8 ms·

Person Furious That Someone Right Click Saved Their Precious NFT

54 points by gabea 5y ago

baud147258 5y ago
at first I though it was from the onion
everyone 5y ago
This generations beanie babies.
- emptyparadise 5y ago
  At least you actually get to own beanie babies.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    You could play with them to. My sister had loads as toys, bought for around £10 and given away to other kids when she was too old. There was a point to beanie babies other than trying to convince some bigger sucker it had rarity value and they should pay more money for it. I bought my niece a beanie baby recently. I doubt she'd have as much fun with a cryptographic signature claiming she owned a gif.
  - tata71 5y ago
    What if Beanie Babies had had authenticity NFTs on the Loopring chain (meaning secured by the Ethereum chain, if Loopring encounters a escalator-becomes-stairs moment), in order to cut down on the knockoffs, fake tags etc that ate into the LTV of Beanie Babies?
    - emptyparadise 5y ago
      Is there any advantage to doing this over just having a certificate of authenticity signed with the manufacturer's key?
      - tata71 5y ago
        Ease of transfer, even/especially if their centralized app and server goes down.
        emptyparadise 5y ago
        But that's still detached from the actual physical object. I'm thinking you'd want a physical certificate with a verifiable signature, which would be easy if we have the relevant public keys. Or equivalent, something like a tiny QR code on the actual physical thing that can be scanned to verify the details + their authenticity. Digital stuff is blurrier but actual physical possession of an item is the only absolute way to determine its owner at a specific point in time, all contracts be damned.
        tata71 5y ago
        Yes, you can etch the key onto the thing as a QR — but I'm not beating away the evangelicals who will call you the Antichrist when you do!
        acdha 5y ago
        You don’t need a centralized app to make or verify a public key signature and it’s many orders of magnitude less expensive than a blockchain transaction.
        tata71 5y ago
        Those can be copy and pasted. Ownership of your unique token, from the Beanie Baby collection on Loopring/the Ethereum protocol, cannot. And, of course, you wouldn't take one without the other, in most cases....
        acdha 5y ago
        They can be copy and pasted just like messages on a blockchain — all that does is give someone else a backup copy of your signature. They can’t use that to forge messages to create new copies - only the holder of the private key can do that, and if you try to cheat by issuing the same transaction multiple times it’s immediately obvious. The key to understanding how this works is remembering that blockchains are only useful when none of the parties involved have identities or trust relationships. In this scenario, you’re exchanging physical objects in the real world which need to be verified for authenticity (which cannot happen on the blockchain) and the trust is rooted in the idea that the manufacturer will not issue the same serial number to multiple people. A blockchain doesn’t add trust or safety, just overhead and expense.
  - eldelshell 5y ago
    I'll sell you a paper that says you own a Beanie Baby. That's NFT for you, but without the paper, so you don't even own a paper.
- abetusk 5y ago
  I don't really disagree but it's worthwhile noting that Beanie Babies were the first "killer app" of EBay (from Peter Thiel's "Zero to One: ...", pg 43-44 [0]). > eBay also started by dominating small niche markets. When it launched its auction marketplace in 1995, it didn’t need the whole world to adopt it at once; the product worked well for intense interest groups, like Beanie Baby obsessives. Once it monopolized the Beanie Baby trade, eBay didn’t jump straight to listing sports cars or industrial surplus: it continued to cater to small-time hobbyists until it became the most reliable marketplace for people trading online no matter what the item. [0] http://morfene.com/021.pdf http://morfene.com/021.pdf
casi18 5y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMDBmP56s8o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMDBmP56s8o in the words of Stuart Brand "Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive, that tension won't go away" - people often only write the first half of the quote, but nfts address the tension.
dismalpedigree 5y ago
This story makes me happy. NFTs for digital artwork are one of the most ridiculous use cases.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  I disagree in principle. It's a form of patronage. In practice, it's evolved into some kind of very expensive Beanie Baby collecting. Strange stuff.
- casi18 5y ago
  Thats probably one of the reasons I like them, ridiculousness is fun. We're not beep-boop-logical vulcans, we're humans following bliss.
- tata71 5y ago
  Agree. We need it for trading tranches of currency (cryptocurrency especially), shares of stock, ownership of physical items like real estate/trading cards/authenticity documents for signed memorabilia/trading used games (GameStop and Loopring!), much more.
unionpivo 5y ago
This sounds funny now, until somebody tries to sue someone or even pass laws that would make it illegal.
user-the-name 5y ago
