10 ms·

I must be getting old because I just don't get NFT's. They look stupid and I don't get why anyone would buy them. Declining tech companies and startups seem t

I must be getting old because I just don't get NFT's. They look stupid and I don't get why anyone would buy them. Declining tech companies and startups seem to be trying to crowbar them into their products much like Blockchain when it was new and shiny. Perhaps younger me would of seen something I can't anymore.

21eleven 5y ago
The thing about NFTs is that many people who buy them "don't get NFTs". All an NFT is is a token that represents ownership, like if the title to your car or house deed was on a blockchain. NFTs have some sane use causes like designating the owner of a valuable asset or creating electronic tickets that can be resold or transferred without some centralized entity like ticketmaster. Prior to NFTs existing, would you purchase the ownership rights to a gif or tweet? Probably not. And that is what is dumb about the excitement around NFTs, some people with more money than sense seem to think that now that you can represent ownership on a blockchain some things, like crappy jpegs, have suddenly become valuable assets.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  Yep. It's a completely made up problem. It's maybe useful in enforcing existing IP law (i.e., I can prove that that picture is mine), but even that is questionable (proof of ownership of digital IP has already been proven satisfactorily for courts of law to rule on it). The fact there is a new way of proving ownership doesn't make the thing owned valuable.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    As far as I'm aware, the NFT doesn't itself convey any transfer of copyrights (or any other form of IP). That has to be done by a separate document (and therefore it's that document that transfers the rights, not the NFT). So I don't see how the NFT is doing anything to help enforce existing IP laws?
  - pornel 5y ago
    NFTs don't actually prove ownership of anything but themselves. Owning a hash of a URL has no connection to the real world, and can't prove that the NFT was created by the author of the artwork. It makes me doubly furious that NFT is advertised as caring for artists. In fact, NFT makes it easier than ever to sell stolen artwork. NFT itself doesn't contain any copyrighted material, and selling metadata/URLs is not illegal, so it's likely that fraud through NFT is de-facto legal if you just carefully word it as selling the NFT of the artwork, and not the artwork itself.
    - lostcolony 5y ago
      I'm not saying it does; I AM saying that it's an additional public record that can be used to bolster a case in the event of unclear ownership. And even that is "maybe" useful, hence my use of that phrase.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- anonporridge 5y ago
  Here's an NFT which is the best description I've ever seen of what NFTs actually are, https://foundation.app/@visualizevalue/nfts-explained-12012 https://foundation.app/@visualizevalue/nfts-explained-12012 It sold for 74 ETH.
  - somenewaccount1 5y ago
    Which is about approximately $240,000 USD. Hrm...I wonder if I should mint some nft's? And so it begins.
    - anonporridge 5y ago
      This is the equivalent of someone seeing how much a Picasso sells and wondering if they should become an artist. For every success, there are 10,000 failures.
      - somenewaccount1 5y ago
        That's true, but in the Picasso scenario I actually need to learn to do art. In the NFT case, apparently a 3rd grade level of photoshop skills would do.
        anonporridge 5y ago
        You could also tape a banana to a wall and sell it for $120k in the traditional art world. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/maurizio-cattelan-banana-collector-1728009 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/maurizio-cattelan-banana-c... Don't mistake extreme technical skill as being the sole reason humans value things. Sometimes, it's just about being the first to effectively convey a new idea, and the crudeness of the execution doesn't matter. And there are plenty of extremely skilled artists that spend decades mastering their craft whose work is effectively worthless, because they're not actually breaking new ground.
        somenewaccount1 5y ago
- TomGullen 5y ago
  Can't understand "Ownership of a Tweet" as Twitter owns them - or at the very least they can destroy them whenever they want.
- cperciva 5y ago
  Thing is, NFTs don't represent ownership, absent some external legal documents which tie ownership to the NFT. (And even with such external documents p perhaps not; see e.g. the statute of frauds which restricts in what form land ownership can be transferred.) I can sell NFTs of bridges all day long; doesn't mean anyone is buying a bridge.
  - Joeboy 5y ago
    An NFT is decent evidence in favour of the keyholder being the creator of a work, if there's no earlier evidence of somebody else being the creator of the work. When people first started talking about them I thought that was the idea - a kind of people's copyright registry on the blockchain. Which seems like a fairly reasonable idea, as far as it goes. Edit: To be clear, I mean a copyright registry that is used for the sort of thing copyright registries are used for, ie. adjudicating copyright disputes. I am not saying an NFT of the Mona Lisa is good evidence you painted the Mona Lisa (unless you minted it in 1502), and I'm definitely not saying the current market in NFTs is sensible.
