3 ms·

No it's more like the opposite of buying land. Land is non-fungible, "digital art" is exceedingly fungible. A land deed is perhaps not fungible, but it is repro

No it's more like the opposite of buying land. Land is non-fungible, "digital art" is exceedingly fungible. A land deed is perhaps not fungible, but it is reproducible, unlike an NFT. I heard the bozos on the A16Z podcast (I think it was) compare NFTs to land deeds, but they very seldom know what they're talking about.

nerdponx 6y ago
I have no idea what A16Z is. The point is not that land is somehow fungible, but that we have plenty of precedent for "owning" a thing without taking physical transfer of that thing.
- notahacker 6y ago
  When you buy land you gain a right to physically use (or charge others to physically use) the land you didn't previously have. Exceptions include the Brooklyn Bridge scam, where you actually gain no control over the use of the land whatsoever, no matter how verifiably unique the vendor promises the token they're giving you as proof is, and the people selling certificates with parts of the moon and your name on it. A token which grants you legal control of distribution of a piece of digital art so you can charge others to look at or listen to it might be like a real land deed, but a token giving you a nominal association with something already in the public domain is much more like the latter examples.
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    Of course, but I don't understand the issue here. Everyone involved knows that, and buyers don't care. What's the problem?
    - Grustaf 6y ago
      The problem is that supposedly knowledgeable people hype the concept as something new and clever, they claim it solves a real problem. I don’t feel sorry at all for the clown that paid 69 mill for the url to a jpg, I just think the hype is stupid. Not that we can be sure the buyer was real and distinct from the seller.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Yes, and the point is that this is not what art NFTs do at all. PS It would have been quicker to google A16Z than type out those words, but I’ll save you some time by telling you that it’s (the podcast of) a top three silicon valley VC.

nerdponx 6y ago

I have no idea what A16Z is. The point is not that land is somehow fungible, but that we have plenty of precedent for "owning" a thing without taking physical transfer of that thing.

notahacker 6y ago
When you buy land you gain a right to physically use (or charge others to physically use) the land you didn't previously have. Exceptions include the Brooklyn Bridge scam, where you actually gain no control over the use of the land whatsoever, no matter how verifiably unique the vendor promises the token they're giving you as proof is, and the people selling certificates with parts of the moon and your name on it. A token which grants you legal control of distribution of a piece of digital art so you can charge others to look at or listen to it might be like a real land deed, but a token giving you a nominal association with something already in the public domain is much more like the latter examples.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  Of course, but I don't understand the issue here. Everyone involved knows that, and buyers don't care. What's the problem?
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    The problem is that supposedly knowledgeable people hype the concept as something new and clever, they claim it solves a real problem. I don’t feel sorry at all for the clown that paid 69 mill for the url to a jpg, I just think the hype is stupid. Not that we can be sure the buyer was real and distinct from the seller.
Grustaf 6y ago
Yes, and the point is that this is not what art NFTs do at all. PS It would have been quicker to google A16Z than type out those words, but I’ll save you some time by telling you that it’s (the podcast of) a top three silicon valley VC.