4 ms·

I don't quite get this post, it somehow seems to make a case FOR nfts and then try to make the point that these are not look likr stocks (which is rather obviou

I don't quite get this post, it somehow seems to make a case FOR nfts and then try to make the point that these are not look likr stocks (which is rather obvious). The whole point of nfts is to create uniqueness among endlessly duplicatable media, and provide the possibility for digital art to be handled like physical art. Just like the Mona Lisa, you can look at endless photos of it without restriction, but only one person can actually own it - the article correctly points out that nfts enable the same principle to hold true for digital goods, and then goes on to argue that this is bad because doesn't provide any passive return to the collector, which holds true for physical collectibles all the same ...

frobisher 6y ago
The Mona Lisa is a physical "rivalrous" good, meaning if I own it, you cannot. Digital goods are "non-rivalrous", so although NFTs can give a psychological feeling of ownership, I wouldn't say they make digital goods rivalrous. I think digital NFTs only make sense in two ways: (1) psychological feelings of ownership, (2) perhaps a claim on something digital that _can_ be made rivalrous, for instance royalty streams. If these are subject to a smart contract that ensures one entity gets them, for example.
- electriclove 6y ago
  Scarcity and print # allow for making them rivalrous (e.g., only 200 numbered cards). Royalty models have been tried where the owner of the original receives 90% of the sale of a digital print. See eulerbeats.com Basically, I agree with your points and there are already active efforts in these areas that will make some NFT efforts very viable.
- TheColorYellow 6y ago
  Digital ownership expressed through blockchain could certainly make it more difficult for others to own the good. This would be dependent on the configuration of the NFT, but if done this way it certainly would meet the definition of a rivalrous good. Music that requires you to present a private key in order to play it would meet that configuration, for example.
- scsilver 6y ago
  Do people own the mona lisa in their home or do they have a curator hold it for them and their ownership is backed by a contract in the current legal system?

frobisher 6y ago

The Mona Lisa is a physical "rivalrous" good, meaning if I own it, you cannot. Digital goods are "non-rivalrous", so although NFTs can give a psychological feeling of ownership, I wouldn't say they make digital goods rivalrous. I think digital NFTs only make sense in two ways: (1) psychological feelings of ownership, (2) perhaps a claim on something digital that _can_ be made rivalrous, for instance royalty streams. If these are subject to a smart contract that ensures one entity gets them, for example.

electriclove 6y ago
Scarcity and print # allow for making them rivalrous (e.g., only 200 numbered cards). Royalty models have been tried where the owner of the original receives 90% of the sale of a digital print. See eulerbeats.com Basically, I agree with your points and there are already active efforts in these areas that will make some NFT efforts very viable.
TheColorYellow 6y ago
Digital ownership expressed through blockchain could certainly make it more difficult for others to own the good. This would be dependent on the configuration of the NFT, but if done this way it certainly would meet the definition of a rivalrous good. Music that requires you to present a private key in order to play it would meet that configuration, for example.
scsilver 6y ago
Do people own the mona lisa in their home or do they have a curator hold it for them and their ownership is backed by a contract in the current legal system?