5 ms·
Not sure if it's just me but it sounds like you're sort of making an argument in favor of NFTs here. The main argument against NFTs I hear is that what is being
by samvher 6y ago
Not sure if it's just me but it sounds like you're sort of making an argument in favor of NFTs here. The main argument against NFTs I hear is that what is being certified can just as easily be enjoyed by people who are not the certified owner. And you're saying that that's actually the case for regular art as well - but still someone ends up willing to pay $100M for the original!
I think there is a case to be made for NFTs, but would also not be surprised if you're right that it ends up with mostly bag holders.
- curryst 6y agoI think the real issue is that NFTs are really a secondary to the data they're certifying (i.e. the art). In the same sense that "stealing" means something different in the digital world, "ownership" also means something very different. Ownership of physical goods precludes other people owning them. There is only one original. Ownership of a digital good does not preclude other people "owning" it in the sense that they have one they can use/view/whatever. The only thing you "own" in the physical goods sense of precluding other people from using it, is the NFT itself. It is exclusively assigned to you, other people can't conceptually say they own it. Another example of how that divide manifests is how would someone show off their NFTs? Art is easy, hang it on the wall conspicuously with canister lights. You could do the same with an NFT piece, or you could put it on your profile or something, but anybody can do that. You're not showing off your NFT, you're showing off the art. Your NFT is just a jumble of cryptographic data. It has to be random for functional reasons, I presume, so it's not like the author can make your NFT a piece of art in and of itself.