3 ms·

> It's like people want collectibles but seem to have decided to cut off a big part of what makes a collectible valuable. What makes a collectible valuable? I

> It's like people want collectibles but seem to have decided to cut off a big part of what makes a collectible valuable. What makes a collectible valuable? I think it's just scarcity plus a group choice to value that scarcity. I don't think this is new or unique to non-physical collectibles, other collectibles also follow a pattern of increased demand for scarcity. Take baseball cards. We know that better players have more expensive cards, and the more scarce the card the higher the value, along with other characteristics of the card. Makes some intuitive sense. But that's not enough for collectors who want some cards to have a very high value. So then there's this collective agreement that rookie cards are going to be worth a lot more, not just based on print run, but based on the ability of the whole group to point at it and say that's a thing we value. Then we have condition of the card, mint or near mint or worn, those are all different values. Again it makes intuitive sense because it's based on quality in some way. But it's not enough, so ever more sophisticated grading mechanisms are invented, well beyond any actual value to someone observing the card. It's a difference the naked eye can't perceive, only experts with sophisticated tools. But once they inspect it and give their mark of approval, it's a new point of scarcity that everyone can value. It's all just invented value for the sake of value, the main thing is that the group can collectively point at something scarce and call it valuable. Misprints are another example, where the value is obvious not coming from quality and only from scarcity.

libertine 6y ago
I understand that in the great scheme of things is just a group of people that values scarcity, but you don't need to go deeper to see it's more then that. People don't just value baseball cards because there's a designed scarcity for particular players and there's a consensus that a specific card is valuable. You're missing the history of a game that took many years to establish themselves and grew a base of followers and fans over decades. It's a competitive game, with different leagues, with teams that have fans. This is why the cards have value, and there's no consensual agreement that X and Y card is valuable, it's something so simple and intuitive that even children understand this. Even if it's just by the transactions in their playground among colleagues and friends (not because many people have some card, and everyone seems to want it, but because it's represents a popular player and it's a rare card - that's why they want it). Then there's plenty of sub sections of this, like you said: misprints, particular years, etc. But it all revolves around a cultural event. What you're seeing with NFTs are assets created for the sake of being unique - it's not consequential of anything. It's designed to be that way. It's like they turned the baseball card analogy upside down - they created NFTs for the sake of being NFTs, it's not serving any purpose and scarcity has no logic behind it. I think the closest analogy would be the Beanie Babies, that were trying to hack this mechanic with nothing else to support it no other then "they are scarce". There's no emotional bond to it, it doesn't serve the purpose of a game (like balance wise), it's not even merchandising to promote something that's eventually going to become popular and that's popular to a specific niche.
- furyofantares 6y ago
  I think another way to think about it is to think about poker. You've got the blinds or the antes, and fundamentally, every pot is about fighting for that money. Without the ante, nobody should put any money into the pot. But once you have a penny ante, the pot size can grow exponentially, and you can find yourself fighting over a many-thousand dollar pot, even if the truth is the fight started over a fight for a penny, and the game is about fighting for a penny every hand. What I'm saying is, sure, with baseball cards the ante might be an emotional bond to the subject matter. But it quickly spirals and becomes about the collectible, primarily. I can go look at amazing pictures of famous baseball players I love all day, I don't need to own the cards. I don't think NFTs are really skipping a step, Top Shots is selling you an MP4 of a basketball player you love sinking a shot. It's just the absurdity of it is more apparent when the ante is something you could press Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V to copy.

libertine 6y ago

I understand that in the great scheme of things is just a group of people that values scarcity, but you don't need to go deeper to see it's more then that. People don't just value baseball cards because there's a designed scarcity for particular players and there's a consensus that a specific card is valuable. You're missing the history of a game that took many years to establish themselves and grew a base of followers and fans over decades. It's a competitive game, with different leagues, with teams that have fans. This is why the cards have value, and there's no consensual agreement that X and Y card is valuable, it's something so simple and intuitive that even children understand this. Even if it's just by the transactions in their playground among colleagues and friends (not because many people have some card, and everyone seems to want it, but because it's represents a popular player and it's a rare card - that's why they want it). Then there's plenty of sub sections of this, like you said: misprints, particular years, etc. But it all revolves around a cultural event. What you're seeing with NFTs are assets created for the sake of being unique - it's not consequential of anything. It's designed to be that way. It's like they turned the baseball card analogy upside down - they created NFTs for the sake of being NFTs, it's not serving any purpose and scarcity has no logic behind it. I think the closest analogy would be the Beanie Babies, that were trying to hack this mechanic with nothing else to support it no other then "they are scarce". There's no emotional bond to it, it doesn't serve the purpose of a game (like balance wise), it's not even merchandising to promote something that's eventually going to become popular and that's popular to a specific niche.

furyofantares 6y ago
I think another way to think about it is to think about poker. You've got the blinds or the antes, and fundamentally, every pot is about fighting for that money. Without the ante, nobody should put any money into the pot. But once you have a penny ante, the pot size can grow exponentially, and you can find yourself fighting over a many-thousand dollar pot, even if the truth is the fight started over a fight for a penny, and the game is about fighting for a penny every hand. What I'm saying is, sure, with baseball cards the ante might be an emotional bond to the subject matter. But it quickly spirals and becomes about the collectible, primarily. I can go look at amazing pictures of famous baseball players I love all day, I don't need to own the cards. I don't think NFTs are really skipping a step, Top Shots is selling you an MP4 of a basketball player you love sinking a shot. It's just the absurdity of it is more apparent when the ante is something you could press Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V to copy.