    - root_axis 5y ago
      > An NFT is decent evidence in favour of you being the creator of a work, if there's no earlier evidence of somebody else being the creator of the work It's really not at all reliable. I could create an NFT for the "Joeboy" HN account right now, and ostensibly become the owner of your HN account since such an NFT does not already exist. Obviously, this makes no sense, the NFT is meaningless.
      - Joeboy 5y ago
        If there was no evidence of the account existing before you registered the NFT, I think that would be a reasonably credible bit of evidence in your favour.
      - capableweb 5y ago
        No, you could create an NFT that supposedly represents that but unless people buy into the idea, no is becoming the owner of anything. If instead Ycombinator would release each user as an NFT, and allow people to buy/sell then, then yes you could become the owner of an HN account via NFTs. But until then, the one who knows the password is the owner. People seems to have some sort of problem with trying to understand NFTs were all thoughts and logic go out the window as soon as NFTs are mentioned.
- root_axis 5y ago
  > All an NFT is is a token that represents ownership, like if the title to your car or house deed was on a blockchain. No. An NFT is just a few bytes of text pinned to a blockchain. They are essentially useless, and every useful property of an NFT can be achieved using asymmetric encryption or digital signatures, the blockchain component is just wasteful hype.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    If an external source - say the Twitter account of an artist - can authenticate that the holder of the NFT is who the creator of the art work wants to be recognized as the owner, then social consensus will lead to widespread value assignment to that NFT. The ability to hold and trade the NFT on the public blockchain makes that asset accessible to a large number of autonomous on-chain markets, like dApps which allow a person to take out self-executing loans that use the NFT as collateral.
    - acdha 5y ago
      > If an external source - say the Twitter account of an artist - can authenticate that the holder of the NFT is who the creator of the art work wants to be recognized as the owner, then social consensus will lead to widespread value assignment to that NFT. In other words, you don't need the blockchain because the actual value comes from a different system. The only thing it's adding is overhead and unreliability.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        The second paragraph explains the utility of issuing it on the blockchain.
        acdha 5y ago
        It fails to establish that this is unique to a blockchain: we do, after all, have decades of experience building distributed applications and it’s not like banks haven’t issued loans before and the hypothetical benefits have to be weighed against the added costs of relying a very slow, expensive database with no mechanism to correct bugs or fraud.
- KorematsuFredt 5y ago
  NFTs don't sell ownership rights. NFTs are equivalent of buying photographs of a celebrity. You may own NFT that represents Taylor Swift, but she aint going on a dinner date with you. Not to mention you are not the only one to hold it either as someone else can Taylor Swift NFT and sell it to. It is exactly same as buying and owning cards of your favourite celebrity. They are worthless even compared to cowdung and have absolutely not practical value. One has to be high on drugs to buy ugly gifs for thousands of dollars.
  - Jxl180 5y ago
    The NFTs that people are making their profile pictures are drastically different from the celebrity and athlete NFTs put out by DraftKings or topshot. The NFTs in profile pics on Twitter (like crypto punks) have randomly generated features making each and every minted nft completely unique. I feel like there are two vastly different audiences with NFTs. The casual, celebrity/athlete NFTs that are selling multiple of some persons face for fiat currency, and parole who are actively participating in minting NFTs with web3 dApps made by developers with roadmaps and a strong community.
nradov 5y ago
Beanie Babies also looked stupid. It's just another fad and bubble. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/03/02/beanie-baby-bubble https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/03/02/beanie-baby-bubbl...
- SergeAx 5y ago
  At least you may physically own a beanie doll.
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    They're more like tulips. Physically owning a tulip is rather transient.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - dehrmann 5y ago
    Exactly. If you think your beanie baby is still interesting in 2021, you can put it on a shelf. Showing off your NFT quickly devolves to "cool story, bro."
larsiusprime 5y ago
As far as I can tell, there's nothing to "get": https://www.fortressofdoors.com/the-degraded-blockchain-problem/ https://www.fortressofdoors.com/the-degraded-blockchain-prob...
zepto 5y ago
