5 ms·
Why would anyone spend millions on what's essentially a link to a JPEG file?
- TheWellerman 6y agoThis is a question I've been trying to ask ever since NFTs became the hot new "thing."
- mytailorisrich 6y agoWhy would anyone spend millions on a tulip bulb? I think this is exactly the same situation. Caveat emptor.
- chovybizzass 6y agoThe only thing I can see is for gaming, where you want to sell your sword or something. There's needs to be a way to transfer ownership in the game.
- ALittleLight 6y agoIf the game servers do let you transfer ownership, then why do you need the NFT? If they don't, then why do you need the NFT? If I sell the NFT of my game sword but my character still has it, what's the NFT doing? If I trade my sword in game and don't bother with the NFT what purpose would the NFT have?
- approxim8ion 6y agoIt's less about the thing than it is about being able to say they own said thing.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoBut do they? We can all have it. Its digital. Their access is identical to mine. If you believe in this stuff as 'ownership', then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you. I can even register it on a blockchain!
- approxim8ion 6y agoHilarious, but it's not about access though is it? I'm not saying they claim to own the artwork. They own the NFT, and ergo the bragging rights. I think of it as just another indulgence that is a conversation starter or whatever. It'll either go out of fashion or stay in. They're hardly the first useless commodities to suddenly be deemed valuable and they won't be the last.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoI have a buddy that doesn't buy lottery tickets. I say "I like to fantasize about if I win." He responds, "I fantasize without buying the lottery ticket." If I imagine I own the NFT, then I can have the bragging rights too. I just make it up. Which is pretty much the same thing.
- approxim8ion 6y agoI suppose you're right, but you'll look silly if someone decides to call your bluff and ask you to prove it right after the brag.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoThen I'll register it on a backwater blockchain somewhere. Voila!
- _trampeltier 6y agoI think almost all Art is just to hide and launder money. So it does not really matter if on blockchain or traditional.
- arisAlexis 6y agoBecause you can prove you own it. Why would you pay millions for an autograph? You have a pencil and you can draw if you want. So if you have a transaction from Jack that includes a jpeg he made with his first tweet, that's the value. It's difficult to understand art. Have you seen paintings with nothing than a red dot selling for millions? Probably not and that's why you are confused.
- UncleMeat 6y agoUsually a signature worth 60m is from somebody stupendously famous and on an object that is also famous. Things like signing a record breaking baseball. That somebody would pay nonzero dollars for a signature is not surprising. That somebody would pay millions of dollars for a signature from a previously unknown and unremarkable artist... that's surprising.
- arisAlexis 6y agobeeple is for sure not unknown, I think you need to dig a bit more. Like my mental model is "does this sound ridiculous but many people go crazy for it for long periods of time? Maybe I should try to understand instead of only critisize". Do you think Sotheby's and Crhistie's are victims of a mania and are selling beanie babies? Did they sell beanie babies during that mania? Nope.
- jgalt212 6y agofair enough. Do you happen to know the previous high price for any of beeple's works? I cannot seem to find any on the google.
- UncleMeat 6y ago> beeple is for sure not unknown If you were to ask 100 people on the street one month ago who Beeple was, do you think a single person would say yes? 1000 people? 10,000 people? The record breaking home run ball from Barry Bonds sold for 1/100th the most expensive Beeple NFT. Some of the very most famous and well loved paintings in the world sold for much less than the most expensive Beeple NFT.
- tootahe45 6y agoAs someone who lost $5m ether in a boating accident, being able to sell a random jpg to an anonymous entity for $5m ether has been a life saver.
- rasz 6y agoIt makes perfect sense to pay that much if you are running a business selling links to a JPEG files.
- gdubs 6y agoI think of Andy Warhol, who became famous silkscreening Campbells Soup can labels. Often it wasn’t even him making the prints, but his assistants in his “factory”. Should a Warhol be worth more than an identical silkscreen you could buy in the gift shop? Regardless of how you feel about that, I have a hard time seeing a big difference between that and an NFT.
- browningstreet 6y agoIf you ever have the chance to see a Warhol retrospective in a museum, I highly recommend it.
- gdubs 6y agoI’ve seen a few! And I second that. My comment above only scratches the surface of Warhol. Some of his work would be classified more as paintings, some as happenings or installations, some as films. In this narrow context of NFTs — I think it’s something he would have been fascinating by. The idea of reproduction, ownership, value, business as art, etc.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoIt is truly nonsense. The 'owner' is essentially identical to everybody else, except for the losing-millions part. Its akin to the old potlatch, where you wasted resources just to prove how powerful you were. Its got nothing to do with the art, and everything to do with society.
- kwk1 6y agoWhy would anyone post guards around a field of potatoes, widely known as worthless? Maybe I should go see if they'll take a bribe, perhaps there is something to these potatoes after all.