NFT Replicas: An app to mint a replica of virtually any NFT(nftreplicas.net)
nftreplicas.net
NFT Replicas: An app to mint a replica of virtually any NFT
https://nftreplicas.net
290 comments
>I have to be honest. I view NFTs as one of the dumbest things to come out of the crypto space.
This is so obvious to me that it is tough to stop myself from believing that everyone knows this and is just ignoring it in an attempt to make a quick buck. There are much better arguments for cryptocurrency. I happen to think they are generally overvalued and overhyped, but there is also real utility at the heart of it that people can believe in and project forward. NFTs seem to be stupid all the way down.
This is so obvious to me that it is tough to stop myself from believing that everyone knows this and is just ignoring it in an attempt to make a quick buck. There are much better arguments for cryptocurrency. I happen to think they are generally overvalued and overhyped, but there is also real utility at the heart of it that people can believe in and project forward. NFTs seem to be stupid all the way down.
> Part of the point of digital assets are that they can be copied
As someone still fairly new to this industry still enamored with all the naïve big-picture stuff I was under the impression that the ease and immediacy of copying digital information was nearly the ENTIRE point. Or at least the biggest characteristic that distinguishes digital information technology from other human innovations historically. That and hash tables maybe.
As a former art school hippie I regularly start to get creeping FOMO regarding the NFT train, and feel like Im fighting the future or being stubborn.
Then I remember NFT / Crypto advocates are the ones fighting the future with this sad attempt to impose clunky energy consuming systems of false scarcity on digital systems that undermine that kind of old-world scarcity on a foundational level.
Again, I don't know what I'm talking about but Im enjoying learning more from these threads / posts.
As someone still fairly new to this industry still enamored with all the naïve big-picture stuff I was under the impression that the ease and immediacy of copying digital information was nearly the ENTIRE point. Or at least the biggest characteristic that distinguishes digital information technology from other human innovations historically. That and hash tables maybe.
As a former art school hippie I regularly start to get creeping FOMO regarding the NFT train, and feel like Im fighting the future or being stubborn.
Then I remember NFT / Crypto advocates are the ones fighting the future with this sad attempt to impose clunky energy consuming systems of false scarcity on digital systems that undermine that kind of old-world scarcity on a foundational level.
Again, I don't know what I'm talking about but Im enjoying learning more from these threads / posts.
Fomo is real, but I'd encourage you to take another look. The space would benefit from more people with a background in the arts for sure.
Philosophically, I think there is something there. How do you create scarcity in a digital infinitely copyable world, without an authority figure. With baseball cards and pokemon cards, you can create artificial scarcity by only printing so many in a run. NFT scarcity is really no sillier than baseball card scarcity. The original creator says "this collection has x amount." What makes that matter is that they said so, and the community believed them that their decision was important. Pokemon could print a "rare" card for every person on the planet, but that ruins game mechanics. In digital games, you can control scarcity with a central authority. EA or Ubisoft or Blizzard or Microsoft can only issue so much of an item, and they distribute them, and you cant copy it because the authority keeps track.
In a decentralized world, a digital yet scarce item can be created, distributed, and reused. A game can go under, and a new game can pop up and respect the accumulated wealth of the community. A game can fork, where half of the community plays one teams version, and half plays a different one, with nobody losing their assets. A rogue developer can entice people to play by inviting people to reuse tools they acquired from a rivals game. A counterfeiting blacksmith can forge their own weapons, and a dark side community can vote to allow them in game, while a light side community can vote to only allow official weapons. What it will all come down to is consensus, the developers (and players voicing through where they spend their attention) of the game deciding which items should be allowed to be imported and which shouldnt. IMHO, there is something cool about the player stats of an RPG being isolated and separated from the game itself, and always owned by the player not the game company.
From an investment perspective, I can see why it looks as dumb as anything in the physical speculative art world. But as a game mechanic, it does seem to offer a useful utility that previously depended on some server staying up forever or trust in a closed system. This is a brink or cusp, where theres a good idea out there somewhere, and maybe someone has or hasnt executed on it yet, but if it has been made into something truly useful, it still isnt popular enough to be well know by us plebs yet.
They also, more simply, act as a membership card or vip pass. You can spend money to join a club, and then you get the corresponding experience that comes with it. Take for example the Matrix NFT. I fully expect there to be some somewhat cool experiences that real people get to really experience by consenting and paying to join that social experiment. Sure it could work roughly as well as a database entry at a central authority, but decentralization is one way to allow easy transfer of your membership to someone new when youre done, without the game developer having to care or keep track of who is who. It turns into Willy Wonka, whoever holds a golden ticket is allowed in, copying tickets isnt possible.
In a decentralized world, a digital yet scarce item can be created, distributed, and reused. A game can go under, and a new game can pop up and respect the accumulated wealth of the community. A game can fork, where half of the community plays one teams version, and half plays a different one, with nobody losing their assets. A rogue developer can entice people to play by inviting people to reuse tools they acquired from a rivals game. A counterfeiting blacksmith can forge their own weapons, and a dark side community can vote to allow them in game, while a light side community can vote to only allow official weapons. What it will all come down to is consensus, the developers (and players voicing through where they spend their attention) of the game deciding which items should be allowed to be imported and which shouldnt. IMHO, there is something cool about the player stats of an RPG being isolated and separated from the game itself, and always owned by the player not the game company.
From an investment perspective, I can see why it looks as dumb as anything in the physical speculative art world. But as a game mechanic, it does seem to offer a useful utility that previously depended on some server staying up forever or trust in a closed system. This is a brink or cusp, where theres a good idea out there somewhere, and maybe someone has or hasnt executed on it yet, but if it has been made into something truly useful, it still isnt popular enough to be well know by us plebs yet.
They also, more simply, act as a membership card or vip pass. You can spend money to join a club, and then you get the corresponding experience that comes with it. Take for example the Matrix NFT. I fully expect there to be some somewhat cool experiences that real people get to really experience by consenting and paying to join that social experiment. Sure it could work roughly as well as a database entry at a central authority, but decentralization is one way to allow easy transfer of your membership to someone new when youre done, without the game developer having to care or keep track of who is who. It turns into Willy Wonka, whoever holds a golden ticket is allowed in, copying tickets isnt possible.
> How do you create scarcity in a digital infinitely copyable world
Your premise rests on this question. My counter is what is the value in creating scarcity beyond just trying to make money? Your examples are about people investing in money and not losing those assets. Your experience example is not really digital scarcity if I understand your hypothetical correctly. It is about a real physical scarcity, the number of people who will be let into the experience, being represented in a digital world. There is no new innovation there.
To me the idea of creating scarcity out of something that is not scarce is done for one and only one reason, for a financial benefit.
Your premise rests on this question. My counter is what is the value in creating scarcity beyond just trying to make money? Your examples are about people investing in money and not losing those assets. Your experience example is not really digital scarcity if I understand your hypothetical correctly. It is about a real physical scarcity, the number of people who will be let into the experience, being represented in a digital world. There is no new innovation there.
To me the idea of creating scarcity out of something that is not scarce is done for one and only one reason, for a financial benefit.
>what is the value in creating scarcity beyond just trying to make money?
Gameplay balancing.
We've crossed a very blurred line of gaming, role play, and real life. Whos to say which is which anymore.
I dont think profitability and production of gaming are mutually exclusive. Why cant game creators also make money for their work?
Gameplay balancing.
We've crossed a very blurred line of gaming, role play, and real life. Whos to say which is which anymore.
I dont think profitability and production of gaming are mutually exclusive. Why cant game creators also make money for their work?
I guess I could have phrased that a little differently so you couldn't pull a quote out of context and miss my point regarding scarcity in a gaming context. In the context of games I was referring to decentralized scarcity. I can recognize the example of a game being better if not everyone has the same cards (but this is still financially motivated since Pokemon is a profit making endeavor). But in that context, what value does decentralization have? Why is decentralized Pokemon better than centralized Pokemon in a way that doesn't boil down to at least one of the parties having a financial interest in decentralization? The whole idea of "forking games" seems pointless to me. If there is demand for a fork, why wouldn't a different centralized version satisfy it? The only added value is the preservation of financial stake in the game. One again the idea of scarcity leads back to financial gain.
How often do we see game servers shut down where the game isnt playable anymore? I think there is something cool about the accumulation of in game assets being in a persons personal owned wallet, and not an account on the game server. That dichotomy has consumer benefits.
A game company can disappear, and the players can pick right up where they left off, with a new game, remake, or a reverse engineered copy of the server.
Why cant financial gain be a PART of the whole? People can both collect pokemon cards, and play with them. It's not mutually exclusive that you have to declare youre one or the other. Although NFTs probably should include a "you opened the wrapper" function, to create additional scarcity as people destroy the value of their items by making them less digitally pristine.
A game company can disappear, and the players can pick right up where they left off, with a new game, remake, or a reverse engineered copy of the server.
Why cant financial gain be a PART of the whole? People can both collect pokemon cards, and play with them. It's not mutually exclusive that you have to declare youre one or the other. Although NFTs probably should include a "you opened the wrapper" function, to create additional scarcity as people destroy the value of their items by making them less digitally pristine.
>A game company can disappear, and the players can pick right up where they left off, with a new game, remake, or a reverse engineered copy of the server.
If there is demand, this can and will happen anyway. There are countless examples of fans continuing to mod and/or host games after they were abandoned by the original creators. The only difference is that you want to import your assets from one game to another. The only thing being preserved here are the assets from the old game. The only added value from NFTs is preserving an investment in the old game.
>Why cant financial gain be a PART of the whole? People can both collect pokemon cards, and play with them. It's not mutually exclusive that you have to declare youre one or the other. Although NFTs probably should include a "you opened the wrapper" function, to create additional scarcity as people destroy the value of their items by making them less digitally pristine.
No one is saying that you can't have fun with your Pokemon cards. But Pokemon cards and decentralized digital scarcity are not interchangeable concepts. Decentralized digital scarcity appears to only be motivated by money.
If there is demand, this can and will happen anyway. There are countless examples of fans continuing to mod and/or host games after they were abandoned by the original creators. The only difference is that you want to import your assets from one game to another. The only thing being preserved here are the assets from the old game. The only added value from NFTs is preserving an investment in the old game.
>Why cant financial gain be a PART of the whole? People can both collect pokemon cards, and play with them. It's not mutually exclusive that you have to declare youre one or the other. Although NFTs probably should include a "you opened the wrapper" function, to create additional scarcity as people destroy the value of their items by making them less digitally pristine.
No one is saying that you can't have fun with your Pokemon cards. But Pokemon cards and decentralized digital scarcity are not interchangeable concepts. Decentralized digital scarcity appears to only be motivated by money.
Who balances the game in a decentralized world?
The game creators and the market.
In the same way that the market will refuse to believe I printed an authentic pokemon card, the game players decide which printers/minters are valid game token producers. If the community decides to respect a certain game production team, that becomes reality. A game company being in charge only lasts as long as the players believing in them. It's the polar express basically.
In the same way that the market will refuse to believe I printed an authentic pokemon card, the game players decide which printers/minters are valid game token producers. If the community decides to respect a certain game production team, that becomes reality. A game company being in charge only lasts as long as the players believing in them. It's the polar express basically.
I'm skeptical that this can work in a way that is fundamentally different than games without NFTs today.
I can definitely see the use-case for things like Pokemon or Magic: The Gathering cards, the NFT being issued for each individual copy, and signed by the game company. This way, rare cards can remain rare, can be used to play a game, and ultimately, can be traded/sold just like physical cards. The paper trail leading back to the company will be recorded in the blockchain.
> How do you create scarcity in a digital infinitely copyable world, without an authority figure.
This is a problem created to fit the solution. Why in the name of God would anyone want to re-introduce scarcity into a post-scarcity space? Such a person is so narcissistic, so greedy, so sociopathic that they would deny others something they could have for nothing in order to enrich themselves. It is sickening.
> A game can go under, and a new game can pop up and respect the accumulated wealth of the community.
People keep saying this and it makes no goddamned sense. They didn't accumulate any wealth, they accumulated some entries in a database somewhere. A developer could even more easily just make a game that uses those assets without all the artificial scarcity.
This is a problem created to fit the solution. Why in the name of God would anyone want to re-introduce scarcity into a post-scarcity space? Such a person is so narcissistic, so greedy, so sociopathic that they would deny others something they could have for nothing in order to enrich themselves. It is sickening.
> A game can go under, and a new game can pop up and respect the accumulated wealth of the community.
People keep saying this and it makes no goddamned sense. They didn't accumulate any wealth, they accumulated some entries in a database somewhere. A developer could even more easily just make a game that uses those assets without all the artificial scarcity.
Making closed source software is a way to create scarcity in a post scarcity space. Are you innocent of that too?
Closed source software can still be copied, even if you charge money for it. I have never created any software that utilized any form of DRM. Hell, most of the code I write is public domain, making it even more free than most open source software.
Besides, I'm not saying we shouldn't compensate creators. Unfortunately even though the digital world is post scarcity the one where our bodies reside is not and creators need to eat. However, I don't believe that shoving scarcity into a post-scarcity space is the way to go about that.
Besides, I'm not saying we shouldn't compensate creators. Unfortunately even though the digital world is post scarcity the one where our bodies reside is not and creators need to eat. However, I don't believe that shoving scarcity into a post-scarcity space is the way to go about that.
So you agree that DRM is a way to enforce scarcity in a post scarcity world ?
Your words - my software can be copied even though I sell it.
exactly the same with NFTs.
My Digital art can be copied even though I sell it as an NFT.
NFTs don’t enforce scarcity at all, not of the artwork itself.
Your words - my software can be copied even though I sell it.
exactly the same with NFTs.
My Digital art can be copied even though I sell it as an NFT.
NFTs don’t enforce scarcity at all, not of the artwork itself.
> So you agree that DRM is a way to enforce scarcity in a post scarcity world ?
Yes, and one that is fundamentally flawed, and never should have been attempted in the first place in my opinion, but I think you'll agree that an NFT is not quite the same thing as DRM.
> Your words - my software can be copied even though I sell it. exactly the same with NFTs.
Ok, there's a semblance of an argument here I don't actually think is complete bullshit: If one can sell software without DRM, which can be copied by anyone, what exactly is being sold? To which I am forced to reply with things many NFT promoters say: supporting the developer, the concept of legitimacy, etc.
But, if that's all that an NFT is, then it is effectively just a donation. The problem is that NFTs claim to be much more than that, they claim to be a groundbreaking new technology that enables people to do things they never could do before[0], but that's obvious bullshit since people have been selling software in the same way I have sold software for 50 years.
If you're going to claim something like an NFT proving ownership, the only reason for that to have any value is if ownership confers some right or privilege that is otherwise lacking. For software, let's say it gives you access to direct support from the developer.
Again, the problem is that people already do that, and it doesn't require anything near as complicated as the entire NFT system! It's just a bog standard entry in a bog standard database that so and so owns a license. The decentralization buys nothing because if I stop supporting it no one will care that you have that license anyway. You could say that it allows someone to resell that license, but again we already do that today, and I could just as easily refuse to recognize a resold NFT as I could anyone's resold license because there's a history of ownership.
It really just looks like a giant scheme to try and convince people they're paying for something they're not.
[0] presumably not just having a new way to rip off rubes.
Yes, and one that is fundamentally flawed, and never should have been attempted in the first place in my opinion, but I think you'll agree that an NFT is not quite the same thing as DRM.
> Your words - my software can be copied even though I sell it. exactly the same with NFTs.
Ok, there's a semblance of an argument here I don't actually think is complete bullshit: If one can sell software without DRM, which can be copied by anyone, what exactly is being sold? To which I am forced to reply with things many NFT promoters say: supporting the developer, the concept of legitimacy, etc.
But, if that's all that an NFT is, then it is effectively just a donation. The problem is that NFTs claim to be much more than that, they claim to be a groundbreaking new technology that enables people to do things they never could do before[0], but that's obvious bullshit since people have been selling software in the same way I have sold software for 50 years.
If you're going to claim something like an NFT proving ownership, the only reason for that to have any value is if ownership confers some right or privilege that is otherwise lacking. For software, let's say it gives you access to direct support from the developer.
Again, the problem is that people already do that, and it doesn't require anything near as complicated as the entire NFT system! It's just a bog standard entry in a bog standard database that so and so owns a license. The decentralization buys nothing because if I stop supporting it no one will care that you have that license anyway. You could say that it allows someone to resell that license, but again we already do that today, and I could just as easily refuse to recognize a resold NFT as I could anyone's resold license because there's a history of ownership.
It really just looks like a giant scheme to try and convince people they're paying for something they're not.
[0] presumably not just having a new way to rip off rubes.
I don’t know about other people and their misconceptions. I hope (and think) they are not as widespread as you think.
But yeah I think of NFTs as a novel way to support digital art. Not much else, just pay the artist. Same as buying a painting really, except you don’t really own the painting anymore.