The emperor is dressed in NFTs.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  The clothes have no emperor
SergeAx 5y ago
They don't look stupid, they are stupid outside of their blockchain. There's no way to force a proof of ownership between NFT and physical item.
k__ 5y ago
NFTs can be anything. I don't get the art focus. They can be a degree, a concert ticket, a driving license, a permission to a API service, equity to a company.
- TomGullen 5y ago
  Permission to an API service maybe, the rest of the examples create more problems than they solve.
  - k__ 5y ago
    How come? Just think about all cases of fake liceses? This could be verified rather easily with an NFT while faking it would be quite hard.
    - dkersten 5y ago
      How? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Since drivers licenses are linked to individuals, and cannot be traded, the traffic cop that's checking your license will need to compare it to your government issued ID. Then they look it up to see that its valid and linked to you as a person. How is doing this as an NFT (or other blockchain thing) any better than having a government database they look up? This is a big problem I have with most blockchain tech: yes, it can be built on a blockchain, but it doesn't need it and alternatives tend to be simpler and cheaper. I'm overall pro cryptocurrency and blockchain, but if we want people to still take it seriously in twenty years time, we need the use cases to actually make sense. I don't see how NFT's make sense here, unless I'm missing something.
      - k__ 5y ago
        To be fair, I don't know either what of the possible use-cases are actually good use-cases. But having a globally available, decentralized, and transparent database for some of these "certificats" could be a good thing.
      - yellowapple 5y ago
rchaud 5y ago
The only implementation of NFTs I've come across that doesn't look like a fly-by-night operation is NBA's Top Shot, where you can buy video NFTs of special moments in NBA history. At the very least, you can buy a piece of IP directly from the IP holder, and receive a package that's nicely presented. It's still totally overpriced, but I can see at least some value. It still needs to go a step further technologically. Like a special app that allows you to view the NFT with AR features artificially implemented. Or displaying it in a holographic form, especially for moments captured with 360-degree cameras.
- TigeriusKirk 5y ago
  My main complaint with Top Shot is that the moments exist only on the proprietary site. They also can't be traded anywhere but that site. This removes any value the nft aspect brings to the table as it's now single-point-of-failure. There was talk about expanding off the one site, but I haven't seen any progress there.
- paulgb 5y ago
  > At the very least, you can buy a piece of IP directly from the IP holder You're not really buying the IP in any meaningful way, though, you just get a non-exclusive, non-transferable (!) right to display it. They can still air it or license it to others without paying you royalties.
  - rchaud 5y ago
    I understand that, I am likening it to purchasing a DVD of a game, which is something that used to happen. Maybe not in the NBA, but in soccer, some clubs do put out DVDs of famous victories. And even then, I'd say those mass-manufactured DVDs with 90 mins of content are intrinsically more valuable than a GIF-length video clip.
    - paulgb 5y ago
      Ah, I think we agree then. I guess someone could make the argument that even though the license to reproduce is limited (e.g. it must be non-commercial), you technically have more IP rights with a TopShots NFT than with a DVD. But yeah, I'd take the DVD myself (if I still owned a player).
throwdecro 5y ago
I think it's something you can make for free, and sell for money. I don't think anyone "gets" the whole thing; I'd be shocked if anyone selling these things was also a collector. You either get the money or you give the money.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
There isn't much to get. It is a collectible and now, for a variety of reasons, all sorts of collectibles are gaining value. I have a pet theory that after art market got heavily regulated with AML laws, a lot of it moved to NFT, where it is very much free game for anyone with money to stake.
endymi0n 5y ago
I feel exactly the same way when thinking about the 90s. Telemetry and multimedia... two words that back then had exactly the same vibe to me. Both sounded as ambitious as ambiguous, raised millions and made zero business sense despite sounding glamorous and all-encompassing. The writing was on the wall when the big newspapers gave stock tips for consumers on the hottest newest telemetry startups. We all know how it went.
newbie789 5y ago
It’s a made up class of asset that’s entirely made for money laundering. That’s it, now you’re an expert in NFTs.
mindvirus 5y ago
I'm still skeptical, but think of them as digital goods that you own, and that can follow you across applications. If you collect items in a game, you can have them in another place too. The metaverse pitch is that you can create economies around these that aren't constrained to a single application. I can make and sell cool art, and you can buy that art and put it anywhere - and it's yours, in a way that a downloaded PNG just isn't.

