4 ms·

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://founda

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
        In hindsight, I was making a joke that seeing the value of an NFT has convinced me to make NFT's - and that this is the very cycle which has made NFT's valuable. I was not actually implying that I would literally start making NFT's right now. I did however forget that jokes and humor were against Hackernews rules, and for that I thank you kind sir for the reminder.
    - kristjansson 5y ago
      3rd-grade photoshop and weapons-grade marketing
  - isoskeles 5y ago
    s/Picasso/Rothko/
    - somenewaccount1 5y ago
      To make that nft would take me - or my 8 year old niece - no more than 2-3 hours to craft. Learning to mix paint like Rothko would take years.
- pornel 5y ago
  I think it's more likely that the author of this NFT paid this much to himself. It's the pump phase of a pump and dump scam.
tomp 5y ago
Except that, it's not even true. NFTs are equivalent to a orange checkmark on the website twotter.com that I just set up.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  I imagine it could actually develop into a similar situation for physical art. There is an original work that is worth a lot because humans are weird like that, and an entire industry of experts who try to sort out the actual original NFT that was minted by the artist over the duplicates and fakes. For example, we know the original creator of Nyan Cat came out of the woodwork to retroactively mint an NFT for it, https://foundation.app/@NyanCat/nyan-cat-219 https://foundation.app/@NyanCat/nyan-cat-219, which sold for 300 ETH. Obviously, anyone can create an NFT with the same gif, but we are reasonably certain that the actual created this ONE and declared it be the original. Obviously, this is a very odd thing to try to wrap your head around, but is it really that different from valuing original physical artwork?

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
      In hindsight, I was making a joke that seeing the value of an NFT has convinced me to make NFT's - and that this is the very cycle which has made NFT's valuable. I was not actually implying that I would literally start making NFT's right now. I did however forget that jokes and humor were against Hackernews rules, and for that I thank you kind sir for the reminder.
  - kristjansson 5y ago
    3rd-grade photoshop and weapons-grade marketing
- isoskeles 5y ago
  s/Picasso/Rothko/
  - somenewaccount1 5y ago
    To make that nft would take me - or my 8 year old niece - no more than 2-3 hours to craft. Learning to mix paint like Rothko would take years.
pornel 5y ago
I think it's more likely that the author of this NFT paid this much to himself. It's the pump phase of a pump and dump scam.

tomp 5y ago

Except that, it's not even true. NFTs are equivalent to a orange checkmark on the website twotter.com that I just set up.

anonporridge 5y ago
I imagine it could actually develop into a similar situation for physical art. There is an original work that is worth a lot because humans are weird like that, and an entire industry of experts who try to sort out the actual original NFT that was minted by the artist over the duplicates and fakes. For example, we know the original creator of Nyan Cat came out of the woodwork to retroactively mint an NFT for it, https://foundation.app/@NyanCat/nyan-cat-219 https://foundation.app/@NyanCat/nyan-cat-219, which sold for 300 ETH. Obviously, anyone can create an NFT with the same gif, but we are reasonably certain that the actual created this ONE and declared it be the original. Obviously, this is a very odd thing to try to wrap your head around, but is it really that different from valuing original physical artwork?