The idea that buying art is anything BUT supporting an artist is pretty funny. It’s as if we’ve normalised art as either an investment or a museum that we can’t touch. Buying art was always meant to just let the artist do his thing!
Selling digital art before NFTs was a complete pain! Before them you had to go with an agency or gallery, they took a cut, they had to like your stuff. It was absolutely painful, full of gate keeping and bullshit I (and many others) hated. Now you just mint (hopefully on a low carbon chain) and off you go, you tweet about it, get some attention, make some money. It’s simple. The fact that there’s a secondary market for it, well there always was one for art.
It certainly attracted a bunch of rubes who buy ape JPEGs but there is an honest revolution in digital art happening right now. Look into FXhash on tezos, I’ve lost count of the amount of generative art on that market and it’s really really mind blowing. People are coding amazing stuff on there and selling it, something which used to be virtually impossible without a gallery and a rep and a bunch of nonsense.
I think an NFT is a form of DRM that doesn’t enforce scarcity - ie you own A license to that artwork but that doesn’t give you the right to it. That license can be bought and sold, maybe eventually that will have value (my personal favourite is that NFTs should allow you to remix the artwork into your own art, but who knows).
But yeah I think of NFTs as a novel way to support digital art. Not much else, just pay the artist. Same as buying a painting really, except you don’t really own the painting anymore.
The idea that buying art is anything BUT supporting an artist is pretty funny. It’s as if we’ve normalised art as either an investment or a museum that we can’t touch. Buying art was always meant to just let the artist do his thing!
Selling digital art before NFTs was a complete pain! Before them you had to go with an agency or gallery, they took a cut, they had to like your stuff. It was absolutely painful, full of gate keeping and bullshit I (and many others) hated. Now you just mint (hopefully on a low carbon chain) and off you go, you tweet about it, get some attention, make some money. It’s simple. The fact that there’s a secondary market for it, well there always was one for art.
It certainly attracted a bunch of rubes who buy ape JPEGs but there is an honest revolution in digital art happening right now. Look into FXhash on tezos, I’ve lost count of the amount of generative art on that market and it’s really really mind blowing. People are coding amazing stuff on there and selling it, something which used to be virtually impossible without a gallery and a rep and a bunch of nonsense.
I think an NFT is a form of DRM that doesn’t enforce scarcity - ie you own A license to that artwork but that doesn’t give you the right to it. That license can be bought and sold, maybe eventually that will have value (my personal favourite is that NFTs should allow you to remix the artwork into your own art, but who knows).
> The idea that buying art is anything BUT supporting an artist is pretty funny.
Traditionally people bought art to possess it, look at it, and display it for others.
> Buying art was always meant to just let the artist do his thing!
No, that's kinda what patronage was all about. We have crowd sourced versions of that.
> Selling digital art before NFTs was a complete pain! Before them you had to go with an agency or gallery, they took a cut, they had to like your stuff.
That wasn't necessary though, you could sell art all sorts of ways. You could even just set up your own online store if you wanted. All NFTs seem to have done is take advantage of the hype-chasing and speculation crowds.
> there is an honest revolution in digital art happening right now
You've lost me here. Literally nothing about what you're describing requires NFTs other than convincing people to pay money for the NFTs by tangentially tying them to art. It is enabling artists to hack human psychology for money, not enabling brand new kinds of art.
Traditionally people bought art to possess it, look at it, and display it for others.
> Buying art was always meant to just let the artist do his thing!
No, that's kinda what patronage was all about. We have crowd sourced versions of that.
> Selling digital art before NFTs was a complete pain! Before them you had to go with an agency or gallery, they took a cut, they had to like your stuff.
That wasn't necessary though, you could sell art all sorts of ways. You could even just set up your own online store if you wanted. All NFTs seem to have done is take advantage of the hype-chasing and speculation crowds.
> there is an honest revolution in digital art happening right now
You've lost me here. Literally nothing about what you're describing requires NFTs other than convincing people to pay money for the NFTs by tangentially tying them to art. It is enabling artists to hack human psychology for money, not enabling brand new kinds of art.
Hacking human psychology for money is really important, and it makes a difference in people’s life’s whether you can do it or not. That’s essentially it, we do agree, but fundamentally you think there’s something “wrong” with this. Artists don’t make millions of dollars generally so them making more money is good enough for me.
Yeah, I guess we are on the same page, and yes I do think there's something wrong with it, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that part.
I have pretty mixed feelings about NFTs in general.
But I am intrigued by the use case of allowing a large number of individuals to patron a given artist (and give them recurring income on subsequent resale of their work). All else being equal, I would prefer to live in a society where artists and other makers have time to follow their passion and create instead of spending their time on some job just to pay the bills.
So to the extent that NFTs can enable that, I'm tentatively onboard.
But I am intrigued by the use case of allowing a large number of individuals to patron a given artist (and give them recurring income on subsequent resale of their work). All else being equal, I would prefer to live in a society where artists and other makers have time to follow their passion and create instead of spending their time on some job just to pay the bills.
So to the extent that NFTs can enable that, I'm tentatively onboard.
> So to the extent that NFTs can enable that, I'm tentatively onboard.
And what extent is that? There are plenty of ways to send money to an artist, both with crypto and without. What value do NFTs add, as far as patronizing artists?
And what extent is that? There are plenty of ways to send money to an artist, both with crypto and without. What value do NFTs add, as far as patronizing artists?
It's possible - if not common - to setup the underlying smart contract to send some amount of funds back to the creator when an NFT changes hands. So that turns selling a piece of art once to pay the bills into selling it once and then subsequently collecting royalties (potentially indefinitely).
As far as I know, that's a pretty novel offering.
EDIT: for grammar
As far as I know, that's a pretty novel offering.
EDIT: for grammar
But at the end of the day, you're not reselling the art, you're reselling the NFT.
There's nothing that makes this capability unique to NFTs or crypto - you could sell a license to an artwork that has similar terms.
There's nothing that makes this capability unique to NFTs or crypto - you could sell a license to an artwork that has similar terms.
> There's nothing that makes this capability unique to NFTs or crypto
Yeah, you're probably right here.
This is a slight pivot in discussion but - you're right, the proper license agreement (if enforced) would give a similar effect. And there's a strong argument that NFTs, DAOs for gathering capital, etc are just serving functions similar to Patreon or Kickstarter.
But there are a lot of projects popping up and getting varying degrees of attraction in the crypto space.
Maybe crypto isn't making many new things possible - but it might be making lots of things a little easier?
Yeah, you're probably right here.
This is a slight pivot in discussion but - you're right, the proper license agreement (if enforced) would give a similar effect. And there's a strong argument that NFTs, DAOs for gathering capital, etc are just serving functions similar to Patreon or Kickstarter.
But there are a lot of projects popping up and getting varying degrees of attraction in the crypto space.
Maybe crypto isn't making many new things possible - but it might be making lots of things a little easier?
Supporting artists is fine, but it also facilitates a lot of art theft. Random article:
https://www.businessofbusiness.com/articles/nfts-turning-art...
https://www.businessofbusiness.com/articles/nfts-turning-art...
In the current iteration, they don't solve that problem.
You still need a centralised entity to enforce ownership, making the blockchain redundant.
A future attempt might be better, maybe.
You still need a centralised entity to enforce ownership, making the blockchain redundant.
A future attempt might be better, maybe.
You're not wrong. It's an imperfect solution right now; but it is a step in exploring what's possible. And exploratory steps are really helpful for iterating on a good solution.
You’ve nailed it.
People don’t understand what artists used to have to do to make a living. They complain about carbon usage yet I know many talented artists who had to work for BP, Shell and ICE car companies so they could pay their rent. On Tezos the chain is low carbon usage anyway.
People don’t understand what artists used to have to do to make a living. They complain about carbon usage yet I know many talented artists who had to work for BP, Shell and ICE car companies so they could pay their rent. On Tezos the chain is low carbon usage anyway.
For a digitally savvy community, HN takes on NFTs are surprisingly backwards looking. NFTs most people have seen/heard of are just links to a JPEG with little to no utility. That has caused all the hype/OpenSea volume, but there are many interesting crypto projects that ascribe utility to NFTs (but are also much less accessible).
Interesting NFTs are those that: prove identity, serve as a key to a private community, yield tokens with utility, prove ownership of an asset that generates royalties, augment a gaming experience, etc.
What's unique about how NFTs solve existing problems is fundamental to crypto - the data layer is open source, so everything is composable. Maybe the folks here working for large cap tech firms in effort to monetize proprietary data are offended by that.
Interesting NFTs are those that: prove identity, serve as a key to a private community, yield tokens with utility, prove ownership of an asset that generates royalties, augment a gaming experience, etc.
What's unique about how NFTs solve existing problems is fundamental to crypto - the data layer is open source, so everything is composable. Maybe the folks here working for large cap tech firms in effort to monetize proprietary data are offended by that.
I cite ENS (ens.domains) as one of the bedrock technologies in this next cycle. Identity is the biggest flaw in our current social media / search engine / information discovery paradigm.
In the next two weeks, I'll have my PGP keys discoverable, on blockchain, two clicks away from anyone with (unrestricted) internet access. Just find me at joshjames.eth and boom, you can virtually guarantee a secure communication channel with me. Outside of a physical abduction or hardware compromise of my private keys, this pattern no longer requires a middleman to host my pubkey.
In the next two weeks, I'll have my PGP keys discoverable, on blockchain, two clicks away from anyone with (unrestricted) internet access. Just find me at joshjames.eth and boom, you can virtually guarantee a secure communication channel with me. Outside of a physical abduction or hardware compromise of my private keys, this pattern no longer requires a middleman to host my pubkey.
Interesting NFTs are those that: prove identity, serve as a key to a private community, yield tokens with utility, prove ownership of an asset that generates royalties, augment a gaming experience, etc.
If those things want to be taken seriously they need to divorce themselves from the term "NFT", demonstrate that blockchain is necessary, and use the best tech (e.g. privacy-preserving zero-knowledge protocols for anything involving identity/authentication/authorization).
If those things want to be taken seriously they need to divorce themselves from the term "NFT", demonstrate that blockchain is necessary, and use the best tech (e.g. privacy-preserving zero-knowledge protocols for anything involving identity/authentication/authorization).
What are some examples where NFTs have solved or are solving fundamental problems?
NFTs help solve a few of the problems in reselling gig tickets
1. Royalties paid to the band
2. Allow you to check they're authentic tickets
3. Allow you to sell them online to people in a trusted away (atomic transactions for money, so no you send it then I pay/you pay then I sent it)
1. Royalties paid to the band
2. Allow you to check they're authentic tickets
3. Allow you to sell them online to people in a trusted away (atomic transactions for money, so no you send it then I pay/you pay then I sent it)
You can do all 3 much easier with a database.
It makes for mega cringe lords like Gary Vee. Dude is like 60 and dresses like a Fortnite teenager so he can peddle NFTs to kids as an investment strategy. I always found him to be annoying and the NFT space basically confirmed it.
He's 46. I think NFT's are laughable, but if you're gonna play the agism card, at least get the details right.
Don't know who this guy is but just looked him up online. As someone in their mid 40s, scares me if some people think this is what a 60 year old looks like...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Just Gen X being called boomers, once again
[deleted]
It's comments like this, which reaffirm my fears of staying in this industry for too long.
I'm only in my mid-30s but I'm deathly afraid to stick around to see what the mid-40s or 50s will be like.
I'm only in my mid-30s but I'm deathly afraid to stick around to see what the mid-40s or 50s will be like.
Not surprised that this is the top comment, it seems to be the overwhelming sentiment on HN, which is unfortunate. My perspective is that it's very early for NFTs and the large majority (you included) are fixating on what you're seeing in the space today, or put differently, you're being shortsighted.
Mark your comment down and revisit it in a few years, having an opinion on the sidelines is just fine. Now let the downvotes commence.
Mark your comment down and revisit it in a few years, having an opinion on the sidelines is just fine. Now let the downvotes commence.
We've been hearing this tune from cryptoenthusiasts for over a decade now, maybe you should revisit your comments from a few years ago?
If you dig in my own comments on this website you can probably find discussions from 2017 or even earlier where I ask when people think that cryptocurrency tech is going to finally deliver something useful. It's always "one or two years from now". It's always "we're early". Remember ICOs? Remember how it was going to revolutionize IoT? Remember dapps? Remember lightning? It's been around the corner for years now.
Can you think of a single other technical innovation that required so much faith and patience before it delivered? Maybe self-driving cars, but even then I'd argue that it made immense progress compared to blockchain technology.
In the end you can hype it as much as you want, it's still fundamentally just a crappy, slow, extremely inefficient append-only database that's only relevant because it's super good at supporting pyramid schemes.
If you dig in my own comments on this website you can probably find discussions from 2017 or even earlier where I ask when people think that cryptocurrency tech is going to finally deliver something useful. It's always "one or two years from now". It's always "we're early". Remember ICOs? Remember how it was going to revolutionize IoT? Remember dapps? Remember lightning? It's been around the corner for years now.
Can you think of a single other technical innovation that required so much faith and patience before it delivered? Maybe self-driving cars, but even then I'd argue that it made immense progress compared to blockchain technology.
In the end you can hype it as much as you want, it's still fundamentally just a crappy, slow, extremely inefficient append-only database that's only relevant because it's super good at supporting pyramid schemes.
Really have to challenge this comment.
"We're early" in the internet had the dotcom bubble, the development of mobile 3G infrastructure and devices, the advent of smartphones, the VC-fueled app craze, and then eventually, now. The innovation mostly occurred in certain geographical areas, under the control of a relatively small population, with global impact.
The progression of blockchain technology - and dare I say culture - is speedrunning the history of human communication, including currency. Mainstream attention is high, but not adoption of paramount fundamental tech like ENS for identity and reputation. I'm guessing critical mass sometime in the next 18-36 months.
I also worry you may be subject to observation bias and ensuing feedback loops; if you primarily encounter negative headlines around crypto, it reinforces your opinion. But there are treasure troves of data, assembled by tens of thousands of exceptionally talented engineers, researchers and philosophers, that are also available for your observation. I wonder, if you spent some time there, perhaps your opinions would be more plastic.
"We're early" in the internet had the dotcom bubble, the development of mobile 3G infrastructure and devices, the advent of smartphones, the VC-fueled app craze, and then eventually, now. The innovation mostly occurred in certain geographical areas, under the control of a relatively small population, with global impact.
The progression of blockchain technology - and dare I say culture - is speedrunning the history of human communication, including currency. Mainstream attention is high, but not adoption of paramount fundamental tech like ENS for identity and reputation. I'm guessing critical mass sometime in the next 18-36 months.
I also worry you may be subject to observation bias and ensuing feedback loops; if you primarily encounter negative headlines around crypto, it reinforces your opinion. But there are treasure troves of data, assembled by tens of thousands of exceptionally talented engineers, researchers and philosophers, that are also available for your observation. I wonder, if you spent some time there, perhaps your opinions would be more plastic.
>I'm guessing critical mass sometime in the next 18-36 months.
And I say in 2025 I'll be having the same discussion I had in 2017 and I'm having right now as somebody will reply to a comment I make on HN telling me that whatever cryptofad of the day is 18-36months away from mainstream adoption.
And I say in 2025 I'll be having the same discussion I had in 2017 and I'm having right now as somebody will reply to a comment I make on HN telling me that whatever cryptofad of the day is 18-36months away from mainstream adoption.
Interesting way to describe a computer as a append-only database
The blockchain is not a computer. Computers are computers, and since it's trustless every node has to recompute everything.
With enough spin you can make everything sound revolutionary. Smart contracts are effectively like stored procedures, just ridiculously wasteful.
With enough spin you can make everything sound revolutionary. Smart contracts are effectively like stored procedures, just ridiculously wasteful.
When I watched the president of the United States get kicked off every popular social media platform it clicked for me. I never voted for the guy, I never liked the guy. But he was still the president, and it didn't matter. The tech companies demonstrated how much power they truely had. NO ONE should have that much unchecked power.
Before 2020, I was interested in crypto as an academic exercise. In 2021, it became an urgant need. I don't think i'm alone, to me crypto is an exit from the large tech monopolies that dominate our world today.
Before 2020, I was interested in crypto as an academic exercise. In 2021, it became an urgant need. I don't think i'm alone, to me crypto is an exit from the large tech monopolies that dominate our world today.
Partially agree - but people have been excited about e.g. smart contracts for the last ~5 years, yet which consumer or B2B apps are using them now?
When Web2 came along, Gmail, Maps and Facebook were immediately exciting and obviously better than what came before. How much longer do we need to wait for those Web3 killer apps, that appeal to users who aren't purely in it for token price speculation?
When Gmail came along, like a decade after the web started getting popular, there were countless people, very much like you now, telling everybody how much better their desktop email app was.
