Why NFTs Make Programmers Mad(peachesnstink.com)
peachesnstink.com
Why NFTs Make Programmers Mad
https://www.peachesnstink.com/p/A6HSwaoL92ZN7A3lrpkXZJ
6 comments
The problem I see with NFT (not blockchains in general) is that, while the token is valued because it's a reference to something specific, there's no authority or enforcement for this reference to be relevant:
- you may have a unique NFT relative to the next hit of Taylor Swift;
- nothing requires Taylor Swift to agree/disagree about this;
- nothing prevents tons of other NFTs relative to the same item to pop up;
- so all you have is some value coined to an arbitrary digital artefact referencing non-exclusively to a specific item, without anyone guaranteeing it is indeed relevant now or in the future;
- so why would you burn money and energy for that?
- you may as well print paper money with Mona Lisa's face on your cheap home printer.
OR. There's still something I miss there.
- you may have a unique NFT relative to the next hit of Taylor Swift;
- nothing requires Taylor Swift to agree/disagree about this;
- nothing prevents tons of other NFTs relative to the same item to pop up;
- so all you have is some value coined to an arbitrary digital artefact referencing non-exclusively to a specific item, without anyone guaranteeing it is indeed relevant now or in the future;
- so why would you burn money and energy for that?
- you may as well print paper money with Mona Lisa's face on your cheap home printer.
OR. There's still something I miss there.
Cryptopunks and cryptokitties are pretty much collectibles, like football stickers.
I don't know how anyone can say a Cryptopunk selling for $12M at Sotheby's is anything but batshit crazy though.[0]
[0] https://twitter.com/Sothebys/status/1402996062474760193
I don't know how anyone can say a Cryptopunk selling for $12M at Sotheby's is anything but batshit crazy though.[0]
[0] https://twitter.com/Sothebys/status/1402996062474760193
Yes, they're collectibles, but at least with collectibles, you have authorized distribution of these.
Here with NFTs, only authorized ones would have kind of a reason to reasonably have a market value, which means, trademark law has to apply too, which means, the blockchain purpose is lost here.
Here with NFTs, only authorized ones would have kind of a reason to reasonably have a market value, which means, trademark law has to apply too, which means, the blockchain purpose is lost here.
Is in not the same with a banksy or other forms of art? Or with a brand t-shirt that cost more because of the brand (not necesary better quality)?
With Banksy, you can get certificates - which are, centralized.
With brand t-shirts, you have also trademark/brand permissions (unless you go for copies, but then the value isn't the same either).
And, with the two above examples, say you go with copies only, you still have something tangible to start with. NFTs are all but tangible.
With brand t-shirts, you have also trademark/brand permissions (unless you go for copies, but then the value isn't the same either).
And, with the two above examples, say you go with copies only, you still have something tangible to start with. NFTs are all but tangible.
One example, perhaps, would be an artist putting their music on to a blockchain where the owner of a 'song token' receives royalties for uses of that song.
Sticking a boring old digitally signed contract on a blockchain is far from new and interesting though.