4 ms·

> It's exactly the same for NFTs. Dorsey's NFT sold for $2.9 precisely because it was 'issued' by him, and there's the implicit promise that he won't sell anoth

by skohan 5y ago

> It's exactly the same for NFTs. Dorsey's NFT sold for $2.9 precisely because it was 'issued' by him, and there's the implicit promise that he won't sell another NFT associated with that same tweet. If you or I tried to sell NFTs to that tweet, nothing would happen to the tweet, but we wouldn't find willing buyers. There's nothing tangible here What does the "owner" of the tweet actually have that nobody else has? It's an incredibly abstract sense of ownership which doesn't even have any social consensus as far as whether it actually exists or not.

MaxBarraclough 5y ago
> There's nothing tangible here Tangible strikes me as an imprecise word. In a sense, all sorts of things are intangible, from copyrights to money. Does a bitcoin count as intangible? > What does the "owner" of the tweet actually have that nobody else has? It's plainly Dorsey's tweet, not mine, and not yours. Dorsey wrote it, published it on his account, has the ability to destroy the tweet, and presumably owns the copyright. It's the same thing with baseball cards, they're valuable because they're official, and the community has to defend against counterfeits.
- BoiledCabbage 5y ago
  > It's plainly Dorsey's tweet, not mine, and not yours. Dorsey wrote it, published it on his account, has the ability to destroy the tweet, I think that's the point. With a baseball card, I clearly own the physical card, and can put it in the spokes of my bicycle if I want to. You mentioned the owner of the tweet is the Dorsey and I agree. If so, then what right did the NFT owner purchase? None as far as I can tell.
  - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
    Right. It doesn't entitle the holder to any rights, it's purely a collectible. Again, owning an NFT doesn't mean you own the underlying work, and owning a baseball card doesn't mean the athlete works for you. The idea of the floating signifier comes to mind. [0] > With a baseball card, I clearly own the physical card, and can put it in the spokes of my bicycle if I want to. Sure, but they both share the property of scarcity, and in the same way. The originator could in principle dilute the scarcity by issuing more (printing more baseball cards or issuing more NFTs for the same underlying asset). Is there anything of interest that changes by making it physical? I suppose the ability to destroy, but I think that's about it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_signifier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_signifier (not a great article in my opinion but I don't know of a better one) Also, I made a typo earlier: Dorsey's NFT of course sold for $2.9m, not $2.9.
    - lamontcg 5y ago
      scarcity is only the supply side of the equation. next year if everyone decides NFTs are nonsense then the demand side of the equation could collapse to zero. scarce things are only valuable if there's demand for it. things which are only unique are not inherently valuable unless humans decide that uniqueness is also valuable.
      - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
        > next year if everyone decides NFTs are nonsense then the demand side of the equation could collapse to zero. ... > things which are only unique are not inherently valuable Of course. Just like baseball cards. Put more broadly, all value is contextual; there's no such thing as inherent value. In a survival situation, a bottle of water has more value than a gold bar.

by skohan 5y ago

MaxBarraclough 5y ago

> There's nothing tangible here Tangible strikes me as an imprecise word. In a sense, all sorts of things are intangible, from copyrights to money. Does a bitcoin count as intangible? > What does the "owner" of the tweet actually have that nobody else has? It's plainly Dorsey's tweet, not mine, and not yours. Dorsey wrote it, published it on his account, has the ability to destroy the tweet, and presumably owns the copyright. It's the same thing with baseball cards, they're valuable because they're official, and the community has to defend against counterfeits.

BoiledCabbage 5y ago
> It's plainly Dorsey's tweet, not mine, and not yours. Dorsey wrote it, published it on his account, has the ability to destroy the tweet, I think that's the point. With a baseball card, I clearly own the physical card, and can put it in the spokes of my bicycle if I want to. You mentioned the owner of the tweet is the Dorsey and I agree. If so, then what right did the NFT owner purchase? None as far as I can tell.
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago
  Right. It doesn't entitle the holder to any rights, it's purely a collectible. Again, owning an NFT doesn't mean you own the underlying work, and owning a baseball card doesn't mean the athlete works for you. The idea of the floating signifier comes to mind. [0] > With a baseball card, I clearly own the physical card, and can put it in the spokes of my bicycle if I want to. Sure, but they both share the property of scarcity, and in the same way. The originator could in principle dilute the scarcity by issuing more (printing more baseball cards or issuing more NFTs for the same underlying asset). Is there anything of interest that changes by making it physical? I suppose the ability to destroy, but I think that's about it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_signifier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_signifier (not a great article in my opinion but I don't know of a better one) Also, I made a typo earlier: Dorsey's NFT of course sold for $2.9m, not $2.9.
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    scarcity is only the supply side of the equation. next year if everyone decides NFTs are nonsense then the demand side of the equation could collapse to zero. scarce things are only valuable if there's demand for it. things which are only unique are not inherently valuable unless humans decide that uniqueness is also valuable.
    - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
      > next year if everyone decides NFTs are nonsense then the demand side of the equation could collapse to zero. ... > things which are only unique are not inherently valuable Of course. Just like baseball cards. Put more broadly, all value is contextual; there's no such thing as inherent value. In a survival situation, a bottle of water has more value than a gold bar.