Nfts may or may not be the blockchain's killer app (I think they are), but the average person's track record identifying a technology's killer app is a tad less than perfect
Nfts may or may not be the blockchain's killer app (I think they are), but the average person's track record identifying a technology's killer app is a tad less than perfect
> Nfts may or may not be the blockchain's killer app (I think they are)
How is a bit of data on a blockchain pointing to a URI a breakthrough? It's utterly ineffective at proving ownership of anything, since the data at the uri can be changed, or more likely - the entire server will disappear at some point in time. And then what about uris on the blockchain pointing to illegal material (things that are actually copyrighted by someone through the legal system, CP, etc)?
Obviously storing actual data on-chain is too costly as well (both financially on the large chains, and practically/environmentally on any of them).
Everyone I know who's into NFTs and crypto was a con artist before blockchain and they'll be con artists after. Wait until I tell you about the drug addict scammers I know that started a crypto coin of their own and got a friend who knows literally nothing about crypto to write their whitepaper.
How is a bit of data on a blockchain pointing to a URI a breakthrough? It's utterly ineffective at proving ownership of anything, since the data at the uri can be changed, or more likely - the entire server will disappear at some point in time. And then what about uris on the blockchain pointing to illegal material (things that are actually copyrighted by someone through the legal system, CP, etc)?
Obviously storing actual data on-chain is too costly as well (both financially on the large chains, and practically/environmentally on any of them).
Everyone I know who's into NFTs and crypto was a con artist before blockchain and they'll be con artists after. Wait until I tell you about the drug addict scammers I know that started a crypto coin of their own and got a friend who knows literally nothing about crypto to write their whitepaper.
I'd argue the exponential growth curves for Gmail, Maps, and Facebook (with no financial reward for the user) suggests there was a good appreciation of the utility. When will get an equivalent Web3 app that isn't predominantly driven by price speculation? What will this look like?
That’s not here yet but dapps do have millions of users already.
Which stand the best chance of going mainstream, with those who don't care about the underlying technology or price speculation?
NFTs. Gaming seems to be it.
But do digital goods in games really justify the Web2 -> Web3 iteration? Compared to Web2 bringing us Gmail, Maps, Facebook etc, feels a little anemic so far.
Yeah it’s pretty terrible so far I agree.
My hunch is that crypto is focusing on the wrong things. I suspect we’ll never have land registers in blockchain (dumb idea anyway).
In NFTs crypto kind of stumbled upon something important, because digital art didn’t have a way to be authenticated by artists themselves, they had to use galleries, it was a mess. Now a digital artist can just drop his stuff onto the world and authenticate it. This was a Real Problem, if you make physical art you can just go to the local arts and crafts or Etsy and charge money for it. But digital art was really hard to monetise. So crypto came in a bit sideways and solved a Real Problem People Had.
Curiously they seem to really focus on “real world” problems, like banks or land registry or whatever, when I’m starting to think this is the entirely wrong way to see crypto. I think it needs to focus on problems that exist in the digital arena Only IE data ownership, data portability.
But the obsessions of the original conceptions around crypto are hard to kill, and I feel like right now there’s a lot of resistance to leaving the Nick Szabo idea of “smart contracts will replace lawyers”, same as it was before with a lot of Nakamoto’s ideas. But I think the “crypto will replace lawyers” and “crypto will replace banks” folks will be sorely disappointed. I see a very low percent chance crypto will change that much about banking just due to the security issues.
My hunch is that crypto is focusing on the wrong things. I suspect we’ll never have land registers in blockchain (dumb idea anyway).
In NFTs crypto kind of stumbled upon something important, because digital art didn’t have a way to be authenticated by artists themselves, they had to use galleries, it was a mess. Now a digital artist can just drop his stuff onto the world and authenticate it. This was a Real Problem, if you make physical art you can just go to the local arts and crafts or Etsy and charge money for it. But digital art was really hard to monetise. So crypto came in a bit sideways and solved a Real Problem People Had.
Curiously they seem to really focus on “real world” problems, like banks or land registry or whatever, when I’m starting to think this is the entirely wrong way to see crypto. I think it needs to focus on problems that exist in the digital arena Only IE data ownership, data portability.
But the obsessions of the original conceptions around crypto are hard to kill, and I feel like right now there’s a lot of resistance to leaving the Nick Szabo idea of “smart contracts will replace lawyers”, same as it was before with a lot of Nakamoto’s ideas. But I think the “crypto will replace lawyers” and “crypto will replace banks” folks will be sorely disappointed. I see a very low percent chance crypto will change that much about banking just due to the security issues.
> But digital art was really hard to monetise.
Is it though? Honest question since I'm not an artist. But looking from the outside: For ongoing support, Patreon/Flattr/etc. are a common solution. For specific work, you can commission a piece and pay for it through whatever channel, even with cash.
Is it though? Honest question since I'm not an artist. But looking from the outside: For ongoing support, Patreon/Flattr/etc. are a common solution. For specific work, you can commission a piece and pay for it through whatever channel, even with cash.
It just didn’t work for individual digital art. Patreon doesn’t pay you for making art, that’s incidental. At least the way I’ve seen it used. It also creates no secondary market, there’s no resale, royalties. The possibility of making a single art piece worth 10,000$ That is impossible in patreon. Patreon was more of a decentralised art school at its best, where you could pay for individual tutors.
I also know the average income I saw being generated from Patreon was low. Not high enough to quit your day job, more of a second job type thing. NFT income is incomparable, I know of cases of people who are now millionaires.
NFTs are essentially just a way to sell digital art in a way that approximates physical art auctions, and in that regard they are an overwhelming sucess.
I also know the average income I saw being generated from Patreon was low. Not high enough to quit your day job, more of a second job type thing. NFT income is incomparable, I know of cases of people who are now millionaires.
NFTs are essentially just a way to sell digital art in a way that approximates physical art auctions, and in that regard they are an overwhelming sucess.
I don't see how promoting artificial scarcity is going to become a good idea in a few years. Just because the implementation is shit nowadays doesn't mean we should be happy to see better implementations in the future.
I'm a hobbyist photographer. I have been publishing my photographs to unsplash for the last 4 years. I have over 100 photos on Adobe contributor. The former has delivered me ZERO inbound or monetary value, just over 3 million downloads of my work. The latter has given me returns I could buy coffee with.
NFTs open a new World of opportunity for me. Not only can other humans easily collect, and compensate me for my work, I also have a whole new stream for consuming royalties. Now think further about the ecosystem potential and all the third parties that consume my unsplash content for free today, NFTs can change that.
NFTs open a new World of opportunity for me. Not only can other humans easily collect, and compensate me for my work, I also have a whole new stream for consuming royalties. Now think further about the ecosystem potential and all the third parties that consume my unsplash content for free today, NFTs can change that.
In what sense do the purchasers of your NFTs have "ownership" of your work - what could they do with it that I could not, and how is this legally enforced? If NFTv2 comes out in a year with 10x the financial rewards, will you commit to not offering the same pieces again?
What led you to make your photos available under a free sharing license, if you were expecting returns?
> Not only can other humans easily collect, and compensate me for my work
They could have done it before, what makes you think this technical change will make people want to fund artists more, beyond a momentary financial mania?
> Not only can other humans easily collect, and compensate me for my work
They could have done it before, what makes you think this technical change will make people want to fund artists more, beyond a momentary financial mania?
1. The goal with Unsplash has always been marketing exposure and inbound traffic, though unfortunately it just doesn't really exist. So, why are my photos still there? It feels counterproductive to remove something that has ranked so well, for so long, on the platform.
2. Just my opinion - I believe that over time people will increasingly value digital assets, I don't think we're even close to understanding their utility. NFT collectors are a growing segment for artists and things like virtual galleries will represent new places to showcase and share those collections.
Edit - I think people should make an effort to distinguish between visual and "technical or attributable" ownership. Too often these threads on NFTs are, "how do you own something if I can copy it" (the picture). That's missing the point. I don't care if you replicate my NFT and its visual identity, I will always be the owner of the underlying attribute and the evolution of that attribute.
2. Just my opinion - I believe that over time people will increasingly value digital assets, I don't think we're even close to understanding their utility. NFT collectors are a growing segment for artists and things like virtual galleries will represent new places to showcase and share those collections.
Edit - I think people should make an effort to distinguish between visual and "technical or attributable" ownership. Too often these threads on NFTs are, "how do you own something if I can copy it" (the picture). That's missing the point. I don't care if you replicate my NFT and its visual identity, I will always be the owner of the underlying attribute and the evolution of that attribute.
Then put your hobby where your mouth is. Pull all of your photos from the past 4 years from unsplash and mint NFTs for them.
That's exactly what I'm doing :)
If I were to buy one of your NFTs, what does that get me?
Do you confer a license to the photo that I can use elsewhere? Can I use it in an ad? Can I sell copies of it?
Do you confer a license to the photo that I can use elsewhere? Can I use it in an ad? Can I sell copies of it?
NFT's aren't about artificial scarcity, they give owners rights. Being able to control a digital asset is important. Take the ENS (it's like a domian service). Having exclusive control over a domain is not scarcity, it's what makes it practical.
To get in the right mindset, you should stop thinking of NFT's as pictures. That's not the primary use case. It's a stupid game that became popular. NFT's are just tokens on the open blockchain that you can exclusively control.
To get in the right mindset, you should stop thinking of NFT's as pictures. That's not the primary use case. It's a stupid game that became popular. NFT's are just tokens on the open blockchain that you can exclusively control.
> they give owners rights
Generally not.
> NFT's are just tokens on the open blockchain that you can exclusively control.
Exactly this, and nothing more.
Generally not.
> NFT's are just tokens on the open blockchain that you can exclusively control.
Exactly this, and nothing more.
I believe a lot of us would be more excited if they weren't also a frustrating grifter paradise.
People rant and rave about how this is a huge when for digital artists while ignoring the darker side. I see more and more small artists venting their frustrations in fighting with the NFT markets to get their stolen art taken down. Also in dealing with crypto bros cyberbullying them for refusing to participate in this whole crypto shit show.
People rant and rave about how this is a huge when for digital artists while ignoring the darker side. I see more and more small artists venting their frustrations in fighting with the NFT markets to get their stolen art taken down. Also in dealing with crypto bros cyberbullying them for refusing to participate in this whole crypto shit show.
The stolen art thing is a problem screaming for a technical solution.
Outside of that, 99% of the artist I know are super happy NFTs exist and they can make money out of them.
Outside of that, 99% of the artist I know are super happy NFTs exist and they can make money out of them.
How many artists do you know?
Quite a few since I’m a digital artist myself.
That isn’t an answer to my question, but it does explain your financial interest in defending NFTs throughout this thread.
You mean because they are good for me and they are good for 99% of the digital artists on this planet?
They are good for you, but you don’t know 99% of the digital artists on this planet or what is good for them.
Indeed you haven’t even told us how many digital artists you know. Only that you are one.
Indeed you haven’t even told us how many digital artists you know. Only that you are one.
[deleted]
I agree NFTs are dumb, but some artists are getting paid huge amounts of real money for selling NFTs. If the artists can find suckers willing to pay then good for them.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/11/22325054/beeple-christies...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/11/22325054/beeple-christies...
Sure, that's fine enough if they're ok with being the kind of person who'd do that sort of thing. I'm not even going to make a big stink about how they probably shouldn't do that.
But when they come in here and try to tell us all how this incredible new technology is going to revolutionize the world, that's obvious bullshit.
But when they come in here and try to tell us all how this incredible new technology is going to revolutionize the world, that's obvious bullshit.
To me NFTs are like selling “rights” to stars in galaxies far away.
It’s nice that you can say you “own” your very own star as stipulated by the star rights granting corporation, but in reality it means nothing other than you can say so… but I can claim a million other stars without needing a corporation and no one can take them away from me but also anyone else can make a claim on the same stars.
It’s nice that you can say you “own” your very own star as stipulated by the star rights granting corporation, but in reality it means nothing other than you can say so… but I can claim a million other stars without needing a corporation and no one can take them away from me but also anyone else can make a claim on the same stars.
True but what if in buying those stars you were supporting space research?
That’s all NFTs are right now - a novel way to invest in artists. And that’s remarkable, and good enough for me.
That’s all NFTs are right now - a novel way to invest in artists. And that’s remarkable, and good enough for me.
I can do that without "buying" a star. It is actually possible to just give money to people, NFTs didn't invent it.
Convince more people to just hand out money to artists then!
Look, if people are just saying NFTs are a human psychology hack to get people to donate more money to artists, then that's fine, but call a spade a spade. Don't blow smoke up my ass about how it's a game changing revolutionary technology that does things that simply can't be done without it.
“Hacking human psychology of money” But that’s exactly what it is. It is revolutionary for the people who couldn’t do it before.
That’s fine, but in many cases people believe these are investment instruments rather than seeing them as a donation. If these purveyors made it clear these were Donations, then yeah, that’s okay.
Maybe Wikipedia can sell NFYs to “articles” and avoid the donation button?
Maybe Wikipedia can sell NFYs to “articles” and avoid the donation button?
I think it’s pretty clear there’s a market for them, which attracted a bunch of knobs. But yes I see them as a direct way to fund artist’s work, particularly digital artists, who before this had to content with likes on Instagram! An NFT is a way to say “hey I like this so much I’ll pay you to keep doing it”
> I view NFTs as one of the dumbest things to come out of the crypto space.
To understand the space, you need to come to terms with the fact that asking "is this a legitimate human need" isn't a useful or relevant question. Instead, you need to ask, "for people who are already demonstrating that they have this human need, does this technology enable that need to be met more efficiently."
You might think the human need isn't legitimate, and it might not be legitimate, but if you think that way you're going to miss what's happening.
It's the same as the lesson from the Paul Graham and Fred Wilson AirBnB exchange, where just because you personally don't have the need doesn't mean that the need doesn't exist.
To understand the space, you need to come to terms with the fact that asking "is this a legitimate human need" isn't a useful or relevant question. Instead, you need to ask, "for people who are already demonstrating that they have this human need, does this technology enable that need to be met more efficiently."
You might think the human need isn't legitimate, and it might not be legitimate, but if you think that way you're going to miss what's happening.
It's the same as the lesson from the Paul Graham and Fred Wilson AirBnB exchange, where just because you personally don't have the need doesn't mean that the need doesn't exist.
Let's be realistic here: there's no need for NFTs other than fear of missing out, and money laundering.
1. There isn’t a need and it can’t be demonstrated via handwaving.
2. Investing in the imaginary shouldn’t be peddled by charlatans.
3. Comparing to Airbnb is inaccurate and intentionally misleading.
4. Sentences 1-2 are circular.
2. Investing in the imaginary shouldn’t be peddled by charlatans.
3. Comparing to Airbnb is inaccurate and intentionally misleading.
4. Sentences 1-2 are circular.
That’s an extraordinarily weak and broad argument. Of course a lack of personal appeal doesn’t imply non-existence. Don’t rely on that for affirmative investment strategy!
Airbnb is a useful example, though; consider its context of hotels, VRBO, couchsurfing. These are proven human needs with associated economics that starkly contrast with the precedent for NFTs - Tumblr likes and retweets.
Airbnb is a useful example, though; consider its context of hotels, VRBO, couchsurfing. These are proven human needs with associated economics that starkly contrast with the precedent for NFTs - Tumblr likes and retweets.
> I view NFTs as one of the dumbest things to come out of the crypto space. I see the use cases, but frankly I don’t think it’s innovative nor does it solve something in a really unique way.
I think the original comment isn’t arguing that “this isn’t a legitimate human need.” I think it’s arguing that neither the tech is innovative nor the offered solution is unique.
I think the original comment isn’t arguing that “this isn’t a legitimate human need.” I think it’s arguing that neither the tech is innovative nor the offered solution is unique.
Need on the side of issuers obviously exists, they can make money. At the same time we see that most of the potential users, such as gamer community at large, are overwhelmingly against NFTs. So this need is clearly being manufactured, which can succeed or not, remains to be seen.
I had this opinion too, but if you think about something like trading cards or any other “limited” collectibles that were mass produced, rather than one of a kind art, it’s sort of the same thing with regards to artificial scarcity.
I think this is where a lot of us don't see the similarity between artificial and real scarcity. The real scarcity of physical collectibles is not only due to their limited numbers, but also, I believe, due to the fact that they are physical objects that can degrade in quality or be lost entirely. That's a world of difference from digital bits that are just not allowed to be copied.
> if you think about something like trading cards or any other "limited" collectibles that were mass produced
You mean like Beanie Babies? "limited" collectible physical objects that went up and up in value.
Never heard of them? Yeah, that's because they stopped going up in value. Then stopped having value at all. It was about 20 years ago, who remembers that?
You mean like Beanie Babies? "limited" collectible physical objects that went up and up in value.
