5 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.