6 ms·

I'm all for the potential of cryptocurrency... But can we all agree NFTs are dumb though?

wtf_is_up 6y ago
No
xrd 6y ago
I think they are dumb. But, people are getting more and more used to having a lot less physical things. Maybe the truth is they don't really care about the thing itself, but the feeling they are special because they hold it, and others don't. For that reason, maybe NFTs are going to be valuable. I didn't say, intentionally, they will be useful, just valuable. Value is in the eye of the beholder.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  Things don’t need a coherent reason to be thought valuable like “feeling special” they can be thought of as valuable just because everyone else thinks of them that way. The problem is that a sudden lack of confidence causes valuable things without backing to collapse in value. Tulips and every other bubble that collapsed ever. That we’re seeing NFTs trading well isn’t an indication that it’s the art behind them that matters rather than the popular view of it as an asset.
Melting_Harps 6y ago
> I'm all for the potential of cryptocurrency... But can we all agree NFTs are dumb though? Sure, given how they're being used for now; but with some refinement this could displace deeds and titles for property for instant verification. Possibly even validating credentials and degrees and maybe even passport and associated visas. I'm not sure how you get over the enforceability aspect, but I can see a country like Estonia could opt to build their architecture around this. Also, if I'm honest ETH is the last blockcahin of the big 3 that I'd consider putting something critical given all the exit scams: DAO and the first ETH etc...
fasteddie31003 6y ago
Art NFT is dumb in my opinion. However, I'd love NFTs to prove ownership of car titles or real estate. Think of how much easier transfer of ownership of titled assets would be with NFTs.
- sputknick 6y ago
  I think you nailed it. NFTs could be useful for a lot of boring applications. What if your software license was an NFT that you verified every time you opened it. Or maybe a book you bought on Amazon for the kindle. That way you could sell these digital assets you own.
  - tantalor 6y ago
    How does verification work? How do you prohibit duplication? If you need a central server for verification then blockchain is pointless.
    - tastyfreeze 6y ago
      I have thought about this quite a lot. NFT for software license would only work for applications that work with the blockchain. Something like a blockchain client where the user needs to authenticate to interact with the blockchain. Without authentication the application is useless. With authentication their account/wallet would have a license key and software use authorized. For other types of software, without authenticating to the blockchain, there is no way to verify that the user is the owner of the license.
      - tantalor 6y ago
        But how do you check the user with the token is the actual owner? Do you need to add a transaction to the ledger for each use/verification?
        tastyfreeze 6y ago
        If they are authenticated to their ledger account then simple possession of the token in the account is sufficient verification. The use case I considered was a client for trading on XRPL. For an application like this they are going to be signing transactions to interact with the ledger. If they are able to sign and own a license token in their ledger account then they are the valid user.
simonebrunozzi 6y ago
Fabrica.land uses NFTs to transact on real estate properties in less than a minute. I wouldn't call that use case dumb. (disclosure: I have interest in the company)
- bsaul 6y ago
  interesting, but who needs to transact on real estate properties in less than a minute ?
  - random5634 6y ago
    People who don't mind their $1B portfolio being stolen in a minute?
  - simonebrunozzi 6y ago
    It's not just about speed, in this case it's more about lower costs.
- JeremyBanks 6y ago
  I would call that use case very dumb.
kemonocode 6y ago
NFTs are fine to tokenize things that are valuable because they are limited, say, like property deeds. You own the token, you own the deed, and it's possible to establish an one-to-one relationship. Attaching a token to something that's inherently reproducible such as digital art yet with granting no means to actually enforce copyright is pretty much lunacy and it's just muddying the waters further when it comes to cryptocurrency.
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  Imagine getting evicted from your house because your realtor accidentally used = instead of == for comparison in the smart contract. The strength of smart contracts are also their greatest weakness - they're code, so any bug in the code is a de facto rule of the contract.
  - diab0lic 6y ago
    Yeah there are all kinds of edge cases when a digital token represents ownership of a physical object that just aren't accounted for. What if I get foreclosed on but smash the hard drive containing the key out of spite. Who owns the house now? The chain says me, the law (central authority) says the bank and under the rules we live by today the central authority is correct. What now?
- ska 6y ago
  > say, like property deeds. The problem with this line of thought is that the Venn diagram of cases where there is a potential natural fit for NFT and the cases where there is both a need for them and likelyhood of adoption may well have an empty intersection. Property deeds are a good example. They can't practically replace the current system without radically rethinking that system, and it's unclear that the stakeholders would find any compelling reason to consider that. Do you have a compelling example?
  - frongpik 6y ago
    e.g. a secret bank account that can be accessed by presenting a token. It's like a transferrable password: once it's given to someone, the previous owner forgets it.
ChrisClark 6y ago
Yeah, just as dumb as buying an original art piece for your wall instead of a print. But... it's not dumb to other people, just you and me. Other people like buying things that are provably 'only theirs'.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  When you buy a painting you have genuine rights to the physical object. When you buy an NFT you have genuine rights to the NFT but usually none to the linked item. When you buy digital art more normally you’re essentially licensing use of it within a specified context. As you do with other IP. In theory you could do that with NFTs I think but in practice it doesn’t seem to be the case.
  - krrrh 6y ago
    The Venn diagram overlap between people with sizeable art collections and people who don’t back up their computers and store their passwords on a piece of paper under their keyboards is definitely not zero.

xrd 6y ago

I think they are dumb. But, people are getting more and more used to having a lot less physical things. Maybe the truth is they don't really care about the thing itself, but the feeling they are special because they hold it, and others don't. For that reason, maybe NFTs are going to be valuable. I didn't say, intentionally, they will be useful, just valuable. Value is in the eye of the beholder.

meheleventyone 6y ago
Things don’t need a coherent reason to be thought valuable like “feeling special” they can be thought of as valuable just because everyone else thinks of them that way. The problem is that a sudden lack of confidence causes valuable things without backing to collapse in value. Tulips and every other bubble that collapsed ever. That we’re seeing NFTs trading well isn’t an indication that it’s the art behind them that matters rather than the popular view of it as an asset.