Never heard of them? Yeah, that's because they stopped going up in value. Then stopped having value at all. It was about 20 years ago, who remembers that?
They're limited in the sense that pogs were limited.
When Kellog's is making NFTs, it devalues the entire platform.
Trading cards aren't a fitting analogy, because only a few companies were/are in that business, and they each ran specific product lines. They're more similar to old lego sets in that sense.
NFTs are pogs.
When Kellog's is making NFTs, it devalues the entire platform.
Trading cards aren't a fitting analogy, because only a few companies were/are in that business, and they each ran specific product lines. They're more similar to old lego sets in that sense.
NFTs are pogs.
> Trading cards aren't a fitting analogy, because only a few companies were/are in that business
The irony is that being digital, bits not atoms, make it easy to make copies.
Oh you invented digital scarcity?
Now you have 1000 copies of the "digital scarcity" business.
The irony is that being digital, bits not atoms, make it easy to make copies.
Oh you invented digital scarcity?
Now you have 1000 copies of the "digital scarcity" business.
NFTs aren't trading cards.
They're receipts showing that you "own" the card on display in the public square. And more than one receipt can be minted for that card. The most you can hope for is the earliest timestamp on the receipt.
They're receipts showing that you "own" the card on display in the public square. And more than one receipt can be minted for that card. The most you can hope for is the earliest timestamp on the receipt.
I think NFTs are bullshit, but I don't think the "And more than one receipt can be minted for that card" is as much of a problem as people think it is.
For example, it wouldn't be hard for an artist to publish a video saying "Hey folks, this is my public key, and these are the NFTs for these pieces of art", and then publish that video in multiple forums like Twitter, YouTube, etc. Then if someone tried to come up with different NFTs for the same pieces of art, the NFT holder could just point to the video (and, as you say, if the artist was malicious and tried to dupe his own NFTs, the earlier one would win).
This kind of "identity validation" is all over the cryptography space already - that's basically how Keybase proofs work. Heck, lots of HN commenters put their proofs in their HN account signatures.
For example, it wouldn't be hard for an artist to publish a video saying "Hey folks, this is my public key, and these are the NFTs for these pieces of art", and then publish that video in multiple forums like Twitter, YouTube, etc. Then if someone tried to come up with different NFTs for the same pieces of art, the NFT holder could just point to the video (and, as you say, if the artist was malicious and tried to dupe his own NFTs, the earlier one would win).
This kind of "identity validation" is all over the cryptography space already - that's basically how Keybase proofs work. Heck, lots of HN commenters put their proofs in their HN account signatures.
> For example, it wouldn't be hard for an artist to publish a video saying "Hey folks, this is my public key, and these are the NFTs for these pieces of art"
So then how do we know that artist actually created that art? For all we know, that artist took someone else's work and was just the first to mint NFTs for it on that particular chain. Maybe the legitimate artist minted NFTs on a different chain later so nobody will ever believe they created it because of the timestamp.
As I understand it, this sort of 'theft' is happening all the time right now.
So then how do we know that artist actually created that art? For all we know, that artist took someone else's work and was just the first to mint NFTs for it on that particular chain. Maybe the legitimate artist minted NFTs on a different chain later so nobody will ever believe they created it because of the timestamp.
As I understand it, this sort of 'theft' is happening all the time right now.
An artist can create as many instances of an NFT as they want, even after selling "number 1". It's not malicious, it's a feature of the platform.
> An artist can create as many instances of an NFT as they want
Not just "an artist", anyone can. And they do. Many artists' works are being exploited in this way without their consent or even knowledge.
Not just "an artist", anyone can. And they do. Many artists' works are being exploited in this way without their consent or even knowledge.
Indeed, this also happens in the physical world. Many artists create multiple, individually numbered prints/copies of their artwork.
The emperor has no clothes when it comes to NFTs. Mass illusions of rareity of what is just simply a string of ones and zeros.
/*
FYI, the down arrow is not an indication of agreement, it is an indication of quality. If you disagree with me, at least have the common courtesy to comment.
*/
It's a shame the acronym NFT has become synonymous with digital images. As a concept it's a huge idea with so much potential. The issue is people now hear NFT, and their mind shuts down thinking it's some stupid monkey picture thing.
Everything you can do with an NFT, you COULD do with a centralized database. The problem is then you have to trust that database. You have to trust the person running it, you have to trust they will still be in business, you have to trust the person running it will allow other people to connect to it (or get stuck in their walled garden).
We're pretty far into this Web 2.0 experiment with centralized services. The experiment is over, the results are in. We can't trust them.
Does decentralization solve all problems? No absolutely not. Does it have a whole new set of problems? yes, but hopefully we can work through most of them. To me, the trade off of a more open ecosystem is worth it. If email was created in Web 2.0 it probably would have been stored in a database, and there would be little accessibility outside whoever created it. It would look like whatsapp.
What NFT's give us, is the ability to own a unique digital assets in an open system and not have to rely on ad driven business models. It's a digital asset which can be ANYTHING.
FYI, the down arrow is not an indication of agreement, it is an indication of quality. If you disagree with me, at least have the common courtesy to comment.
*/
It's a shame the acronym NFT has become synonymous with digital images. As a concept it's a huge idea with so much potential. The issue is people now hear NFT, and their mind shuts down thinking it's some stupid monkey picture thing.
Everything you can do with an NFT, you COULD do with a centralized database. The problem is then you have to trust that database. You have to trust the person running it, you have to trust they will still be in business, you have to trust the person running it will allow other people to connect to it (or get stuck in their walled garden).
We're pretty far into this Web 2.0 experiment with centralized services. The experiment is over, the results are in. We can't trust them.
Does decentralization solve all problems? No absolutely not. Does it have a whole new set of problems? yes, but hopefully we can work through most of them. To me, the trade off of a more open ecosystem is worth it. If email was created in Web 2.0 it probably would have been stored in a database, and there would be little accessibility outside whoever created it. It would look like whatsapp.
What NFT's give us, is the ability to own a unique digital assets in an open system and not have to rely on ad driven business models. It's a digital asset which can be ANYTHING.
> The problem is then you have to trust that database. You have to trust the person running it, you have to trust they will still be in business, you have to trust the person running it will allow other people to connect to it (or get stuck in their walled garden).
That's just it. I do trust the bank. The bank has stood for several human lifetimes (might have changed names, but the same bank). They have overwhelmingly served people reliably. The deposits are insured by the government that has stood for several human lifetimes. They are accountable legally and practically. Bad transactions can be reversed thanks to the trusted processors, banks, and government.
> We're pretty far into this Web 2.0 experiment with centralized services. The experiment is over, the results are in. We can't trust them.
What on earth are you talking about? I've never had money taken from my bank account without my permission. Those few cases of fraud I've experienced have been detected and resolved swiftly, with little activity required from me.
Meanwhile with a blockchain you have to trust the majority of unknown actors. People I don't know, from states where theft of my money might go unprosecuted, if the actor can even be detected. Bad transactions cannot be reversed. Fraud? I'm SOL. And then there's the fact that crypto enables ransomware. And the environmental costs. Absurd.
> What NFT's give us, is the ability to own a unique digital assets in an open system and not have to rely on ad driven business models. It's a digital asset which can be ANYTHING.
We already have this in the US and other nations, it's called copyright, and the courts will enforce it as well as they can. NFTs do not provide an enforcement mechanism, they still rely on the legal system, and a pointer to a uri does not prove what object was originally at that uri.
That's just it. I do trust the bank. The bank has stood for several human lifetimes (might have changed names, but the same bank). They have overwhelmingly served people reliably. The deposits are insured by the government that has stood for several human lifetimes. They are accountable legally and practically. Bad transactions can be reversed thanks to the trusted processors, banks, and government.
> We're pretty far into this Web 2.0 experiment with centralized services. The experiment is over, the results are in. We can't trust them.
What on earth are you talking about? I've never had money taken from my bank account without my permission. Those few cases of fraud I've experienced have been detected and resolved swiftly, with little activity required from me.
Meanwhile with a blockchain you have to trust the majority of unknown actors. People I don't know, from states where theft of my money might go unprosecuted, if the actor can even be detected. Bad transactions cannot be reversed. Fraud? I'm SOL. And then there's the fact that crypto enables ransomware. And the environmental costs. Absurd.
> What NFT's give us, is the ability to own a unique digital assets in an open system and not have to rely on ad driven business models. It's a digital asset which can be ANYTHING.
We already have this in the US and other nations, it's called copyright, and the courts will enforce it as well as they can. NFTs do not provide an enforcement mechanism, they still rely on the legal system, and a pointer to a uri does not prove what object was originally at that uri.
NFTs in regards to digital licences and tickets to events are game-changers in my eyes. I wish the focus was on that instead of on jpegs. If anyone is working on these, or wants to work on these, I'd be keen to collaborate.
Both of those have a central authority that is granting the relevant rights. What's the advantage of an NFT over letting that central authority manage it in a centralized database? And if they won't agree to facilitate transfers, why would they agree to release the license/ticket as an NFT to begin with?
Bands != Ticket Master. Right now the easiest way to release tickets is through a central authority that takes fees to manage them, and then control the resale market. You can take the tickets elsewhere like Stubhub but that introduces 25% in fees to have insurance that if your tickets aren't valid and don't get you into the venue, you can have a refund. It's still impossible to check the tickets you purchase on these sites are authentic too - ticket fraud is a wide-spread multi-million dollar issue in the resale market (as you will see in the news from time to time).
If you move this to NFTs you have a few advantages. The workflow would look like this: Band creates NFTs (maybe via a website?) and they now exist in the bands wallet. Band puts them up for sale with a smart contract. Fans buy the tickets. Fans can attend the gig by showing the ticket is in their wallet to enter. Fans can resell the tickets if they're allowed to via another smart contract with the a small royalty going back to the band. Don't want the ticket to be resellable? Add a boolean flag to the NFT in its metadata. Want to check the ticket is authentic? Check it's tx history back to the bands minting (or check the NFT address exists in the list of valid tickets on the bands sale site or something). There are some UX issues here but they should all be solvable. Use a chain like Avalanche and the tx fees are $0.02 at the moment.
Essentially the whole man-in-the-middle central company that manages the creation, sales, resales, etc, becomes an open-source peer-to-peer infrastructure. This same thing could be true for game licenses or really any truly digital item. These assets become programmable and new business models are becoming viable while old business models are in theory obsolete - obviously this has some huge caveats: the UX on web3 sucks, we need to migrate from proof-of-work so it's not environmentally awful, and we need to disassociate ourselves with the scammy $1m NFTs. Also some edge cases need to be solved like how customer service will work if something goes wrong.
I mean the most fundamental thing about the blockchain and NFTs still blows my mind from time to time - these transactions are atomic and stop double-spend attacks. I can set up a transaction with you where you pay USDC and I send an NFT for a bands ticket, and we know for certain that at the end of the tx you're going to have that ticket and I'm going to have that money. No "you send it first, I don't trust you" or escrow service needed. The fact we can stick a Turing-complete program in the middle of that and add things like verification the ticket is from the set of authentic tickets, or that it's only valid if the USD is worth 1.25-1.30 Euros to avoid slippage, is just awesome (to me).
If you move this to NFTs you have a few advantages. The workflow would look like this: Band creates NFTs (maybe via a website?) and they now exist in the bands wallet. Band puts them up for sale with a smart contract. Fans buy the tickets. Fans can attend the gig by showing the ticket is in their wallet to enter. Fans can resell the tickets if they're allowed to via another smart contract with the a small royalty going back to the band. Don't want the ticket to be resellable? Add a boolean flag to the NFT in its metadata. Want to check the ticket is authentic? Check it's tx history back to the bands minting (or check the NFT address exists in the list of valid tickets on the bands sale site or something). There are some UX issues here but they should all be solvable. Use a chain like Avalanche and the tx fees are $0.02 at the moment.
Essentially the whole man-in-the-middle central company that manages the creation, sales, resales, etc, becomes an open-source peer-to-peer infrastructure. This same thing could be true for game licenses or really any truly digital item. These assets become programmable and new business models are becoming viable while old business models are in theory obsolete - obviously this has some huge caveats: the UX on web3 sucks, we need to migrate from proof-of-work so it's not environmentally awful, and we need to disassociate ourselves with the scammy $1m NFTs. Also some edge cases need to be solved like how customer service will work if something goes wrong.
I mean the most fundamental thing about the blockchain and NFTs still blows my mind from time to time - these transactions are atomic and stop double-spend attacks. I can set up a transaction with you where you pay USDC and I send an NFT for a bands ticket, and we know for certain that at the end of the tx you're going to have that ticket and I'm going to have that money. No "you send it first, I don't trust you" or escrow service needed. The fact we can stick a Turing-complete program in the middle of that and add things like verification the ticket is from the set of authentic tickets, or that it's only valid if the USD is worth 1.25-1.30 Euros to avoid slippage, is just awesome (to me).
You assume that these ticket companies are providing no value for the fees they charge. Which I think isn’t a safe thing to assume. Everything you have listed here would be much much easier in a database.
Any kind of argument here would have to start with an explanation of why it wouldn’t be possible or practical to just start a new ticket company that does this all for free/very cheap.
Any kind of argument here would have to start with an explanation of why it wouldn’t be possible or practical to just start a new ticket company that does this all for free/very cheap.
> Everything you have listed here would be much much easier in a database.
No, it isn't. How would you buy a ticket from me online when you don't know me? The only real option is to use stubhub which requires us to both create accounts, put our credit cards in, verify ourselves, you put the ticket up, me to buy it, and for me to not know the ticket is A. not been purchased by someone else B. authentic.
A decentralised app that runs this requires a smart contract to mint tickets and a smart contract to wrap reselling them, plus a web UI to tie it all together. An open source developer could build this and charge $1 per tx to maintain it.
What's the centralised alternative?
No, it isn't. How would you buy a ticket from me online when you don't know me? The only real option is to use stubhub which requires us to both create accounts, put our credit cards in, verify ourselves, you put the ticket up, me to buy it, and for me to not know the ticket is A. not been purchased by someone else B. authentic.
A decentralised app that runs this requires a smart contract to mint tickets and a smart contract to wrap reselling them, plus a web UI to tie it all together. An open source developer could build this and charge $1 per tx to maintain it.
What's the centralised alternative?
Band sells tickets via platform A. I buy ticket, I no longer want ticket, I sell it back to platform A which makes it available to you to purchase. They can also have a feature which allows specific person to person transfers if I want to give it to a friend.
This is all technologically possible. The reason platforms usually do not let you do this is due to business requirements. Why would the business switch to a platform that strips their ability to control resale if it isn't something they want to begin with? If they do want resale, its trivially possible with existing boring tech.
This is all technologically possible. The reason platforms usually do not let you do this is due to business requirements. Why would the business switch to a platform that strips their ability to control resale if it isn't something they want to begin with? If they do want resale, its trivially possible with existing boring tech.
Woah, who mentioned I wanted businesses to introduce these features? Of course it makes no sense to them. I’m saying we can get rid of them altogether as the majority of their work can be replicated.
Up until now it’s been difficult to do this because the prohibitive cost of centralized services - with Web3 you have all these building blocks available without a high cost central party managing databases, cloud costs, staffing, etc…
Edit: To clarify I’ve seen end users and bands want resale, it’s just not very profitable and hard to control fraud.
To summarize I’m saying that I think and hope that Web3 will have these businesses purpose as features of the infrastructure :)
Up until now it’s been difficult to do this because the prohibitive cost of centralized services - with Web3 you have all these building blocks available without a high cost central party managing databases, cloud costs, staffing, etc…
Edit: To clarify I’ve seen end users and bands want resale, it’s just not very profitable and hard to control fraud.
To summarize I’m saying that I think and hope that Web3 will have these businesses purpose as features of the infrastructure :)
There is nothing prohibitively expensive about running such a database. If you can't resell or transfer your ticket right now, its because the seller does not want you to resell it.
Crypto posts always take every problem as a technical problem without understanding that there are very few technical problems but intentional business restrictions. Those businesses have no incentives to move to a platform which takes this power out of their hands.
There is nothing stopping ticket sellers from allowing refunds on tickets which put the tickets back in to the available pool to buy again.
Crypto posts always take every problem as a technical problem without understanding that there are very few technical problems but intentional business restrictions. Those businesses have no incentives to move to a platform which takes this power out of their hands.
There is nothing stopping ticket sellers from allowing refunds on tickets which put the tickets back in to the available pool to buy again.
FYI, downvoting to disagree has always been ok on HN and the mods have reiterated that many times; first pg and then dang. Wherever you got the “down arrow is not an indication of agreement” thing, it wasn’t here.
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314
You get it. Everyone who says this is "dumb" said the internet, Facebook, Instagram, or Tik-tok was dumb too. Yet here they are.
Kinks need to be worked out, sure, but in ten to fifteen years artists will not be beholden to corporations. That is something to work towards and be very proud of.