21eleven 5y ago

The thing about NFTs is that many people who buy them "don't get NFTs". All an NFT is is a token that represents ownership, like if the title to your car or house deed was on a blockchain. NFTs have some sane use causes like designating the owner of a valuable asset or creating electronic tickets that can be resold or transferred without some centralized entity like ticketmaster. Prior to NFTs existing, would you purchase the ownership rights to a gif or tweet? Probably not. And that is what is dumb about the excitement around NFTs, some people with more money than sense seem to think that now that you can represent ownership on a blockchain some things, like crappy jpegs, have suddenly become valuable assets.

lostcolony 5y ago
Yep. It's a completely made up problem. It's maybe useful in enforcing existing IP law (i.e., I can prove that that picture is mine), but even that is questionable (proof of ownership of digital IP has already been proven satisfactorily for courts of law to rule on it). The fact there is a new way of proving ownership doesn't make the thing owned valuable.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  As far as I'm aware, the NFT doesn't itself convey any transfer of copyrights (or any other form of IP). That has to be done by a separate document (and therefore it's that document that transfers the rights, not the NFT). So I don't see how the NFT is doing anything to help enforce existing IP laws?
- pornel 5y ago
  NFTs don't actually prove ownership of anything but themselves. Owning a hash of a URL has no connection to the real world, and can't prove that the NFT was created by the author of the artwork. It makes me doubly furious that NFT is advertised as caring for artists. In fact, NFT makes it easier than ever to sell stolen artwork. NFT itself doesn't contain any copyrighted material, and selling metadata/URLs is not illegal, so it's likely that fraud through NFT is de-facto legal if you just carefully word it as selling the NFT of the artwork, and not the artwork itself.
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    I'm not saying it does; I AM saying that it's an additional public record that can be used to bolster a case in the event of unclear ownership. And even that is "maybe" useful, hence my use of that phrase.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
anonporridge 5y ago
Here's an NFT which is the best description I've ever seen of what NFTs actually are, https://foundation.app/@visualizevalue/nfts-explained-12012 https://foundation.app/@visualizevalue/nfts-explained-12012 It sold for 74 ETH.
- somenewaccount1 5y ago
  Which is about approximately $240,000 USD. Hrm...I wonder if I should mint some nft's? And so it begins.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    This is the equivalent of someone seeing how much a Picasso sells and wondering if they should become an artist. For every success, there are 10,000 failures.
    - somenewaccount1 5y ago
      That's true, but in the Picasso scenario I actually need to learn to do art. In the NFT case, apparently a 3rd grade level of photoshop skills would do.
      - anonporridge 5y ago
        You could also tape a banana to a wall and sell it for $120k in the traditional art world. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/maurizio-cattelan-banana-collector-1728009 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/maurizio-cattelan-banana-c... Don't mistake extreme technical skill as being the sole reason humans value things. Sometimes, it's just about being the first to effectively convey a new idea, and the crudeness of the execution doesn't matter. And there are plenty of extremely skilled artists that spend decades mastering their craft whose work is effectively worthless, because they're not actually breaking new ground.
        somenewaccount1 5y ago
TomGullen 5y ago
Can't understand "Ownership of a Tweet" as Twitter owns them - or at the very least they can destroy them whenever they want.
cperciva 5y ago
Thing is, NFTs don't represent ownership, absent some external legal documents which tie ownership to the NFT. (And even with such external documents p perhaps not; see e.g. the statute of frauds which restricts in what form land ownership can be transferred.) I can sell NFTs of bridges all day long; doesn't mean anyone is buying a bridge.
- Joeboy 5y ago
