lol
I read it. It doesnât contradict what Iâm saying. If I buy the ranch heâs talking about, that means that 1) I âown itâ, by social agreement, and 2) what âownershipâ 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 âown itâ by social agreement, just as with the land, but then 2) ⌠what, exactly? When I ask people what âowningâ an NFT means they typically keep pointing back to 1) and being like âownership is all social conventionâ. Thereâs 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 donât have, and in the case of NFTs is empty.
If the NFT granted intellectual property rights to whatever it is youâre buying, or if it grants you access to an exclusive social media, thatâs 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 whatâs 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. Itâs 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 itâs 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 NFTâs are just a collectible, like the early 90âs trading cards when that boomed briefly, thereâs 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 donât 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. Iâm not talking about a topshot style serial #15/10k identical thing. Iâm talking about for example Beetlejuiceâs avatar. There are 10k of them that are all slightly different and donât 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 beetlejuiceâs avatar. No panties are flying off when you bring the girl home and show her beetlejuiceâs avatar.
What can I do with it that someone who doesnât own it canât do?
What can you do with a print of the Mona Lisa that the person/entity that owns the original canât? Well for one thing you donât own the original and itâs 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? Isnât the (ew expression) panties coming off due to the $$$ value of the art?
this is so the wrong âattackâ on nfts
my problem with it is that basically everyone are pretending to be interested in the âartâ 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. Nobodyâs 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.
there are collectibles and thereâs art, and thereâs clubs. all can have ownership tokens in NFT form. a country club membership and a basquiat painting arenât at all the same thing, and itâs not fair to compare a bored ape with a topshot moment. NFTs are a decentralized system to display ownership of some intangible internet thing.
2 Likes
100% this. NFTs are insanely speculative and have virtually no underlying collectors and yes that will probably lead to most of them going to zero. Their utility is no different from physical art.