Kinks need to be worked out, sure, but in ten to fifteen years artists will not be beholden to corporations. That is something to work towards and be very proud of.
There is a much much larger pile of garbage that was called dumb and just died off because it was.
NFTs have been a revolution for digital artists. I can’t tire of saying this here. Look at Hic Et Nunc or even better FXhash on Tezos (a low carbon chain).
FXhash has created a generative art market like it’s never existed before, it’s created an amazing art scene without precedent I’ve ever seen. It also allows for generative art to interact with the blockchain to make every art piece unique.
IE if you mint on FXhash, each generative art piece is slightly different due to a randomising function in the art pieces. This means each and every NFT is unique since they all went through a slightly different values for some of their features. I highly recommend anyone criticising NFTs to think about this since it’s an absolutely groundbreaking achievement in digital art that just wasn’t possible before. The artists scene around FXhash is just incredible.
FXhash has created a generative art market like it’s never existed before, it’s created an amazing art scene without precedent I’ve ever seen. It also allows for generative art to interact with the blockchain to make every art piece unique.
IE if you mint on FXhash, each generative art piece is slightly different due to a randomising function in the art pieces. This means each and every NFT is unique since they all went through a slightly different values for some of their features. I highly recommend anyone criticising NFTs to think about this since it’s an absolutely groundbreaking achievement in digital art that just wasn’t possible before. The artists scene around FXhash is just incredible.
So I looked up FXhash and from what I gathered, people write a function to generate an image, and then it gets run with some random inputs so you get a bunch of similar but slightly different images out.
To call this an “absolutely groundbreaking achievement in digital art that just wasn’t possible before.” is comically absurd.
To call this an “absolutely groundbreaking achievement in digital art that just wasn’t possible before.” is comically absurd.
Sure, then show me an open market where this was being done before at scale ?
Why does it have to be a market. Why does everything have to be about turning a profit. If you want computer generated art, I could show a billion examples. I could write my own function to generate a picture with no crypto technology.
If your argument boils down to “show me how people made lots of money on it”, then that is just confirming what I already believe. No substance, just profiting on hype.
If your argument boils down to “show me how people made lots of money on it”, then that is just confirming what I already believe. No substance, just profiting on hype.
Sure thing Gigachad. Those darn artists are just making too much damn money! They should all live off the socialist UBI we’re so close to implementing right? Or maybe they should just live in poverty and not complain so much?
Just all these darn artists making money! How many artists salaries have you paid off this month with your salary Gigachad?
Just all these darn artists making money! How many artists salaries have you paid off this month with your salary Gigachad?
I'm firmly of the same opinion, but the one thing I could see value for them would be in crowdfunding prizes, for example, as patreon rewards for the development of a video game. In that scenario, they have "real value" to the recipients, and money is exchanging hands for a very targeted purpose. Plus the NFTs are relatively low effort/cost. That seems like a win for everyone, but it is a very niche scenario.
I love this. What a great way to show, not tell. The FAQ is brilliant:
This reminds me of the 'save as' art theft meme.
"Why would I want to create a replica?"
Many NFTs have [rocket emoji] in price and are not affordable for most people. This allows you to still own a replica of a famous NFT. Think of it like an exact print of a favorite piece of art. The source of the NFT will be exactly the same as the original and it will even show up in your crypto wallet.
"How much does it cost?"
The price for a replica starts at 0.001 ETH. Each time a particular NFT piece is replicated, its next replication cost will double. So be sure to replicate popular pieces early!
"Why can't I replicate a replica?"
Do you want black holes? Because that's how you get black holes.
This reminds me of the 'save as' art theft meme.
I was about to praise this tool for exposing the artificial scarcity that are NFTs. It is trivial to mint your own copy.
Then I read the following in the FAQ:
> The price for a replica starts at 0.001 ETH. Each time a particular NFT piece is replicated, its next replication cost will double. So be sure to replicate popular pieces early!
Then I read the following in the FAQ:
> The price for a replica starts at 0.001 ETH. Each time a particular NFT piece is replicated, its next replication cost will double. So be sure to replicate popular pieces early!
They also have:
> Why can't I replicate a replica?
> Do you want black holes? Because that's how you get black holes.
Pretty sure the pricing is part of the whole joke[0]. It sounds an awful lot like the fictional cryptocurrency I came up with: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26120703
[0] God I do hope it is a joke
> Why can't I replicate a replica?
> Do you want black holes? Because that's how you get black holes.
Pretty sure the pricing is part of the whole joke[0]. It sounds an awful lot like the fictional cryptocurrency I came up with: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26120703
[0] God I do hope it is a joke
So somebody will launch a rival without this limitation.
The quicker can we play through this entire thing, the sooner it will be over.
The quicker can we play through this entire thing, the sooner it will be over.
I'm the creator of this tool. I understand the skepticism on that bit, but the reason I put the doubling price thing in was to just encourage some mild amount of urgency to at least make a transaction.
In practicality, with the abundance of popular NFTs out there and the starting price of just 0.001 ETH (which is around 4 bucks), I'm not exactly expecting to make much from this. Hell, it cost me over $400 in gas fees just to deploy the contract, I'd be counting my lucky stars if I even recoup that!
And to be clear, the price doubling is not global, but applied to each specific source NFT.
In practicality, with the abundance of popular NFTs out there and the starting price of just 0.001 ETH (which is around 4 bucks), I'm not exactly expecting to make much from this. Hell, it cost me over $400 in gas fees just to deploy the contract, I'd be counting my lucky stars if I even recoup that!
And to be clear, the price doubling is not global, but applied to each specific source NFT.
They are not copies though. They are replicas. The original is still unique. You're buying an entry on the blockchain and the scarcity of that is real.
> the scarcity of that is real.
Scarcity on it's own does not equal value. The value comes either from social consensus or direct utility.
Real numbers are scarce. There's only one of each.
Scarcity on it's own does not equal value. The value comes either from social consensus or direct utility.
Real numbers are scarce. There's only one of each.
This thread is the perfect example of a lack of grounded thinking in the Bitcoin/crypto community - a disconnect from practical reality.
I first noticed this incongruence with time tested business models when all Bitcoin related business plans/pitch decks, they'd never even list price comparisons as a competitive factor - arguably the #1 most important metric to address when wanting to disrupt an industry or model.
I first noticed this incongruence with time tested business models when all Bitcoin related business plans/pitch decks, they'd never even list price comparisons as a competitive factor - arguably the #1 most important metric to address when wanting to disrupt an industry or model.
I don't think the crypto community thinks it's magically is something it's not. Most serious NFT investors are probably well aware that all they're buying is just a ledger entry.
Blockchain has almost no practical uses right now but it does provide a way to make something digitally unique, even if it's just a JSON with an ID and an URL. Not saying the data is unique but the ledger entry is. Only one wallet can own it at a time and it's easily proven. Maybe it will never have any practical applications but I don't see how that could be done without a blockchain.
Blockchain has almost no practical uses right now but it does provide a way to make something digitally unique, even if it's just a JSON with an ID and an URL. Not saying the data is unique but the ledger entry is. Only one wallet can own it at a time and it's easily proven. Maybe it will never have any practical applications but I don't see how that could be done without a blockchain.
Scarcity on it's own does not equal value
This is an important point that a lot of the crypto bros don't seem to grasp.
Antiques and thrift stores are crammed with millions of things that are scarce. One-of-a-kind, even. But still nobody wants them. Eventually the cost of storing them becomes more than they're worth, and they go into the trash.
This is an important point that a lot of the crypto bros don't seem to grasp.
Antiques and thrift stores are crammed with millions of things that are scarce. One-of-a-kind, even. But still nobody wants them. Eventually the cost of storing them becomes more than they're worth, and they go into the trash.
> Real numbers are scarce. There’s only one of each.
This gives me ideas! Who wants to join me in this new fad?
This gives me ideas! Who wants to join me in this new fad?
I've already claimed all the rationals so hurry up.
You're buying an entry on the blockchain and the scarcity of that is real.
Except that unlike the original object, or even a replica, "an entry on the blockchain" has -- no intrinsic value whatsoever. It's basically like you're buying the rights to a "Like" on that painting, or trading card, or whatever. Nothing more.
My hunch though is that 90 percent of the people buying these things are utterly oblivious to this distinction. And that, plus "it's new" and "it's value is just going to keep skyrocketing" is essentially what is driving the NFT "market" as such.
Except that unlike the original object, or even a replica, "an entry on the blockchain" has -- no intrinsic value whatsoever. It's basically like you're buying the rights to a "Like" on that painting, or trading card, or whatever. Nothing more.
My hunch though is that 90 percent of the people buying these things are utterly oblivious to this distinction. And that, plus "it's new" and "it's value is just going to keep skyrocketing" is essentially what is driving the NFT "market" as such.
I don't claim it has intrinsic value (what has?) but it's still scarce. There's one entry on the blockchain and it's unique, even if it's just a number and a trace to the original wallet.
I also don't disagree with your second paragraph.
I also don't disagree with your second paragraph.
I don't claim it has intrinsic value (what has?)
Gosh, I don't know -- a loaf of bread? A shiny new car?
Do you understand the meaning of the word, actually?
But it's still scarce.
So what?
Gosh, I don't know -- a loaf of bread? A shiny new car?
Do you understand the meaning of the word, actually?
But it's still scarce.
So what?
Why the attitude? I'm responding to a post saying it is not actually scarce and explaining why I think it is. I'm not arguing for NFTs, but even if I did I don't think it warrants such a snarky response.
Anyway, my point with that parentheses was that there are a lot of things that has no intrinsic value but still has value on the market.
Anyway, my point with that parentheses was that there are a lot of things that has no intrinsic value but still has value on the market.
Why the attitude?
I didn't mean to come across with attitude.
Only that your question about intrinsic value seemed rather .. weird.
My point with that parentheses was that there are a lot of things that has no intrinsic value but still has value on the market.
Can you provide some examples, please?
I can think of plenty of market assets which have what we might say is slightly abstract kind of value -- "brands", naming rights to stadiums, etc -- but still, it's pretty straightforward to see the intrinsic utility they provide, and that this easily translates to dollars.
With NFTs though -- there just isn't it any. Other than to sell to the next sucker in line.
EDIT: Wait, I can think of one asset class that compares to NFTs: signed sports memorabilia. Which of course have crap resale value (except for items signed by ancient players like Joe Dimaggio). But the modern versions team franchises regularly crank out -- not so much.
I didn't mean to come across with attitude.
Only that your question about intrinsic value seemed rather .. weird.
My point with that parentheses was that there are a lot of things that has no intrinsic value but still has value on the market.
Can you provide some examples, please?
I can think of plenty of market assets which have what we might say is slightly abstract kind of value -- "brands", naming rights to stadiums, etc -- but still, it's pretty straightforward to see the intrinsic utility they provide, and that this easily translates to dollars.
With NFTs though -- there just isn't it any. Other than to sell to the next sucker in line.
EDIT: Wait, I can think of one asset class that compares to NFTs: signed sports memorabilia. Which of course have crap resale value (except for items signed by ancient players like Joe Dimaggio). But the modern versions team franchises regularly crank out -- not so much.
I own the only unique real copy of c6922832e65b60ab8517d7c1c5fd5911. Its scarcity, too, is real.
Hey, I own 6dee29bc-8798-4560-ba13-de94bac69333! We should start a club.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29509473
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29509473
The remarkable thing about artisanal integers is there's an infinite number of them and yet each one is a beautiful hand-crafted keepsake. http://www.neverendingbooks.org/artisanal-integers
Not sure what you're saying here but if you put c6922832e65b60ab8517d7c1c5fd5911 as a token on the blockchain there will indeed only be one with only one owner (you). The uniqueness is that it was minted by your wallet. There cannot be another entry like that.
NFTs are mostly just that. An ID minted by Wallet X which itself is unique and the social contract gives it a value. That's it.
NFTs are mostly just that. An ID minted by Wallet X which itself is unique and the social contract gives it a value. That's it.
Thank goodness your use of c6922832e65b60ab8517d7c1c5fd5911 did not impinge on my personal ownership of this valuable number. Plznorightclick.
Alright. I take it you don't want to discuss this seriously.
My number is owned by me. I have signed it and everything. If someone agrees to buy it from me I will use the same public key to sign the transfer. Would you like to buy it? It's a UUID, so it is guaranteed to be unique.
Yes, but how can you guarantee that you're not selling it to multiple people?
How can you tell the whether a given piece is original? You'd have to build a database of all NFTs in order to check. And perhaps the new image is slightly altered making it original.
You check the contract address of the collection. These replicas will point to an image url, but will not be part of the NFT collection that was launched. By their very nature, these only replicate existing NFTs, so the earlier NFT is clearly the provenance.
I guess one important thing to understand in these discussions is who exactly are you worried about?
-The original creator?
-The initial purchaser/minter from the original creator's collection?
-The person that currently owns the item in that collection?
-The replicator?
-The replicator that tries to sell a replicant?
-A future buyer that is trying to figure out which one to buy?
These are all distinct people with distinct realities. But people arbitrarily talk about a random one of these market participants as an indictment of the entire NFT concept, when each one is experiencing something unique that is either the same as the existing art world or better. Out of all 6 market participants, none of them encounter something worse than the non-NFT art world. Out of all 6, some of them encounter something better.
I guess one important thing to understand in these discussions is who exactly are you worried about?
-The original creator?
-The initial purchaser/minter from the original creator's collection?
-The person that currently owns the item in that collection?
-The replicator?
-The replicator that tries to sell a replicant?
-A future buyer that is trying to figure out which one to buy?
These are all distinct people with distinct realities. But people arbitrarily talk about a random one of these market participants as an indictment of the entire NFT concept, when each one is experiencing something unique that is either the same as the existing art world or better. Out of all 6 market participants, none of them encounter something worse than the non-NFT art world. Out of all 6, some of them encounter something better.
You see that it was minted by Wallet X, which the artist has confirmed is theirs. The image it's pointing to is irrelevant. You're buying a unique digital signature.
Is it inherently valuable? No, but it's scarce. There's only one such entry on the blockchain and it can only be owned by one wallet at a time.
Is it inherently valuable? No, but it's scarce. There's only one such entry on the blockchain and it can only be owned by one wallet at a time.
But anyone can create infinite ledgers and create their own entries on those ledgers all day. Snowflakes are unique too, but that doesn't mean any of them are particularly valuable.
What matters is who issued it. If you buy an NFT of a Tyler Hobbs painting it's valuable because it was minted by Tyler Hobbs. That one is on one ledger only and even if he himself starts putting it on multiple ledgers it would devalue itself naturally.
It's all a social construct.
It's all a social construct.
Sure, if you're going to argue from a position of economic nihilism that the only value anything is determined by what some idiot is willing to pay for it, then you can call that NFT valuable. That isn't much of a discussion though is it? Since I could also call Beanie Babies and tulip bulbs valuable. If I give my friend $100 for a red paperclip and he gives me $100 for a green paperclip could say those paperclips were worth $100.
I'm not saying anything about the intrinsic value here, only that the blockchain indeed provides a way to make something digitally actually scarce. Is it valuable in itself? Definitely not.
Right. You just ask the artist. And if you don't care who the artist is, then you can always buy the replica.
Yes, and I think a lot of people don't understand what they're buying and are just blinded by the hype. However, what gives say an NFT of one of Tyler Hobbs generative art paintings value is the fact that it was issued by Tyler Hobbs as part of his Fidenza collection. A random person uploading the same painting wouldn't be worth much if anything, unless the person buying it was tricked into thinking it was part of the original collection.
The word 'artificial' is similar but not quite the same as 'fake'.
A Michael Jordan rookie card is worth tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on grade. If I print a Michael Jordan rookie card onto cardstock, it will be worth basically nothing. The reason that something is valuable to collectors is the social contract between creator and recipient.
The value in NFTs exists by that same social contract. You can't ignore that relationship when criticizing them, otherwise you're attacking a strawman. Try attacking a steelman argument for NFTs, and you may actually convince some proponents.
The value in NFTs exists by that same social contract. You can't ignore that relationship when criticizing them, otherwise you're attacking a strawman. Try attacking a steelman argument for NFTs, and you may actually convince some proponents.
> The reason that something is valuable to collectors is the social contract between creator and recipient.
No, it’s because the valuable object is physically scarce, and exists as a material historical artifact independent of any ledger. NFTs have never and will never have these attributes.
You can't ignore this reality when advocating for them, otherwise you're peddling a fantasy.
No, it’s because the valuable object is physically scarce, and exists as a material historical artifact independent of any ledger. NFTs have never and will never have these attributes.
You can't ignore this reality when advocating for them, otherwise you're peddling a fantasy.
>No, it’s because the valuable object is physically scarce, and exists as a material historical artifact independent of any ledger. NFTs have never and will never have these attributes.
