6 ms·

All of the replies to you didnt really touch on what they are, a store of value. It's fair to think of them more like savings accounts. You can buy a replica

by basch 6y ago

All of the replies to you didnt really touch on what they are, a store of value. It's fair to think of them more like savings accounts. You can buy a replica of a piece of art to look at it. You buy the original to store value. You hope it may appreciate as well. It could end up worthless. But until someone says otherwise, it has the value stored in it. It's just like baseball cards. You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies, but you don't. The date they are printed matters for some reason. Who owned it previously, its last sale price at auction is part of its history and thus its value. Sorare/ubisoft also has a much better value proposition. Theyve combined draftkings and pokemon into a live betting market with collectable cards that you can use to play a game, to win more. The early generation may be simple digital art, mostly worthless, but there will be more innovation to come. Part of the reason I think NFTs are the real deal is because I think the value of art is often stupid, and yet it still has value. Even if 99% of NFTs turn into nothing, there will be some early art from people that arent famous yet, that is someday found. I have no doubt there is an immense amount of mystery being planted, waiting to be uncovered. Whatever stupidity and hype and storytelling and history around artwork, that I dont understand, will translate to this realm as well. The lack of decay, fire damage, traditional theft, and loss will be an interesting wrinkle.

lalaland1125 6y ago
Why would you store value in something as unstable as an NFT? NFTs are 100% speculation so the price is basically arbitrary.
- basch 6y ago
  Is physical art any different? If anything this is a democratization of the wealthy auction scene. A new tier of field to play. Alternative assets come in all shapes in sizes. I can store wealth in gold, comics, wine. Why not my name on a ledger listed as owner of nothing in particular other than the price I paid for it? The amount of hate they get on HN should be a clue that everyone is being over analytical and logical, and missing out on analyzing them through human behavior. They arent a robotic math problem, they are behavioral economics. I can't wait to see an investable etf of sorts that lets people invest in a collection of NFTs like they would bonds. Youll have "curators"/"fund managers" assembling and storing a vast array of art, allowing people to diversify and own fractional shares of a bunch of art. Does it sound stupid? Absolutely? Which is why it's just crazy enough to work.
  - quesera 6y ago
    Physical art is different. (hang with me here, but..) "Investing" in a Picasso is an investment in a long-term store of cultural value that you speculate will appreciate more quickly than the S&P. Probably because you bet that the 1% will see outsized gains compared to the 99%. Maybe you also like the art and want to be the only person in the world who can display it. Also it can be very useful as a tax dodge. "Investing" in a new and unknown artist is several things: a) speculation that they will become more famous and that you are tasteful enough to know it early (see: angel investing), b) patronage and participation (see: friends & family rounds), c) conspicuous consumption (see: conspicuous consumption), and finally d) purchase of an expression of art that you enjoy, which may or may not have resale value in the future if your priorities change. NFTs are confusing because any persistent value is completely dependent on the continued agreement that exclusivity of relationship is valuable and transferable. What's it like to be the eleventh owner of an NFT? Presumably, it'd be pretty meh. But to your point -- it's psychology not logic. Today's buyers are not looking for a store of value. It's just an exercise in one of two things: vanity or speculation. These are powerful things!
    - mnouquet 6y ago
      > Physical art is different. (hang with me here, but..) No, it is not. Picasso died dirt poor, he never beneficiated in large sums from his paintings. It just happen he was crazy enough to make a name and now people brag about him.
      - gilmore606 6y ago
        This is famously not the case. Picasso was quite famous during his life and died wealthy.
        Normille 6y ago
        Methinks mnouquet is confusing Picasso and Van Gogh
    - basch 6y ago
- prepend 6y ago
  Because I own 1,000 of them and convincing bigger idiots than I to buy them will make me lots of money. I get that all “store of value” are arbitrary and that gold could be other things. But it seems funny to just pick random things and then try to convince others that it’s worthwhile. There are at least certain characteristics needed for a store of value and something completely arbitrary has a bootstrap problem. I can at least look at art or play with a Black Lotus. Holding an NFT of a piece of art is stupid as a store of value because there are so many better stores (eg, an NFT that conveys ownership rights to a piece of art for example).
kgwgk 6y ago
It's all clear now. Everyone understands that baseball cards are just like savings accounts!

by basch 6y ago

lalaland1125 6y ago

Why would you store value in something as unstable as an NFT? NFTs are 100% speculation so the price is basically arbitrary.

basch 6y ago
Is physical art any different? If anything this is a democratization of the wealthy auction scene. A new tier of field to play. Alternative assets come in all shapes in sizes. I can store wealth in gold, comics, wine. Why not my name on a ledger listed as owner of nothing in particular other than the price I paid for it? The amount of hate they get on HN should be a clue that everyone is being over analytical and logical, and missing out on analyzing them through human behavior. They arent a robotic math problem, they are behavioral economics. I can't wait to see an investable etf of sorts that lets people invest in a collection of NFTs like they would bonds. Youll have "curators"/"fund managers" assembling and storing a vast array of art, allowing people to diversify and own fractional shares of a bunch of art. Does it sound stupid? Absolutely? Which is why it's just crazy enough to work.
- quesera 6y ago
  Physical art is different. (hang with me here, but..) "Investing" in a Picasso is an investment in a long-term store of cultural value that you speculate will appreciate more quickly than the S&P. Probably because you bet that the 1% will see outsized gains compared to the 99%. Maybe you also like the art and want to be the only person in the world who can display it. Also it can be very useful as a tax dodge. "Investing" in a new and unknown artist is several things: a) speculation that they will become more famous and that you are tasteful enough to know it early (see: angel investing), b) patronage and participation (see: friends & family rounds), c) conspicuous consumption (see: conspicuous consumption), and finally d) purchase of an expression of art that you enjoy, which may or may not have resale value in the future if your priorities change. NFTs are confusing because any persistent value is completely dependent on the continued agreement that exclusivity of relationship is valuable and transferable. What's it like to be the eleventh owner of an NFT? Presumably, it'd be pretty meh. But to your point -- it's psychology not logic. Today's buyers are not looking for a store of value. It's just an exercise in one of two things: vanity or speculation. These are powerful things!
  - mnouquet 6y ago
    > Physical art is different. (hang with me here, but..) No, it is not. Picasso died dirt poor, he never beneficiated in large sums from his paintings. It just happen he was crazy enough to make a name and now people brag about him.
    - gilmore606 6y ago
      This is famously not the case. Picasso was quite famous during his life and died wealthy.
      - Normille 6y ago
        Methinks mnouquet is confusing Picasso and Van Gogh
  - basch 6y ago
prepend 6y ago
Because I own 1,000 of them and convincing bigger idiots than I to buy them will make me lots of money. I get that all “store of value” are arbitrary and that gold could be other things. But it seems funny to just pick random things and then try to convince others that it’s worthwhile. There are at least certain characteristics needed for a store of value and something completely arbitrary has a bootstrap problem. I can at least look at art or play with a Black Lotus. Holding an NFT of a piece of art is stupid as a store of value because there are so many better stores (eg, an NFT that conveys ownership rights to a piece of art for example).

kgwgk 6y ago

It's all clear now. Everyone understands that baseball cards are just like savings accounts!