  An NFT is decent evidence in favour of the keyholder being the creator of a work, if there's no earlier evidence of somebody else being the creator of the work. When people first started talking about them I thought that was the idea - a kind of people's copyright registry on the blockchain. Which seems like a fairly reasonable idea, as far as it goes. Edit: To be clear, I mean a copyright registry that is used for the sort of thing copyright registries are used for, ie. adjudicating copyright disputes. I am not saying an NFT of the Mona Lisa is good evidence you painted the Mona Lisa (unless you minted it in 1502), and I'm definitely not saying the current market in NFTs is sensible.
  - root_axis 5y ago
    > An NFT is decent evidence in favour of you being the creator of a work, if there's no earlier evidence of somebody else being the creator of the work It's really not at all reliable. I could create an NFT for the "Joeboy" HN account right now, and ostensibly become the owner of your HN account since such an NFT does not already exist. Obviously, this makes no sense, the NFT is meaningless.
    - Joeboy 5y ago
      If there was no evidence of the account existing before you registered the NFT, I think that would be a reasonably credible bit of evidence in your favour.
    - capableweb 5y ago
      No, you could create an NFT that supposedly represents that but unless people buy into the idea, no is becoming the owner of anything. If instead Ycombinator would release each user as an NFT, and allow people to buy/sell then, then yes you could become the owner of an HN account via NFTs. But until then, the one who knows the password is the owner. People seems to have some sort of problem with trying to understand NFTs were all thoughts and logic go out the window as soon as NFTs are mentioned.
root_axis 5y ago
> All an NFT is is a token that represents ownership, like if the title to your car or house deed was on a blockchain. No. An NFT is just a few bytes of text pinned to a blockchain. They are essentially useless, and every useful property of an NFT can be achieved using asymmetric encryption or digital signatures, the blockchain component is just wasteful hype.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  If an external source - say the Twitter account of an artist - can authenticate that the holder of the NFT is who the creator of the art work wants to be recognized as the owner, then social consensus will lead to widespread value assignment to that NFT. The ability to hold and trade the NFT on the public blockchain makes that asset accessible to a large number of autonomous on-chain markets, like dApps which allow a person to take out self-executing loans that use the NFT as collateral.
  - acdha 5y ago
    > If an external source - say the Twitter account of an artist - can authenticate that the holder of the NFT is who the creator of the art work wants to be recognized as the owner, then social consensus will lead to widespread value assignment to that NFT. In other words, you don't need the blockchain because the actual value comes from a different system. The only thing it's adding is overhead and unreliability.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      The second paragraph explains the utility of issuing it on the blockchain.
      - acdha 5y ago
        It fails to establish that this is unique to a blockchain: we do, after all, have decades of experience building distributed applications and it’s not like banks haven’t issued loans before and the hypothetical benefits have to be weighed against the added costs of relying a very slow, expensive database with no mechanism to correct bugs or fraud.
KorematsuFredt 5y ago
NFTs don't sell ownership rights. NFTs are equivalent of buying photographs of a celebrity. You may own NFT that represents Taylor Swift, but she aint going on a dinner date with you. Not to mention you are not the only one to hold it either as someone else can Taylor Swift NFT and sell it to. It is exactly same as buying and owning cards of your favourite celebrity. They are worthless even compared to cowdung and have absolutely not practical value. One has to be high on drugs to buy ugly gifs for thousands of dollars.
- Jxl180 5y ago
  The NFTs that people are making their profile pictures are drastically different from the celebrity and athlete NFTs put out by DraftKings or topshot. The NFTs in profile pics on Twitter (like crypto punks) have randomly generated features making each and every minted nft completely unique. I feel like there are two vastly different audiences with NFTs. The casual, celebrity/athlete NFTs that are selling multiple of some persons face for fiat currency, and parole who are actively participating in minting NFTs with web3 dApps made by developers with roadmaps and a strong community.