Collectible cards are scarce by design. Manufacturers print millions every year. They could reproduce the same card for decades. They could also print them on demand. Whenever someone orders the card, print it for them, and ship it out. It is artificial scarcity.
Collectible cards must be graded and registered to be valuable. An unregistered Michael Jordan rookie card would be assumed to be a fake. They exist in a ledger.
The social contract between collectors and manufacturers is what creates the value. The manufacturer agrees to generate verifiable scarcity, and the collector agrees to purchase seemingly worthless cardboard and ink at a markup.
Collectible cards are scarce by design. Manufacturers print millions every year. They could reproduce the same card for decades. They could also print them on demand. Whenever someone orders the card, print it for them, and ship it out. It is artificial scarcity.
Collectible cards must be graded and registered to be valuable. An unregistered Michael Jordan rookie card would be assumed to be a fake. They exist in a ledger.
The social contract between collectors and manufacturers is what creates the value. The manufacturer agrees to generate verifiable scarcity, and the collector agrees to purchase seemingly worthless cardboard and ink at a markup.
> independent of any ledger
This seems an arbitrary restriction to me. Why must something be independent of a ledger to have value?
This seems an arbitrary restriction to me. Why must something be independent of a ledger to have value?
This is a property that NFTs can never have, so claiming that NFTs are equivalent to physical collectibles is certainly false.
If you are saying that something requires a ledger entry to have value, then you are simply proving that it has no intrinsic value.
If you are saying that something requires a ledger entry to have value, then you are simply proving that it has no intrinsic value.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value :
> An intrinsic theory of value (also called theory of objective value) is any theory of value in economics which holds that the value of an object, good or service, is intrinsic, meaning that it can be estimated using objective measures.
If you use "what someone last paid for it" as a measure of intrinsic value, then they have intrinsic value.
> An intrinsic theory of value (also called theory of objective value) is any theory of value in economics which holds that the value of an object, good or service, is intrinsic, meaning that it can be estimated using objective measures.
If you use "what someone last paid for it" as a measure of intrinsic value, then they have intrinsic value.
> If you use "what someone last paid for it" as a measure of intrinsic value, then they have intrinsic value.
Clearly this doesn’t meet the requirements of an objective measure.
A single tulip bulb was purchased for 2500 florins in 1636. That represents 10 years of a skilled laborers earnings at the time.
If you believe that the price an NFT sold for on a ledger represents its intrinsic value, then you must also believe that a tulip bulb’s intrinsic value was equivalent to 10 years of skilled labor.
Obviously this is absurd, and history proved it so.
Clearly this doesn’t meet the requirements of an objective measure.
A single tulip bulb was purchased for 2500 florins in 1636. That represents 10 years of a skilled laborers earnings at the time.
If you believe that the price an NFT sold for on a ledger represents its intrinsic value, then you must also believe that a tulip bulb’s intrinsic value was equivalent to 10 years of skilled labor.
Obviously this is absurd, and history proved it so.
> objective measure
How would a bunch of subjective meatbags be able to come up with an objective measure?
If everyone agreed that X is an objective measure, it could still be wrong.
Give me a concrete example of what you think is an objective measure.
How would a bunch of subjective meatbags be able to come up with an objective measure?
If everyone agreed that X is an objective measure, it could still be wrong.
Give me a concrete example of what you think is an objective measure.
Sorry - I edited my comment while you were posting this. Feel free to reply to my full comment, since I address the consequences of this line of reasoning there.
Thank you for the response! And sorry for taking so long with mine.
I agree that the example you provided is a more "objective" one, more grounded in physical reality - a tulip costing the same as a 10 years' salary.
> Obviously this is absurd, and history proved it so.
Had the tulips kept their scarcity, and had social interest remained at such high levels, couldn't it have kept its value?
An example I have is gold: people have been hoarding and valuing it for millennia. Sure, it occasionally crashes, but so do a lot of assets. Is it in a constant bubble? Is it overvalued? What is the intrinsic value of gold? It is not very useful in itself, but it is in demand and scarce, as opposed to fiat currency, which is in free fall.
http://pricedingold.com/us-dollar/
I argue that value comes from what people attribute it to be. The markets are an aggregation of such value decisions from many people.
I agree that the example you provided is a more "objective" one, more grounded in physical reality - a tulip costing the same as a 10 years' salary.
> Obviously this is absurd, and history proved it so.
Had the tulips kept their scarcity, and had social interest remained at such high levels, couldn't it have kept its value?
An example I have is gold: people have been hoarding and valuing it for millennia. Sure, it occasionally crashes, but so do a lot of assets. Is it in a constant bubble? Is it overvalued? What is the intrinsic value of gold? It is not very useful in itself, but it is in demand and scarce, as opposed to fiat currency, which is in free fall.
http://pricedingold.com/us-dollar/
I argue that value comes from what people attribute it to be. The markets are an aggregation of such value decisions from many people.
It seems like you are in full agreement with me that the way we value NFTs is exactly equivalent to the valuing of Tulips during the bubble of 1637.
> Had the tulips kept their scarcity,
They did.
> and had social interest remained at such high levels, couldn't it have kept its value?
You mean if the tulip bubble had never burst would we still be paying 10 years of a skilled persons salary for one? Sure.
It’s worth noting that the courts ultimately held the debts owed for Tulip futures to be ‘gambling debts’…
> Had the tulips kept their scarcity,
They did.
> and had social interest remained at such high levels, couldn't it have kept its value?
You mean if the tulip bubble had never burst would we still be paying 10 years of a skilled persons salary for one? Sure.
It’s worth noting that the courts ultimately held the debts owed for Tulip futures to be ‘gambling debts’…
> You mean if the tulip bubble had never burst? Sure.
Exactly. There is no guarantee the NFT bubble will burst! People might keep enjoying these, and investing a significant portion of their lives.
Exactly. There is no guarantee the NFT bubble will burst! People might keep enjoying these, and investing a significant portion of their lives.
Yes, just like with the Tulip Bubble! It might never have burst, and then we would never have needed NFTs because we’d still be trading tulips.
A card that people want to collect in your example is scarce because it cannot be re-created with the same properties that the ones that already exist have; all one could do is create a replica.
NFTs are artificial scarcity ahead of time with the purpose of emulating ETFs, hidden behind a fake 'new' concept of a digital deed (which is what a blockchain already is, no need for NFTs for that). Digital 'goods' however, are always replicas. There is no 'true' version. All they are is an attempt at monetary manipulation of people during the time in which they aren't as well-known and regulated as ETFs are.
NFTs are artificial scarcity ahead of time with the purpose of emulating ETFs, hidden behind a fake 'new' concept of a digital deed (which is what a blockchain already is, no need for NFTs for that). Digital 'goods' however, are always replicas. There is no 'true' version. All they are is an attempt at monetary manipulation of people during the time in which they aren't as well-known and regulated as ETFs are.
A Michael Jordan rookie card is rare because only a certain number of them were physically made. An NFT is rare because we decide it is rare (the physical constraints are not the same as the rookie card), I don't know if they are exactly the same. The minted copy here is exactly the same, pixel by pixel, to the original.
I also find that when we start applying analogies to something as an argument we are detaching from the reality of what we have. It is meant to simplify, and appeal to people who are not familiar with the topic at hand. No matter how wrong the analogy is (or right) we are inherently shifting the conversations to something different. I know this analogy is trying to say an NFT is scarce, but it IS quite different than a Michael Jordan rookie card in its execution, management, and a lot of the things that make a Michael Jordan rookie card worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I also find that when we start applying analogies to something as an argument we are detaching from the reality of what we have. It is meant to simplify, and appeal to people who are not familiar with the topic at hand. No matter how wrong the analogy is (or right) we are inherently shifting the conversations to something different. I know this analogy is trying to say an NFT is scarce, but it IS quite different than a Michael Jordan rookie card in its execution, management, and a lot of the things that make a Michael Jordan rookie card worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Funny part is that I don't think the actual image even has to be copied. What is on the blockchain is just metadata, including a URL (or multiple) where the actual image is stored. You can just copy the metadata.
[deleted]
A MJ rookie card is worth a lot because it’s MJ, the best ball player of all time.
How is a NFT drawn by a random artist of a random image worth so much?
How is a NFT drawn by a random artist of a random image worth so much?
If we're steelmanning the argument, then I think you'd have to ask what makes an NFT of a digital artwork by a famous digital artist worth so much.
A bubble inflated by people rich from crypto-currencies.
They are less than 1% of all the NfTS with inflated prices. No need to argue about the outliers
It’s sort of the same, but what I don’t get is how things like that rainbow cat and other famous internet pictures are NFTs. I mean, if the picture was around for twenty years before it became a NFT, then how is the NFT the “original”.
Going that line of thought, what happens if two people make the same picture into a NFT?
Going that line of thought, what happens if two people make the same picture into a NFT?
It depends who the people are.
Anyone can make an NFT of Nyan cat. That doesn't give it value.
If the original creator of Nyan cat creates an NFT of it, and only one NFT, suddenly it has a ton of value.
Anyone can make an NFT of Nyan cat. That doesn't give it value.
If the original creator of Nyan cat creates an NFT of it, and only one NFT, suddenly it has a ton of value.
Clearly people believe it's something more than what you're saying, for some reason. I have no problem with the concept of collectibles and collectors. But "collectibles, but on a blockchain" doesn't warrant the current levels of mania and "entrepreneurial" exploitation.
That social contract is stored off-chain (if at all), and the work itself is stored off-chain. Combined with the fact that you can perfectly duplicate the thing that is stored on the blockchain and I think that all radically reduces the value proposition of NFTs.
This is not a good comparison, because an NFT gives you neither legal ownership nor physical access to the item it is for. For digital items, NFTs don't even provide the actual file.
> The price for a replica starts at 0.001 ETH. Each time a particular NFT piece is replicated, its next replication cost will double. So be sure to replicate popular pieces early!
So who gets the replication fees? Is this just a cash grab by the authors of the site?
So who gets the replication fees? Is this just a cash grab by the authors of the site?
It's crypto. The entire idea is a cash grab.
Looks like SaaS to me. Looks like the funnel is superior and small too. We should just be discussing the revenue multiple, since the same standard should apply. What year does that start?
It's technology. If people want to use it as a cash grab. So be it.
If people want to do more with it, they can do that too.
If people want to do more with it, they can do that too.
I'm the creator of the app. I just wanted to create something that was fun/useful with some very mild sense of urgency and scarcity to it. With a starting price of 0.001 ETH per replica, I highly doubt I'll even recoup the >$400 in gas fees I paid to deploy the contract.
My understanding is that minting an NFT always costs money (gas fees that go to the broader mining network to pay the miners for doing the processing). So the cost isn't solely for the benefit of the website maintainers, though I'm sure they're taking a cut too.
The quoted fee is 100% a fee to the website and is separate from gas cost. He could charge no fee, but you would still pay gas. It's a cash grab.
The most interesting aspect of NFTs IMO is that they explore what ownership really means.
Is it physically possessing something? Is it a receipt? Is it provenance? Is it the ability to destroy something permanently? Is it the ability to deny others access? Is it irrefutable and verifiable proof, without trusting any single entity, that an entity holds an exclusive status relative to a good?
Is it physically possessing something? Is it a receipt? Is it provenance? Is it the ability to destroy something permanently? Is it the ability to deny others access? Is it irrefutable and verifiable proof, without trusting any single entity, that an entity holds an exclusive status relative to a good?
Yes, but this discussion about "ownership" goes back literally thousands of years. And 100+ years in the modern age of copyright and information reproduction. There is a whole lot of established precedent and knowledge and thought on the subject. The NFT world acts mostly ignorant of it, perhaps because they're much more interested in scamming people out of money than contributing to our culture of information.
it's none of these things because all you buy is an hyperlink. If the art itself was hosted on the blockchain directly (they are not, it would be too expensive), then it would be interesting.
some are. some people care about completely onchain art.
minting a completely image onchain is also not too expensive and can also be passed on to the community, as most relevant NFT collections are minted by the community and not the artist. people stand up their own websites for this, the people minting their own artwork directly on the marketplaces are their own segment and that has remained a race to the bottom with starving artists crowding it.
minting a completely image onchain is also not too expensive and can also be passed on to the community, as most relevant NFT collections are minted by the community and not the artist. people stand up their own websites for this, the people minting their own artwork directly on the marketplaces are their own segment and that has remained a race to the bottom with starving artists crowding it.
NFTs aside, this is a solid question: "what is ownership"?
It's a pretty simple question. It's control. As the owner of an asset, I have control over how I use it. I own a house, I can control what I do to it (within the limits of the outside laws). I own a source repository, I can control what changes are accepted. I own a domain, I can control what it points to. I own a digital soward in a game, I can sell it or I can use it in game.
Ownership has limits, in the real world those are regulated by the government. In the digital world they can be regulated by a DAO. But ultimately, there are benefits of ownership, and responsibilities to ownership.
Ownership has limits, in the real world those are regulated by the government. In the digital world they can be regulated by a DAO. But ultimately, there are benefits of ownership, and responsibilities to ownership.
NFTs are essentially a technical fraud that combines the failures of DRM technologies with the failures of perceptual hash functions. Whereas blockchains provide a novel solution to the double-spending problem through distributed consensus to enforce scarcity and have real applications based on proven technical merit, NFTs tokenize digital media which can be copied through analog means as with any other piece of digital media hence zero scarcity and zero need for tokenization, and the uniqueness of an NFT is impossible due to the limitations of hash functions hence scarcity also fails in this respect. NFTs aren't actually technically possible. Imagine going to an art gallery and seeing hundreds of Mona Lisa prints next to each other that look the same and taking pictures of them with your DSLR good enough that you don't need to buy a print and some guy says they are all unique and special because they are one pixel different, that's NFTs.
Soon you'll need a way to authenticate NFTs (prove that the one you're bidding on was minted by the advertised artist), and then you'll immediately lose the proposed benefits of NFTs -- decentralization and anonymous trust.
It’s not that difficult. Artists, original creators will write down their .eth or wallet address on their profile. Or just compare the timestamps of the creation of the smart contracts and the tokens.
That doesn't solve the issue. You have no way of knowing if the art I'm selling as NFT was made by me or if I copied it from the webpage/DeviantArt of an other artist. Being the first to create an NFT of an image doesn't mean you created the image. And if the images are slightly edited to prevent google image searches (or similar technique), people might never know that 3 people are selling the same stolen image.
That’s why I’ll rely on the .eth or wallet address listed by the artist on deviantart. NFT buyers buying from scammers aren’t doing their due diligence to check if it’s legit or not; they could simply contact the artists directly to confirm if the listing is real.. I’ve done just that, contacting the artist directly to make sure.
If you ask “well, how do you know that’s their real deviant profile?”, at that point, it’s not a crypto/NFT problem, but an identity problem. My understanding is that keybase.io was one way to do that, but I never used it so I can’t say much. What if a scammer registered the keybase first before the real artist? Not sure what happens in that case.
If you ask “well, how do you know that’s their real deviant profile?”, at that point, it’s not a crypto/NFT problem, but an identity problem. My understanding is that keybase.io was one way to do that, but I never used it so I can’t say much. What if a scammer registered the keybase first before the real artist? Not sure what happens in that case.
If that's the case, then the NFT is no longer the thing proving authenticity, the artist is. Then what is the NFT for?
It’s both. The artist registers an .ETH name and/or puts their wallet address on their profile, and the NFT proves that the artist originally created the smart contract, and/or minted the NFT, and is now owned by the user, shown on the chain.
I want to be excited about Web3 and feel I'm missing something, given how many smart minds are. But every time someone talks about NFTs on a podcast I feel there are many questions not answered.
For example - Kevin Rose has minted 1000 NFT's for "membership" of his podcast VIP group. Users had to pay ~3 ETH (~$12k) for each one - but he hasn't yet told them what the benefits of holding will be, when they'll come, and how long they'll be offered for.
As a user, I might be prepared to pay a membership for these benefits (being able to cancel any time) - but why would I risk $12k up front, having no idea what I'm getting? What incentive does he have to offer beyond the bare minimum to sustain his reputation?
The only way it makes sense is if it's about pure price speculation. Can anyone enlighten me on how this is progress?
For example - Kevin Rose has minted 1000 NFT's for "membership" of his podcast VIP group. Users had to pay ~3 ETH (~$12k) for each one - but he hasn't yet told them what the benefits of holding will be, when they'll come, and how long they'll be offered for.
As a user, I might be prepared to pay a membership for these benefits (being able to cancel any time) - but why would I risk $12k up front, having no idea what I'm getting? What incentive does he have to offer beyond the bare minimum to sustain his reputation?
The only way it makes sense is if it's about pure price speculation. Can anyone enlighten me on how this is progress?
You are not missing something. There is no Web3 other than a brief mania propped up by a bunch of black market cryptocurrency interest.
Yes, that is speculation. But there is also great art being sold that you may feel good about owning.