Melting_Harps 6y ago

> I'm all for the potential of cryptocurrency... But can we all agree NFTs are dumb though? Sure, given how they're being used for now; but with some refinement this could displace deeds and titles for property for instant verification. Possibly even validating credentials and degrees and maybe even passport and associated visas. I'm not sure how you get over the enforceability aspect, but I can see a country like Estonia could opt to build their architecture around this. Also, if I'm honest ETH is the last blockcahin of the big 3 that I'd consider putting something critical given all the exit scams: DAO and the first ETH etc...

fasteddie31003 6y ago

Art NFT is dumb in my opinion. However, I'd love NFTs to prove ownership of car titles or real estate. Think of how much easier transfer of ownership of titled assets would be with NFTs.

sputknick 6y ago
I think you nailed it. NFTs could be useful for a lot of boring applications. What if your software license was an NFT that you verified every time you opened it. Or maybe a book you bought on Amazon for the kindle. That way you could sell these digital assets you own.
- tantalor 6y ago
  How does verification work? How do you prohibit duplication? If you need a central server for verification then blockchain is pointless.
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    I have thought about this quite a lot. NFT for software license would only work for applications that work with the blockchain. Something like a blockchain client where the user needs to authenticate to interact with the blockchain. Without authentication the application is useless. With authentication their account/wallet would have a license key and software use authorized. For other types of software, without authenticating to the blockchain, there is no way to verify that the user is the owner of the license.
    - tantalor 6y ago
      But how do you check the user with the token is the actual owner? Do you need to add a transaction to the ledger for each use/verification?
      - tastyfreeze 6y ago
        If they are authenticated to their ledger account then simple possession of the token in the account is sufficient verification. The use case I considered was a client for trading on XRPL. For an application like this they are going to be signing transactions to interact with the ledger. If they are able to sign and own a license token in their ledger account then they are the valid user.

simonebrunozzi 6y ago

Fabrica.land uses NFTs to transact on real estate properties in less than a minute. I wouldn't call that use case dumb. (disclosure: I have interest in the company)

bsaul 6y ago
interesting, but who needs to transact on real estate properties in less than a minute ?
- random5634 6y ago
  People who don't mind their $1B portfolio being stolen in a minute?
- simonebrunozzi 6y ago
  It's not just about speed, in this case it's more about lower costs.
JeremyBanks 6y ago
I would call that use case very dumb.

kemonocode 6y ago

NFTs are fine to tokenize things that are valuable because they are limited, say, like property deeds. You own the token, you own the deed, and it's possible to establish an one-to-one relationship. Attaching a token to something that's inherently reproducible such as digital art yet with granting no means to actually enforce copyright is pretty much lunacy and it's just muddying the waters further when it comes to cryptocurrency.

beaconstudios 6y ago
Imagine getting evicted from your house because your realtor accidentally used = instead of == for comparison in the smart contract. The strength of smart contracts are also their greatest weakness - they're code, so any bug in the code is a de facto rule of the contract.
- diab0lic 6y ago
  Yeah there are all kinds of edge cases when a digital token represents ownership of a physical object that just aren't accounted for. What if I get foreclosed on but smash the hard drive containing the key out of spite. Who owns the house now? The chain says me, the law (central authority) says the bank and under the rules we live by today the central authority is correct. What now?
ska 6y ago
> say, like property deeds. The problem with this line of thought is that the Venn diagram of cases where there is a potential natural fit for NFT and the cases where there is both a need for them and likelyhood of adoption may well have an empty intersection. Property deeds are a good example. They can't practically replace the current system without radically rethinking that system, and it's unclear that the stakeholders would find any compelling reason to consider that. Do you have a compelling example?
- frongpik 6y ago
  e.g. a secret bank account that can be accessed by presenting a token. It's like a transferrable password: once it's given to someone, the previous owner forgets it.

ChrisClark 6y ago

Yeah, just as dumb as buying an original art piece for your wall instead of a print. But... it's not dumb to other people, just you and me. Other people like buying things that are provably 'only theirs'.

meheleventyone 6y ago
When you buy a painting you have genuine rights to the physical object. When you buy an NFT you have genuine rights to the NFT but usually none to the linked item. When you buy digital art more normally you’re essentially licensing use of it within a specified context. As you do with other IP. In theory you could do that with NFTs I think but in practice it doesn’t seem to be the case.
- krrrh 6y ago
  The Venn diagram overlap between people with sizeable art collections and people who don’t back up their computers and store their passwords on a piece of paper under their keyboards is definitely not zero.