nradov 5y ago

Beanie Babies also looked stupid. It's just another fad and bubble. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/03/02/beanie-baby-bubble https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/03/02/beanie-baby-bubbl...

SergeAx 5y ago
At least you may physically own a beanie doll.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  They're more like tulips. Physically owning a tulip is rather transient.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- dehrmann 5y ago
  Exactly. If you think your beanie baby is still interesting in 2021, you can put it on a shelf. Showing off your NFT quickly devolves to "cool story, bro."

larsiusprime 5y ago

As far as I can tell, there's nothing to "get": https://www.fortressofdoors.com/the-degraded-blockchain-problem/ https://www.fortressofdoors.com/the-degraded-blockchain-prob...

zepto 5y ago

The emperor is dressed in NFTs.

cratermoon 5y ago
The clothes have no emperor

SergeAx 5y ago

They don't look stupid, they are stupid outside of their blockchain. There's no way to force a proof of ownership between NFT and physical item.

k__ 5y ago

NFTs can be anything. I don't get the art focus. They can be a degree, a concert ticket, a driving license, a permission to a API service, equity to a company.

TomGullen 5y ago
Permission to an API service maybe, the rest of the examples create more problems than they solve.
- k__ 5y ago
  How come? Just think about all cases of fake liceses? This could be verified rather easily with an NFT while faking it would be quite hard.
  - dkersten 5y ago
    How? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Since drivers licenses are linked to individuals, and cannot be traded, the traffic cop that's checking your license will need to compare it to your government issued ID. Then they look it up to see that its valid and linked to you as a person. How is doing this as an NFT (or other blockchain thing) any better than having a government database they look up? This is a big problem I have with most blockchain tech: yes, it can be built on a blockchain, but it doesn't need it and alternatives tend to be simpler and cheaper. I'm overall pro cryptocurrency and blockchain, but if we want people to still take it seriously in twenty years time, we need the use cases to actually make sense. I don't see how NFT's make sense here, unless I'm missing something.
    - k__ 5y ago
      To be fair, I don't know either what of the possible use-cases are actually good use-cases. But having a globally available, decentralized, and transparent database for some of these "certificats" could be a good thing.
    - yellowapple 5y ago

rchaud 5y ago

The only implementation of NFTs I've come across that doesn't look like a fly-by-night operation is NBA's Top Shot, where you can buy video NFTs of special moments in NBA history. At the very least, you can buy a piece of IP directly from the IP holder, and receive a package that's nicely presented. It's still totally overpriced, but I can see at least some value. It still needs to go a step further technologically. Like a special app that allows you to view the NFT with AR features artificially implemented. Or displaying it in a holographic form, especially for moments captured with 360-degree cameras.

TigeriusKirk 5y ago
My main complaint with Top Shot is that the moments exist only on the proprietary site. They also can't be traded anywhere but that site. This removes any value the nft aspect brings to the table as it's now single-point-of-failure. There was talk about expanding off the one site, but I haven't seen any progress there.
paulgb 5y ago
> At the very least, you can buy a piece of IP directly from the IP holder You're not really buying the IP in any meaningful way, though, you just get a non-exclusive, non-transferable (!) right to display it. They can still air it or license it to others without paying you royalties.
- rchaud 5y ago
  I understand that, I am likening it to purchasing a DVD of a game, which is something that used to happen. Maybe not in the NBA, but in soccer, some clubs do put out DVDs of famous victories. And even then, I'd say those mass-manufactured DVDs with 90 mins of content are intrinsically more valuable than a GIF-length video clip.
  - paulgb 5y ago
    Ah, I think we agree then. I guess someone could make the argument that even though the license to reproduce is limited (e.g. it must be non-commercial), you technically have more IP rights with a TopShots NFT than with a DVD. But yeah, I'd take the DVD myself (if I still owned a player).

throwdecro 5y ago

I think it's something you can make for free, and sell for money. I don't think anyone "gets" the whole thing; I'd be shocked if anyone selling these things was also a collector. You either get the money or you give the money.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

There isn't much to get. It is a collectible and now, for a variety of reasons, all sorts of collectibles are gaining value. I have a pet theory that after art market got heavily regulated with AML laws, a lot of it moved to NFT, where it is very much free game for anyone with money to stake.

endymi0n 5y ago

I feel exactly the same way when thinking about the 90s. Telemetry and multimedia... two words that back then had exactly the same vibe to me. Both sounded as ambitious as ambiguous, raised millions and made zero business sense despite sounding glamorous and all-encompassing. The writing was on the wall when the big newspapers gave stock tips for consumers on the hottest newest telemetry startups. We all know how it went.

newbie789 5y ago

It’s a made up class of asset that’s entirely made for money laundering. That’s it, now you’re an expert in NFTs.

mindvirus 5y ago

I'm still skeptical, but think of them as digital goods that you own, and that can follow you across applications. If you collect items in a game, you can have them in another place too. The metaverse pitch is that you can create economies around these that aren't constrained to a single application. I can make and sell cool art, and you can buy that art and put it anywhere - and it's yours, in a way that a downloaded PNG just isn't.