4 ms·

If Elon can sell his own tweet NFTs better than anybody else can, that's a pretty good argument that they are gonna be a novelty and not some new form of art ex

If Elon can sell his own tweet NFTs better than anybody else can, that's a pretty good argument that they are gonna be a novelty and not some new form of art exchange. Because what are the buyers of the Elon-tweet NFTs gonna do when they decide they want something else for their 'value'? They are gonna try and sell the Elon-tweet NFT and find out that they lack legitimacy!

wmf 6y ago
You're misunderstanding the argument. Elon can create the NFT due to his legitimacy, but subsequent trading of those NFTs doesn't require legitimacy because ownership is tracked on the blockchain.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  No, I'm mocking the whole idea, I understand the difference between origination and selling. I do legitimately think that novelty is a big factor, and buying an Elon-tweet NFT from some random guy is gonna have way less novelty value than buying it from Elon.
  - wmf 6y ago
    I agree. Overpaying for NFTs is like performance art; the value isn't in owning the NFT itself.
    - headmelted 6y ago
      Doesn’t “overpaying” imply that there’s an inherent value that’s non-zero? I’m not saying there is or there isn’t, but I’m not sure how that would be discerned. There’s a marketplace for artwork - is there a marketplace for tweets? Also, doesn’t Twitter inherently hold the rights to the content on it’s platform? (Or at the very least a license to reproduce the content indefinitely?). Maybe Twitter is the legitimate party here, if such a thing even exists.
    - funcjb 6y ago
      I'm not sure it's an interesting kind of performance art. Pure waste is like the stereotypical form of a potlatch. That's not expressive of any new idea. The concept was fresh in mid-century Paris (https://monoskop.org/Potlatch https://monoskop.org/Potlatch) but they didn't do it. The NFT business is more like this: http://www.yvesklein.com/en/oeuvres/view/6/immaterial/640/transfer-of-a-zone-of-ssimmaterial-pictorial-sensibility-to-michael-blankfort-pont-au-double-paris/?of=0 http://www.yvesklein.com/en/oeuvres/view/6/immaterial/640/tr... In that case the transferred ownership is considered part of the work. Without the "paperwork" the performance wouldn't have had the same appeal to the artist. "Legitimacy" is one word for what it takes to successfully issue an NFT for an item. "Authority" is another. If NFTs were integrated into the system of physical property, we would surely be talking about which parties had authority to issue NFTs of which assets.

wmf 6y ago

You're misunderstanding the argument. Elon can create the NFT due to his legitimacy, but subsequent trading of those NFTs doesn't require legitimacy because ownership is tracked on the blockchain.

maxerickson 6y ago
No, I'm mocking the whole idea, I understand the difference between origination and selling. I do legitimately think that novelty is a big factor, and buying an Elon-tweet NFT from some random guy is gonna have way less novelty value than buying it from Elon.
- wmf 6y ago
  I agree. Overpaying for NFTs is like performance art; the value isn't in owning the NFT itself.
  - headmelted 6y ago
    Doesn’t “overpaying” imply that there’s an inherent value that’s non-zero? I’m not saying there is or there isn’t, but I’m not sure how that would be discerned. There’s a marketplace for artwork - is there a marketplace for tweets? Also, doesn’t Twitter inherently hold the rights to the content on it’s platform? (Or at the very least a license to reproduce the content indefinitely?). Maybe Twitter is the legitimate party here, if such a thing even exists.
  - funcjb 6y ago
    I'm not sure it's an interesting kind of performance art. Pure waste is like the stereotypical form of a potlatch. That's not expressive of any new idea. The concept was fresh in mid-century Paris (https://monoskop.org/Potlatch https://monoskop.org/Potlatch) but they didn't do it. The NFT business is more like this: http://www.yvesklein.com/en/oeuvres/view/6/immaterial/640/transfer-of-a-zone-of-ssimmaterial-pictorial-sensibility-to-michael-blankfort-pont-au-double-paris/?of=0 http://www.yvesklein.com/en/oeuvres/view/6/immaterial/640/tr... In that case the transferred ownership is considered part of the work. Without the "paperwork" the performance wouldn't have had the same appeal to the artist. "Legitimacy" is one word for what it takes to successfully issue an NFT for an item. "Authority" is another. If NFTs were integrated into the system of physical property, we would surely be talking about which parties had authority to issue NFTs of which assets.