This description of NFT became a bit of a meme originally from tumblr user queersamus believe:
“ queersamus: “Imagine if you went up to the Mona Lisa and you were like “I’d like to own this” and someone nearby went “Give me 65 million dollars and I’ll burn down an unspecified amount of the amazon rainforest in order to give you this receipt of purchase” so you paid them and they went “Here’s your receipt, thank you for your purchase” and went to an unmarked supply closet in the back of the museum and posted a handmade label inside it behind the brooms that said “Mona Lisa currently owned by jacobgalapagos” so if anyone wants to know who owns it they’d have to find this specific closet in this specific hallway and look behind the correct brooms. And you went “Can I take the Mona Lisa home now?” and they went “Oh god no are you stupid? You only bought the receipt that says you own it, you didn’t actually buy the Mona Lisa itself, you can’t take the real Mona Lisa you idiot. You CAN take this though.” and gave you the replica print in a cardboard tube that’s sold in the gift shop. Also the person selling you the receipt of purchase has at no point in time ever owned the Mona Lisa.
Unfortunately, if this doesn’t make sense or seem like any logical person would be happy about this exchange, then you’ve understood it perfectly.”
i think this was actually stronger without the comparison to your own collectibles because the question here isn't actually whether X's values is more durable than Y, but whether Y's current value is durable or not. So insisting your X *is* valuable just adds a bit of "old man yells at clouds" to it.
They're also insanely illegal! If the entire premise of the blockchain is that it's immutable, and a government has to have some definition and enforcement of illegal data, then any system relying on a blockchain that can have immutable illegal data is just waiting for some eager Attorney General to take it down.
I think that NFTs by reputable artists could be a diff. category. They are usually bought to hold (and not to sell) - these might survive.
A beeple will always have artistic value (even if purely digital) and maybe increase in price as a side effect.
I can imagine buying a beeple as an art piece regardless of short term price speculation. This is also how I think about physical art - its not a monetary investment for me anyway
I look forward to honest and high quality artists to leverage NFTs as a creation form, but also to make a living due to wider distribution and access to buyers
Over time marketplaces might also put more weight on reputation and WHO created the NFT - devoted, honest, hard working, creative, productive and high integrity artists which produce amazing art will get leverage
This description of NFT became a bit of a meme originally from tumblr user queersamus believe:
“ queersamus: “Imagine if you went up to the Mona Lisa and you were like “I’d like to own this” and someone nearby went “Give me 65 million dollars and I’ll burn down an unspecified amount of the amazon rainforest in order to give you this receipt of purchase” so you paid them and they went “Here’s your receipt, thank you for your purchase” and went to an unmarked supply closet in the back of the museum and posted a handmade label inside it behind the brooms that said “Mona Lisa currently owned by jacobgalapagos” so if anyone wants to know who owns it they’d have to find this specific closet in this specific hallway and look behind the correct brooms. And you went “Can I take the Mona Lisa home now?” and they went “Oh god no are you stupid? You only bought the receipt that says you own it, you didn’t actually buy the Mona Lisa itself, you can’t take the real Mona Lisa you idiot. You CAN take this though.” and gave you the replica print in a cardboard tube that’s sold in the gift shop. Also the person selling you the receipt of purchase has at no point in time ever owned the Mona Lisa.
Unfortunately, if this doesn’t make sense or seem like any logical person would be happy about this exchange, then you’ve understood it perfectly.”
i think this was actually stronger without the comparison to your own collectibles because the question here isn't actually whether X's values is more durable than Y, but whether Y's current value is durable or not. So insisting your X *is* valuable just adds a bit of "old man yells at clouds" to it.
They're also insanely illegal! If the entire premise of the blockchain is that it's immutable, and a government has to have some definition and enforcement of illegal data, then any system relying on a blockchain that can have immutable illegal data is just waiting for some eager Attorney General to take it down.
I think that NFTs by reputable artists could be a diff. category. They are usually bought to hold (and not to sell) - these might survive.
A beeple will always have artistic value (even if purely digital) and maybe increase in price as a side effect.
I can imagine buying a beeple as an art piece regardless of short term price speculation. This is also how I think about physical art - its not a monetary investment for me anyway
I look forward to honest and high quality artists to leverage NFTs as a creation form, but also to make a living due to wider distribution and access to buyers
Over time marketplaces might also put more weight on reputation and WHO created the NFT - devoted, honest, hard working, creative, productive and high integrity artists which produce amazing art will get leverage
An NFT is a publicly viewable contract. It is not a JPG or a link to a JPG.
Nailed it.