In what sense would I "own" the art? Do I have more rights over it than anyone else - and if so, how are these legally enforced? What prevents the artist from minting a different type of NFT (or whatever comes next) on that same artwork?
When people say own, they are referring to current possession. This a colloquialism that does not distinguish the legal rights, surprising that this has to even be said but it keeps coming up exclusively in the NFT topic. Try not to overthink it?
An artist can attempt to additionally bundle explicit rights into an NFT transaction. Just like they can attempt to bundle a physically copyright assignment with a sale of physical art. But they don't, in either case, thats not how the market has formed. Its a very uncommon thing that also has nothing to do with the technology, but the technology can help it, its still not what people are doing.
"But I like physical things because theyre valuable to me because I can touch them and look at them without a computer", okay, there are multiple generations of people that don't care by now. Compare it to the digital things then.
These populations do care that their earned digital goods are arbitrary modifiable and revokable entries in a company database, and have different limits about how much money they put towards something like that, versus this format of possession.
An artist can attempt to additionally bundle explicit rights into an NFT transaction. Just like they can attempt to bundle a physically copyright assignment with a sale of physical art. But they don't, in either case, thats not how the market has formed. Its a very uncommon thing that also has nothing to do with the technology, but the technology can help it, its still not what people are doing.
"But I like physical things because theyre valuable to me because I can touch them and look at them without a computer", okay, there are multiple generations of people that don't care by now. Compare it to the digital things then.
These populations do care that their earned digital goods are arbitrary modifiable and revokable entries in a company database, and have different limits about how much money they put towards something like that, versus this format of possession.
Limiting ourselves to the digital world - does ownership of an NFT give me any more rights to experience or enjoy a piece of work than a non-owner? If someone else wanted to use my Bored Ape as their Twitter photo, could I stop them?
Yes, it does. Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC), for example, has physical clubs and events that require users to prove provenance for access. This means signing an address that is a current owner, and applies to both physical and digital access of tertiary goods and services. Signing an address proves access to that address and means they have the private key to move everything.
The "right click and save as" "screenshot" and "twitter photo" people would not have access. Even the replicants discussed in the OP here would not have access.
Additionally, many popular NFTs, like BAYC, get airdropped many things for attention, some of which have varying degrees of value, or BAYC may be the only ones available to mint another new NFT being dropped. This would be enforced at the code or smart contract level. It is common for many less valuable or otherwise uninteresting NFTs to partner up and collaborate with other NFTs to make this chain of communities. Sometimes that results in some level of value. By common, I mean over the last 5 months in the NFT space. This concept has pre-dated NFT related things, and some of my best trades have been from either receiving airdrops or claiming things that went on to have a lot of value. But I really like some of the worthless things I've claimed too.
The "right click and save as" "screenshot" and "twitter photo" people would not have access. Even the replicants discussed in the OP here would not have access.
Additionally, many popular NFTs, like BAYC, get airdropped many things for attention, some of which have varying degrees of value, or BAYC may be the only ones available to mint another new NFT being dropped. This would be enforced at the code or smart contract level. It is common for many less valuable or otherwise uninteresting NFTs to partner up and collaborate with other NFTs to make this chain of communities. Sometimes that results in some level of value. By common, I mean over the last 5 months in the NFT space. This concept has pre-dated NFT related things, and some of my best trades have been from either receiving airdrops or claiming things that went on to have a lot of value. But I really like some of the worthless things I've claimed too.
> "physical clubs and events that require users to prove provenance for access"
Feels like the "access to physical events" problem was solved before NFTs.
> The "right click and save as" "screenshot" and "twitter photo" people would not have access.
But per original question - if I wanted to use any Bored Ape as my Twitter photo, is there anything stopping me?
Take your point re: additional digital goods being delivered on chain, just feels a little anemic vs the richness of everything else available for free (or behind a membership) online. If users didn't care primarily about price appreciation, not sure whether that part would be exciting.
Maybe it requires the collector gene to be enthused? If so, can these kinds of Web3 applications ever go mainstream as Web2 apps?
Feels like the "access to physical events" problem was solved before NFTs.
> The "right click and save as" "screenshot" and "twitter photo" people would not have access.
But per original question - if I wanted to use any Bored Ape as my Twitter photo, is there anything stopping me?
Take your point re: additional digital goods being delivered on chain, just feels a little anemic vs the richness of everything else available for free (or behind a membership) online. If users didn't care primarily about price appreciation, not sure whether that part would be exciting.
Maybe it requires the collector gene to be enthused? If so, can these kinds of Web3 applications ever go mainstream as Web2 apps?
> Feels like the "access to physical events" problem was solved before NFTs.
I don't really consider it solved, has Ticketmaster solved festival passes in a way everyone likes? When organizers aren't using ticketmaster, is transferring the ticket solved or is it rife with scams and abuse and arbitrary restrictions and guesswork. The tertiary benefit is also not something NFT's are aiming to solve. You asked and got an answer about what people are doing. Not what it was created to do.
There is nothing stopping you from using a Twitter photo. Also not something an NFT was claiming to solve. This is just a viral strawman where other people created a use case that wasn't presented and then criticized that use case to discredit the other thing. If you want to pretend to own something valuable or be part of a community you can still do that. I don't really understand what that means to you. I guess that's a good follow up question, what does that mean to you?
There is nothing wrong with speculation. This is not exclusive to the NFT space either when it comes to art or any collectible. I'm really having trouble with all the higher standards you are procedurally generating for this one space.
In any case, membership is actually a good example. If NYTimes stopped making infinite memberships, paid monthly, and instead limited it to, say, 100,000 memberships and some of their operation was funded by a portion of royalties when one of the membership was traded, what would the memberships cost? What would people be willing to pay? What would NYTimes have to do to make people willing to pay for access to their investigative journalism? All that's happening is that you are seeing price discovery in a place where there was none. Replace NYTimes with one of the finance ones like WSJ, if that's easier. or with Soho House memberships.
I don't really consider it solved, has Ticketmaster solved festival passes in a way everyone likes? When organizers aren't using ticketmaster, is transferring the ticket solved or is it rife with scams and abuse and arbitrary restrictions and guesswork. The tertiary benefit is also not something NFT's are aiming to solve. You asked and got an answer about what people are doing. Not what it was created to do.
There is nothing stopping you from using a Twitter photo. Also not something an NFT was claiming to solve. This is just a viral strawman where other people created a use case that wasn't presented and then criticized that use case to discredit the other thing. If you want to pretend to own something valuable or be part of a community you can still do that. I don't really understand what that means to you. I guess that's a good follow up question, what does that mean to you?
There is nothing wrong with speculation. This is not exclusive to the NFT space either when it comes to art or any collectible. I'm really having trouble with all the higher standards you are procedurally generating for this one space.
In any case, membership is actually a good example. If NYTimes stopped making infinite memberships, paid monthly, and instead limited it to, say, 100,000 memberships and some of their operation was funded by a portion of royalties when one of the membership was traded, what would the memberships cost? What would people be willing to pay? What would NYTimes have to do to make people willing to pay for access to their investigative journalism? All that's happening is that you are seeing price discovery in a place where there was none. Replace NYTimes with one of the finance ones like WSJ, if that's easier. or with Soho House memberships.
> I don't really consider it solved, has Ticketmaster solved festival passes in a way everyone likes?
I hate Ticketmaster as much as the next guy, but had a fine experience with the resellers (e.g. StubHub) which offer many things NFTs do not - like customer service (with an actual phone number), a centralized record if I lose my ticket, refunds if the seller mis-represents, no requirement to buy an asset that will likely fluctuate wildly in price, and transaction fees likely lower than gas fees. Not sold on giving up those benefits.
> If you want to pretend to own something valuable or be part of a community you can still do that. I don't really understand what that means to you. I guess that's a good follow up question, what does that mean to you?
I haven't been part of one of these communities, so hard to comment on the value of being a true member or just appearing to be one. If Bored Apes lost 99% of their value, would the community remain equally rich and engaged? What do they truly have in common?
> If NYTimes stopped making infinite memberships, paid monthly, and instead limited it to, say, 100,000 memberships and some of their operation was funded by a portion of royalties when one of the membership was traded, what would the memberships cost?
I'm skeptical limiting access to quality journalism and inflating the price can really be counted as a good use case. For a Soho House membership, I'd much prefer to pay a monthly rate based on what I'm receiving - rather than speculate that (a) they'll continue improving the offer, such that the value of my token will increase; (b) the broader NFT market won't crash.
Soho House's financial team would also likely want to project their earnings next year without making assumptions around sustained interest in NFTs.
I hate Ticketmaster as much as the next guy, but had a fine experience with the resellers (e.g. StubHub) which offer many things NFTs do not - like customer service (with an actual phone number), a centralized record if I lose my ticket, refunds if the seller mis-represents, no requirement to buy an asset that will likely fluctuate wildly in price, and transaction fees likely lower than gas fees. Not sold on giving up those benefits.
> If you want to pretend to own something valuable or be part of a community you can still do that. I don't really understand what that means to you. I guess that's a good follow up question, what does that mean to you?
I haven't been part of one of these communities, so hard to comment on the value of being a true member or just appearing to be one. If Bored Apes lost 99% of their value, would the community remain equally rich and engaged? What do they truly have in common?
> If NYTimes stopped making infinite memberships, paid monthly, and instead limited it to, say, 100,000 memberships and some of their operation was funded by a portion of royalties when one of the membership was traded, what would the memberships cost?
I'm skeptical limiting access to quality journalism and inflating the price can really be counted as a good use case. For a Soho House membership, I'd much prefer to pay a monthly rate based on what I'm receiving - rather than speculate that (a) they'll continue improving the offer, such that the value of my token will increase; (b) the broader NFT market won't crash.
Soho House's financial team would also likely want to project their earnings next year without making assumptions around sustained interest in NFTs.
Perfect, now we've moved to pragmatic criticism of the current state of NFTs that have nothing to do with the concept of NFTs.
(Non NFT tickets fluctuate wildly in price. Transaction fees on almost all chains are extremely low as gas is negligible in cost, with Ethereum mainnet being an exception.)
So we have less revocable or irrevocable digital goods that are tradable, scarce per collection that provably predates any subsequent issuance, tertiary benefits to physical and digital access, and membership. Even if this technology only was considered to do any of each of those things moderately well, instead of replacing any incumbent implementation, you still have trouble with .... what exactly? We've now agreed that each one is a single asset that does many things at least decently well without any custom implementation needed to be built even if the existing ONE thing in each category has an okay incumbent, and you get a fun picture to go with it. Yes, to some people that has aggregate value.
What are you still having trouble with at this point:
-Whether you should ever own/possess one?
-Whether you should ever use money to own/possess one?
-Something about speculation being bad?
-Something about not knowing if the market will still be there for resell and wondering if that would make everyone else leave the NFT space?
It seems like cognitive dissonance to me, since some of these ideas compete with each other.
(Non NFT tickets fluctuate wildly in price. Transaction fees on almost all chains are extremely low as gas is negligible in cost, with Ethereum mainnet being an exception.)
So we have less revocable or irrevocable digital goods that are tradable, scarce per collection that provably predates any subsequent issuance, tertiary benefits to physical and digital access, and membership. Even if this technology only was considered to do any of each of those things moderately well, instead of replacing any incumbent implementation, you still have trouble with .... what exactly? We've now agreed that each one is a single asset that does many things at least decently well without any custom implementation needed to be built even if the existing ONE thing in each category has an okay incumbent, and you get a fun picture to go with it. Yes, to some people that has aggregate value.
What are you still having trouble with at this point:
-Whether you should ever own/possess one?
-Whether you should ever use money to own/possess one?
-Something about speculation being bad?
-Something about not knowing if the market will still be there for resell and wondering if that would make everyone else leave the NFT space?
It seems like cognitive dissonance to me, since some of these ideas compete with each other.
> pragmatic criticism of the current state of NFTs that have nothing to do with the concept of NFTs.
Which NFTs include a central authority able to re-issue my ticket if I lose it, address mis-representation by sellers, give refunds if the performance doesn't happen, etc? Isn't that lack of a central authority - and its attendant downsides - core to the medium?
> Non NFT tickets fluctuate wildly in price.
Which non NFT tickets have fluctuated like Bored Ape NFTs this year, and which are highly susceptible to market sentiment for the entire ticketing medium?
> What are you still having trouble with at this point:
Trying to understand how many people I respect have such enthusiasm for a medium which appears to have many downsides vs the status quo - and not yet a killer app like e.g. Gmail, Maps, Facebook to justify the Web2->Web3 transition. No doubt I'm missing something, just trying to understand what.
There's been enthusiasm for smart contracts for 5+ years, but which mainstream consumer or B2B apps have yet implemented them for non-speculation use cases?
How would it be progress for the New York Times to restrict access to quality journalism - or for Soho House to expose its future cash flows to extreme market volatility?
Which NFTs include a central authority able to re-issue my ticket if I lose it, address mis-representation by sellers, give refunds if the performance doesn't happen, etc? Isn't that lack of a central authority - and its attendant downsides - core to the medium?
> Non NFT tickets fluctuate wildly in price.
Which non NFT tickets have fluctuated like Bored Ape NFTs this year, and which are highly susceptible to market sentiment for the entire ticketing medium?
> What are you still having trouble with at this point:
Trying to understand how many people I respect have such enthusiasm for a medium which appears to have many downsides vs the status quo - and not yet a killer app like e.g. Gmail, Maps, Facebook to justify the Web2->Web3 transition. No doubt I'm missing something, just trying to understand what.
There's been enthusiasm for smart contracts for 5+ years, but which mainstream consumer or B2B apps have yet implemented them for non-speculation use cases?
How would it be progress for the New York Times to restrict access to quality journalism - or for Soho House to expose its future cash flows to extreme market volatility?
Plenty of NFT projects have issued refunds directly to current holders. It's just a management decision and wouldn't really make the news.
Many festivals have direct sales for a few hundred dollars, resold for a few thousand before the festival occurs and the ticket is redeemed. Similar price moves are much more common in the NFT space than a move to a Bored Ape amount ($200,000 at time of writing). If several hundred percent isn't considered volatile enough for comparison, that really discredits the good faith efforts of this conversation.
> but which mainstream consumer or B2B apps have yet implemented them for non-speculation use cases?
Its crypto and everything else. At this point you can stop looking. If you are doing a crypto app and trying to make a sales process and funnel for people not in the crypto space, then you're wasting your time. There are already 2-3 trillion dollars of value in the space and high volume onchain and offchain. Many people are providing financial services to speculators, just like people that provide ... financial services to speculators in the rest of the economy. People extract value by making some other aspect of the ecosystem easier for other people.
> How would it be progress for the New York Times to restrict access to quality journalism - or for Soho House to expose its future cash flows to extreme market volatility?
The question is how much would the owners pay for that access. Not whether it is a viable business model the issuer gambled on. There are plenty of NFT projects that didn't get enough resales for that half-year-old model to be seen as viable for royalties or the community. Some are actively traded enough that it doesn't turn out to be a rip off. Guess who still earned all the money from the original sale but only talked about what they might do with royalties from after market sales, so the question is always "whose problem is it".
People are enthused because they get to experiment. Just move a function around, alter one variable in a class and viola' the hit of the week and $24,000,000[1] that people are very appreciative of. Maybe they've done something sustainable maybe not. People want to participate for whats possible. The prices from the original issuer are moderate/predictable or even free, the stuff that makes the headlines is just all enthused people that need to make their own objective decisions.
[1] https://www.adidas.com/into_the_metaverse/mint here Adidas is embracing that people like to buy and resell their merchandise, frequently at massive premiums, so they are only letting NFT holders authenticate to purchase for a specific future drop instead. They were about $800 each and they sold 30,000 of them. A merch flipper can price their own potential future revenues accordingly, or just be an actual collector first in line to collect the merchandise. Each experiment is different, available to be debated in isolation, it is impossible to use a broad brush because the word NFT is involved. Obviously someone is free to put one of these on their twitter avatar, it should be obvious that this won't help them with access to the Adidas drops. "Oh my god speculation I knewwww it, bot infested free for alls were so adequate", just a strawman for some fun (or is it), we can laugh
Many festivals have direct sales for a few hundred dollars, resold for a few thousand before the festival occurs and the ticket is redeemed. Similar price moves are much more common in the NFT space than a move to a Bored Ape amount ($200,000 at time of writing). If several hundred percent isn't considered volatile enough for comparison, that really discredits the good faith efforts of this conversation.
> but which mainstream consumer or B2B apps have yet implemented them for non-speculation use cases?
Its crypto and everything else. At this point you can stop looking. If you are doing a crypto app and trying to make a sales process and funnel for people not in the crypto space, then you're wasting your time. There are already 2-3 trillion dollars of value in the space and high volume onchain and offchain. Many people are providing financial services to speculators, just like people that provide ... financial services to speculators in the rest of the economy. People extract value by making some other aspect of the ecosystem easier for other people.
