement, and 2) what “ownership” means in this case is that nobody can set foot on that land without my permission. Leave aside the fact that I can have this enforced by police. The point is that ownership of the thing confers certain rights on me.
If I buy an NFT, this means that 1) I “own it” by social agreement, just as with the land, but then 2) … what, exactly? When I ask people what “owning” an NFT means they typically keep pointing back to 1) and being like “ownership is all social convention”. There’s a distinction between the mechanism of ownership, which is all social convention, and the content of that ownership, which in the real world grants me a package of rights (also socially enforced) that others don’t have, and in the case of NFTs is empty.
If the NFT granted intellectual property rights to whatever it is you’re buying, or if it grants you access to an exclusive social media, that’s one thing (although personally I would probably pay money to NOT have to hang out on a social media of ape owners). For most NFTs though the ownership is contentless.
1 Like
https://twitter.com/ArrowheadLive/status/1453558282375811074
https://twitter.com/autumnsjs90/status/1453424468009816070
Seeing more and more stuff like this on my timeline - random sports accounts wanting to get in on the action. Getting more and more into mailman territory.
The rubber hits the road when you start asking what’s there to prop up the price when all this craziness starts happening in reverse. With land at least you can live on it or farm it. With stonks at least you own X% of the company if it ever gets sold.
With NFTs there is nothing, not even a nice bulb you can plant to see grow up into a tulip. It’s exactly like those companies that sell plots of land on the Moon. You have a certificate that says you own something that you can never actually possess, with no practical utility.
NFTs are basically a currency - which exist solely by virtue of the faith of the people who use them. Except it’s non-fungible, which makes it a crappy currency.
1 Like
Does physical art have any utility? I mean you can print off your NFT and put it on a canvass.
Edit: It might be shitty and overpriced (as someone involved in them I think they are) but it at least exists in that form.
eh, most NFT’s are just a collectible, like the early 90’s trading cards when that boomed briefly, there’s gonna be a lot of shit
Many of the biggest ones I missed on were the ones attached to some game you needed it to progress in the game. Even if I thought all those games were dumb, any that actually hit were such massive gains you really only needed to hit on one of them.
Yeah you can show it off at cocktail parties and impress other rich people.
Also you can hang it in your own home. You can touch it. You don’t have a certificate that says you own some art hanging off in a gallery somewhere that you can only visit once a year.
Well you can do the same with an NFT. I’m not talking about a topshot style serial #15/10k identical thing. I’m talking about for example Beetlejuice’s avatar. There are 10k of them that are all slightly different and don’t exist in the physical realm unless the owner decides to create a physical version themselves.
So explain an NFT of Danny Green shooting a routine jump shot in the 3rd quarter of a regular season game going for hundreds of dollars?
It goes for about $4-5.
No rich person is going to be impressed by beetlejuice’s avatar. No panties are flying off when you bring the girl home and show her beetlejuice’s avatar.
What can I do with it that someone who doesn’t own it can’t do?
What can you do with a print of the Mona Lisa that the person/entity that owns the original can’t? Well for one thing you don’t own the original and it’s also worthless.
Still ridiculous. The one time I looked there was something equivalent to that going for like $140. Random jump shot, not a game winner, not a marquis star, regular season, etc.
Vs some indistinguishable piece of physical art worth the same thing? Isn’t the (ew expression) panties coming off due to the $$$ value of the art?
this is so the wrong “attack” on nfts
my problem with it is that basically everyone are pretending to be interested in the “art” while almost no one is actually a collector. danny green makes way more sense than penguins
2 Likes
The rich person can have you over to their home and show you the Picasso hanging in their living room.
I literally have a certificate that says I own an acre of land on the moon. I think I paid $10 for it. Nobody’s going to be impressed by that.
I think with the higher end art there are actual collectors. I agree with you about Danny Greens and 99% of NFTs in general.