> The problem with NFTs is digital "products" by their nature cannot claim originality. That's the beauty of it. Yes, the digital good by its nature is infinit

> The problem with NFTs is digital "products" by their nature cannot claim originality. That's the beauty of it. Yes, the digital good by its nature is infinitely replicable [0], but everyone knows and (hopefully) understands that, and that is not what it is being sold with the NFT. The NFT, as I understand it, represents a totally new type of "ownership" that has no analogue in previously established forms of ownership. The closest thing to NFTs are securities, where the value of the security is almost always speculative in nature. NFTs just take this to its teleological end. Yes, an artist or John Cleese can go ahead and mint another Brooklyn Bridge token, but doing this would degrade their reputation and make their future work less valuable and attractive to buyers, just like a company that keeps minting stock indiscriminately is going to have a harder time selling that stock. John Cleese selling a token is actually very cool in my opinion, because he didn't have to call Goldman Sachs to make it happen. I see a future where we have premier blockchains where all the top assets will be traded. Someone selling farts [1] and such will not be on those blockchains (unless those farts become highly regarded, which they might), and the blockchain itself will be a sort of crypto-artistic expression. I think this is just the beginning. [0] https://twitter.com/_Lord_Enki_/status/1372976176411578369 https://twitter.com/_Lord_Enki_/status/1372976176411578369 [1] https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/nyc-man-sells-fart-for-85-cashing-in-on-nft-craze/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/nyc-man-sells-fart-for-85-cash...