> How would it be progress for the New York Times to restrict access to quality journalism - or for Soho House to expose its future cash flows to extreme market volatility?
The question is how much would the owners pay for that access. Not whether it is a viable business model the issuer gambled on. There are plenty of NFT projects that didn't get enough resales for that half-year-old model to be seen as viable for royalties or the community. Some are actively traded enough that it doesn't turn out to be a rip off. Guess who still earned all the money from the original sale but only talked about what they might do with royalties from after market sales, so the question is always "whose problem is it".
People are enthused because they get to experiment. Just move a function around, alter one variable in a class and viola' the hit of the week and $24,000,000[1] that people are very appreciative of. Maybe they've done something sustainable maybe not. People want to participate for whats possible. The prices from the original issuer are moderate/predictable or even free, the stuff that makes the headlines is just all enthused people that need to make their own objective decisions.
[1] https://www.adidas.com/into_the_metaverse/mint here Adidas is embracing that people like to buy and resell their merchandise, frequently at massive premiums, so they are only letting NFT holders authenticate to purchase for a specific future drop instead. They were about $800 each and they sold 30,000 of them. A merch flipper can price their own potential future revenues accordingly, or just be an actual collector first in line to collect the merchandise. Each experiment is different, available to be debated in isolation, it is impossible to use a broad brush because the word NFT is involved. Obviously someone is free to put one of these on their twitter avatar, it should be obvious that this won't help them with access to the Adidas drops. "Oh my god speculation I knewwww it, bot infested free for alls were so adequate", just a strawman for some fun (or is it), we can laugh
No, you don't have more rights than anyone else, and nothing prevents the artist from minting more NFTs of the same artwork. But this is no different than buying say a print of a fine art photograph (that print would be physical, yet only artificially limited and easily mass-produced; you may or may not care about this quality).
Feels a little different, in that I'd then have a fine art print to put on my wall and enjoy. In this case I have a string of characters on a hard drive. If I didn't care only about price appreciation, why would I pick the latter?
Digital things will never be able to reproduce the physical qualities of objects. Yet digital art exists and can be appreciated. And if you appreciate it enough, buy the NFT the artist has for sale.
Or just give the artist some money and not waste any resources minting a worthless NFT?
Use a PoS chain and it's an entirely harmless activity from an energy-perspective, no more concerning than posting on HN.
And by "owning" what's meant is a signed hash of some URL that fits in a few kilobytes at most.
What do you think is it about those few kB on the chain that you think people do own? Can't those bytes be also easily copied?
Nothing. I'm an unabashed NFT hater/skeptic if it wasn't immediately obvious
Would be nice to have a list of VCs that are not all about web3
Since they're minted from a different address than the original they're not a replica aren't they? They're a different token.
I've never bought an NFT - but do people actually look at block addresses to validate things like this?
I just read https://networked.substack.com/p/web3-i-have-my-daots and there's a cute analogy about buying the Mona Lisa, but only getting a record written in some obscure room saying that you own it, i.e. you never actually take possession of the Mona Lisa. You can tell people you own it, but they have to go the obscure room and verify your ownership. Who would do that, for literally anything, especially a jpg?
I forget the name of assets that designed merely to show wealth (e.g. a Hummer), but those work because everybody sees you with that asset, constantly. For NFTs to work in the long term, you would have to expect people to validate authenticity of these things.
edit: Veblen is what I was looking for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
I just read https://networked.substack.com/p/web3-i-have-my-daots and there's a cute analogy about buying the Mona Lisa, but only getting a record written in some obscure room saying that you own it, i.e. you never actually take possession of the Mona Lisa. You can tell people you own it, but they have to go the obscure room and verify your ownership. Who would do that, for literally anything, especially a jpg?
I forget the name of assets that designed merely to show wealth (e.g. a Hummer), but those work because everybody sees you with that asset, constantly. For NFTs to work in the long term, you would have to expect people to validate authenticity of these things.
edit: Veblen is what I was looking for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
Yes, it's very common to look at the address of an NFT before buying it. Marketplaces do this for you and provide a "verified" badge for NFTs that match well-known collections. No one would mistake the NFT minted on this website for the originals and they would get flagged as scams pretty quickly.
It's a different token, but I think the only difference is token id and creation time. In all other respects it's identical. It's like having two brand new dollar bills, but they have different serial numbers.
If only there was some sort of central authority to work out which NFT was the original one
I wonder…
People are seeing NFTs as a kind of payment system of sorts. A modern turn on donations or alms.
Can the likes of the Times, National Review, WaPo, WSJ, etc., use NFTs in lieu of a subscription model?
You buy the rights to “own” an article or whatever.
People are seeing NFTs as a kind of payment system of sorts. A modern turn on donations or alms.
Can the likes of the Times, National Review, WaPo, WSJ, etc., use NFTs in lieu of a subscription model?
You buy the rights to “own” an article or whatever.
So long as we're talking about the value of NFTs, I have some Beanie Babies and Pogs for sale for cheap! No? No one? Well darn, it's like these artificial scarcity have no real value at all!
Neat. Is this the collection? https://opensea.io/collection/nftreplicas
Yep, that's the one!
This is great. It's important to recognize what iteration we’re at and stay humble with respect to the development of meaningful virtual / in-game assets.
will minting a replica give me gated access to discord?
or showcase my collection on gallery.so?
also some of the popular NFTs these days are cc0 licensed, so they do in fact encourage copies! I hope the trend continues.
cc0 nft - nouns.wtf
or showcase my collection on gallery.so?
also some of the popular NFTs these days are cc0 licensed, so they do in fact encourage copies! I hope the trend continues.
cc0 nft - nouns.wtf
I was hoping somebody would make this.
This site is irony for the crypto world. This is not really true replication, is false marketing.
some of the cc0 licensed NFTs encourage replicas :)
nouns.wtf
nouns.wtf
Is there a reason you posted this comment when you have previously posted a similar one[0]?
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29664071
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29664071
Christ, NFTs are bullshit.
Prints are a near-perfect replica of any painting, and also professional forgers routinely copy works of, or create original works of, major artists in order to make a lot of money. However prints are typically worth a fraction of the original work, and the moment a forged painting is discovered its value plummets.
The value of the NFT is not primarily in how it looks. The value of the NFT is in the provenance, the history, the background of the creator, etc.
This why Onement V, a blue background with a lighter blue vertical stripe, is worth $30 million https://www.wikiart.org/en/barnett-newman/onement-v-1952
The painting is something my toddler could create. The background of the artist and the piece's history is what gives it value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Newman
The value of the NFT is not primarily in how it looks. The value of the NFT is in the provenance, the history, the background of the creator, etc.
This why Onement V, a blue background with a lighter blue vertical stripe, is worth $30 million https://www.wikiart.org/en/barnett-newman/onement-v-1952
The painting is something my toddler could create. The background of the artist and the piece's history is what gives it value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Newman
Ah. The "NFTs are no more silly than the traditional art world" argument. ;-)
Joking aside - NFTs have more in common with concepts of intellectual property than they do physical works of art. Physical objects have scarcity for mostly physical reasons. IP and NFTs have scarcity because we've decided they should.
Joking aside - NFTs have more in common with concepts of intellectual property than they do physical works of art. Physical objects have scarcity for mostly physical reasons. IP and NFTs have scarcity because we've decided they should.
Tbh, a large part of the art market can indeed be called a scam that only exists as a tax evasion opportunity. Maybe that shouldn’t be the template for the so called Web3.
However even HN must admit the art world is a real industry, with a lot of big money players, and the reason things have value is not in the quality of the art.
I see the same argument rehashed over and over, and it's the same reason HN as a collective never understood or embraced crypto in general - a total lack of understanding combined with a total lack of imagination.
I see the same argument rehashed over and over, and it's the same reason HN as a collective never understood or embraced crypto in general - a total lack of understanding combined with a total lack of imagination.
So you're telling me NFTs are exactly like an industry that exists almost entirely to service the ultra-wealthy looking for new ways to hide their assets and/or show off with conspicuous consumption? That's pretty much all I need to hear to decide it's a bunch of BS. Find a use for NFTs that affects those of us without massive disposable income, and maybe I'll be impressed.
I think if we can convince HN that NFTs are essentially the art market, then that would be a huge upgrade in the discourse here; no one needs to be impressed.
> However even HN must admit the art world is a real industry, with a lot of big money players, and the reason things have value is not in the quality of the art.
If your standard is 'there is lots of money in it, therefore it is cool & good and should be embraced' then sure, I will freely admit that both contemporary art and NFTs pass that standard. So do televangelism, diamonds, and robocalls.
If your standard is 'there is lots of money in it, therefore it is cool & good and should be embraced' then sure, I will freely admit that both contemporary art and NFTs pass that standard. So do televangelism, diamonds, and robocalls.
>The background of the artist and the piece's history is what gives it value
That, and the fact that there is only one, it's not digital, and it can be authenticated (and also the artist is dead, so it is guaranteed there won't be any more).
The "value" of an NFT is that there is only one unique occurrance of it in a pile of bits called a blockchain. It is very hard to hang it on a wall.
Web3: not satisfied with the fundamental principle of digital abundance, we invented digital scarcity.
That, and the fact that there is only one, it's not digital, and it can be authenticated (and also the artist is dead, so it is guaranteed there won't be any more).
The "value" of an NFT is that there is only one unique occurrance of it in a pile of bits called a blockchain. It is very hard to hang it on a wall.
Web3: not satisfied with the fundamental principle of digital abundance, we invented digital scarcity.
>The "value" of an NFT is that there is only one unique occurrance of it in a pile of bits called a blockchain. It is very hard to hang it on a wall.
It's worst than that because almost all NFTs are only an pointer/URL and the art itself is not on the chain.
It's worst than that because almost all NFTs are only an pointer/URL and the art itself is not on the chain.
And the provenance of which NFT is legitimate and/or original is not on the chain either.
I create myartwork.jpeg. Somebody creates an NFT of it. Later, I create an NFT of it. Even later a bunch of people make NFT replicas of both. Which NFT is legitimate? The blockchain doesn't know.
I create myartwork.jpeg. Somebody creates an NFT of it. Later, I create an NFT of it. Even later a bunch of people make NFT replicas of both. Which NFT is legitimate? The blockchain doesn't know.
If you publicly state which smart contract is your NFT, then that would be the real one. Similarly someone could claim a physical painting is yours, but you could publicly say it isn't. The blockchain doesn't know anymore than a physical canvas "knows" what is real and what is fake. The blockchain is a tool, the artist is the creator and arbiter of what the real NFT is.
> the artist is the creator and arbiter of what the real NFT is
Then why can't they just be the arbiter of what the real JPEG is and skip a whole step?
Then why can't they just be the arbiter of what the real JPEG is and skip a whole step?
that's a very bad comparaison for 2 reasons:
1) Regardless of if the physical painting is the original or a copy made a talented painter, you can still enjoy how it looks on the wall. The painting doesn't magically disintegrate if you find out the certificate was forged. You also have no option but to buy it (or a replica) if you want to place it own your wall.
With an NFT, the art itself is available to anyone, regardless of if you own the NFT. You never needed to buy an NFT to enjoy the art. The only thing of value in an NFT is the NFT itself, not the art that it represent. If the NFT is not authentic, it's a much bigger deal because now it loses all of its value, not just a portion of it.
2) Creating a fake painting that looks "original", even to an amateur that doesn't know anything about art, is hard and expensive. Even when the painter isn't trying to pass it as the original one, it can easily cost thousands of dollars to get decent quality replica that looks close to the real thing.
To replicate the art of an NFT, it just takes a few clicks. It's not difficult or expensive to copy it. If you can't figure out how to do it, you probably don't need to spend more than 10$ to get someone online to do it for you.
1) Regardless of if the physical painting is the original or a copy made a talented painter, you can still enjoy how it looks on the wall. The painting doesn't magically disintegrate if you find out the certificate was forged. You also have no option but to buy it (or a replica) if you want to place it own your wall.
With an NFT, the art itself is available to anyone, regardless of if you own the NFT. You never needed to buy an NFT to enjoy the art. The only thing of value in an NFT is the NFT itself, not the art that it represent. If the NFT is not authentic, it's a much bigger deal because now it loses all of its value, not just a portion of it.
2) Creating a fake painting that looks "original", even to an amateur that doesn't know anything about art, is hard and expensive. Even when the painter isn't trying to pass it as the original one, it can easily cost thousands of dollars to get decent quality replica that looks close to the real thing.
To replicate the art of an NFT, it just takes a few clicks. It's not difficult or expensive to copy it. If you can't figure out how to do it, you probably don't need to spend more than 10$ to get someone online to do it for you.
> With an NFT, the art itself is available to anyone, regardless of if you own the NFT. You never needed to buy an NFT to enjoy the art. The only thing of value in an NFT is the NFT itself, not the art that it represent. If the NFT is not authentic, it's a much bigger deal because now it loses all of its value, not just a portion of it.
I can easily print out a high-quality Mona Lisa and put it on my wall, and I can enjoy it, but I wouldn't pretend I own it.
> To replicate the art of an NFT, it just takes a few clicks. It's not difficult or expensive to copy it. If you can't figure out how to do it, you probably don't need to spend more than 10$ to get someone online to do it for you.
It is mathematically impossible to copy the NFT. It isn't the same smart contract, it isn't the same NFT. It is theoretically possible to arrange atoms in the precise location of a physical object, however.
I can easily print out a high-quality Mona Lisa and put it on my wall, and I can enjoy it, but I wouldn't pretend I own it.
> To replicate the art of an NFT, it just takes a few clicks. It's not difficult or expensive to copy it. If you can't figure out how to do it, you probably don't need to spend more than 10$ to get someone online to do it for you.
It is mathematically impossible to copy the NFT. It isn't the same smart contract, it isn't the same NFT. It is theoretically possible to arrange atoms in the precise location of a physical object, however.
>I can easily print out a high-quality Mona Lisa and put it on my wall, and I can enjoy it, but I wouldn't pretend I own it.
Even a half blind person would tell you the print doesn't look anything like the painting. If you want something that looks close to the really thing, it's difficult to make. There is modern art that would be cheap/easy to replicate (eg. a blank canvas made by artist trying to create a debate about what is art or not) but anything that you are likely to want on your wall will easily cost you >500$ to replicate properly in its original size (they are larger than they look).
>It is mathematically impossible to copy the NFT. It isn't the same smart contract, it isn't the same NFT. It is theoretically possible to arrange atoms in the precise location of a physical object, however.
I wrote it poorly, I was referring to the art behind the NFT that you can replicate easily. If I see a very cool picture and want to use it as my wallpaper on my laptop, I don't need to recreate the exact same smart contract with the same wallet key or pay for the NFT, I can just copy the picture in a few clicks. The picture will look the same with or without the NFT
Even a half blind person would tell you the print doesn't look anything like the painting. If you want something that looks close to the really thing, it's difficult to make. There is modern art that would be cheap/easy to replicate (eg. a blank canvas made by artist trying to create a debate about what is art or not) but anything that you are likely to want on your wall will easily cost you >500$ to replicate properly in its original size (they are larger than they look).
>It is mathematically impossible to copy the NFT. It isn't the same smart contract, it isn't the same NFT. It is theoretically possible to arrange atoms in the precise location of a physical object, however.
I wrote it poorly, I was referring to the art behind the NFT that you can replicate easily. If I see a very cool picture and want to use it as my wallpaper on my laptop, I don't need to recreate the exact same smart contract with the same wallet key or pay for the NFT, I can just copy the picture in a few clicks. The picture will look the same with or without the NFT
As I stated before, the art is less important than the proof of ownership. The creator says, “This is the contract. There are only this many. All others are fake.” And for whatever reason I like the creator and want to own it. Just like a perfect print simply isn’t the real thing, I don’t want the saved image, I want the real NFT.
And again, you are fully allowed to disagree, I’m trying to explain the mentality of the NFT purchaser and it’s similarity to the physical art world.
And again, you are fully allowed to disagree, I’m trying to explain the mentality of the NFT purchaser and it’s similarity to the physical art world.
In many ways it feels like we are recreating DRM, which was something that we weren't happy with as consumers, but this time: "It's different because it's crypto and I can make money on it".
Have you seen a Newman painting in person? The image of Voice of Fire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire) on Wikipedia is completely unremarkable, but it's actually very impressive and powerful to see in person. One of my favourite pieces of visual art. A lot of people like to shit on abstract art and color fields as "a toddler could do it" but there is technical skill and artistry on display. Keith Haring's art is also very simple but powerful. Personally I don't get the same feeling from a shitty iPad drawing of a monkey with some photoshop layers swapped around.
Part of the point of digital assets are that they can be copied. If you don’t want to copy them, you can validate with the issuing authority (which is virtually all NFTs as it is).