3 ms·
> Well yes. But anyone can make a reproduction of a Warhol print The point is that an NFT only shows a chain of custody for the NFT. It does not imply anything
by ori_b 6y ago
> Well yes. But anyone can make a reproduction of a Warhol print
The point is that an NFT only shows a chain of custody for the NFT. It does not imply anything about the originality of the Warhol.
- andybak 6y agoSee my other comments throughout this thread. We have many fictions we indulge in about authenticity and value. NFTs are a new fiction. They might even be dumber than other currently accepted fictions. But the discussion is "which of these fictions is the most stupid?" rather than "NFTs are stupid". We are already a long way from genuine utility or intrinsic value and into the realms of social consensus and value-through-association.
- ori_b 6y agoSure. They have value because people will pay. I still suspect most people think they're getting an exclusive license for a piece of artwork, and not a bit of performance art. They almost certainly believe that the goods pointed to by the token are non-fungible. Not that they have a non-fungible reference to a fungible good.
- andybak 6y agoOh I definitely agree. People are very confused about what they're buying. And many people involved have no incentive to correct that misapprehension. It's quite a shabby business in many ways. But that just makes it even more akin to the mainstream fine art market.