This article misses the very deepest level on which this is all utter nonsense: An NFT does not actually grant you "ownership" of an image in any meaningful way. The only real way to "own" a digital image is to own the copyright to it, but NFTs do not grant you that. Sometimes, you may have a separate contract of transfer of copyright that you get along with the NFT, but the NFT is not part of that contract. You can sell the NFT on and keep the copyright, if you want. The only thing you "own" when you buy an NFT is the NFT itself, which is basically nothing but a receipt.
- nybble41 5y ago
  Exactly. There isn't anything "exclusive" about the content referenced in an NFT. The closest analog in physical artwork would be a signed & numbered print from a limited series—there may be many other copies of the same image, but this particular one is yours. The protocols for NFTs basically dictate that the underlying image must be available to everyone so that whoever purchases the NFT will be able to access it. Usually this means publishing the content on a decentralized network like IPFS. For the particular NFT in this story, the metadata can be seen here: https://api.opensea.io/api/v1/asset/0x8943c7bac1914c9a7aba750bf2b6b09fd21037e0/348 https://api.opensea.io/api/v1/asset/0x8943c7bac1914c9a7aba75... Note that there is nothing in the metadata about a transfer of copyright or an exclusive license. The original image was shared to the world by the artist through IPFS here: ipfs://QmaeqEgbu2sEHpJ9ghur44kcvGqBc5cvRTTu3YsRzkGFSh … which you can access using your own IPFS node or through any IPFS gateway, for example ipfs.io: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmaeqEgbu2sEHpJ9ghur44kcvGqBc5cvRTTu3YsRzkGFSh https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmaeqEgbu2sEHpJ9ghur44kcvGqBc5cvRTTu3Ys...
- stemlord 5y ago
  Right, many seem to have forgotten that Getty Images exists and is still probably more foolproof than NFTs at regulating ownership, at least in the commercial space
- stncls 5y ago
  Yes! On this point, it's funny to see how Beeple gets extra animated in this interview to make absolutely clear that he still retains copyright on all his NFT'd artwork: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=13U573keZ3A&t=1374 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=13U573keZ3A&t=1374
high_byte 5y ago
coming up next: DAO court for NFTs dispute resolutions, funded by meme coins, official legal authority: nowhere. unofficial official legal authority: the metaverse.
- tata71 5y ago
  Entertainment News dominates Western citizens' political views, why not scale it?!
akudha 5y ago
Imagine getting angry over someone saving an image from the public internet. How vain and stupid does one need to be, to get pissed over this? Sometimes I feel I am the one out of touch. Or maybe we are living in a simulated (bad) parody of life?
- bogota 5y ago
  You only feel that way because only stupidity and anger is broadcast widely over all forms of media now. It’s what sells ads and clicks. Until that changes we are living in a rage world and it’s great for sales.
- frebord 5y ago
  Lol and everyone is programmed to have their Karen moment at some point
- vadfa 5y ago
  It's clear to me that that guy is just joking. One has to be fucking autistic not to see it.
  - akudha 5y ago
    Oh well, I am autistic then :( I honestly can’t tell if that person is joking. But hey, we live in a world where even The Onion is struggling to keep up!
- casi18 5y ago
  the person sending the dm is clearly trolling/joking. wild they wrote an article about it, but i guess the idea that people are angry gets clicks.
  - geofft 5y ago
    Prove it.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  People get pissed off about downloading movies and books from the public internet. The precedent has been made.
kordlessagain 5y ago
NFTs are stupid.
- tata71 5y ago
  Currently, yes. In about...35min, no.
  - smegcicle 5y ago
    what's happening ????
oxymoran 5y ago
“Sure, you can make your own gold-coated steak for 65GBP, but then you don’t have the satisfaction, flex, clout that comes from having eaten at Salt Bae’s restaurant… “The value is not in the cost of the steak,” Milhouse argued. “It’s all about the flex.” The Flex!!!!! $2k gold plated steak for “clout”. This is exhibit A for social media making us stupid at scale. I would rather run naked through a thicket of thorn bushes than eat at the restaurant of some internet “chef” named Salt Bae.
- bil7 5y ago
  The classic mistake of assuming that as you personally see no value in something, everyone who does is stupid.
  - throwawayyy181 5y ago
    The point of all this is to impress others. If others aren’t sufficiently impressed, the steak or the NFT are failures.
  - sennight 5y ago
    Assuming stupidity is actually the most charitable thing to do for something so objectively ridiculous. The alternative motivation being a calculated, manipulative, attention seeking stunt.
rvz 5y ago
Good luck enforcing 'ownership' of an 'NFT' that is 'downloadable' and 'right-click-saved' on anyone's computer. Better not click on a random NFT giveaway. You might lose more than just your expensive certificate of purchasing a useless JPEG minted by literally anyone.
- tata71 5y ago
  You're writing off a technology based on its worst-case, early-days, memeified usage of it. This is like saying AI chat bots are a write off because Microsoft's was racist.
  - acdha 5y ago
    This is a core architectural problem which cannot be fixed without completely changing how the system works. NFTs require non-tiny content to be hosted publicly on a separate system. You can build separate access control systems but doing that means you don’t need to pay for a blockchain in addition to the independent system which actually works.
  - rvz 5y ago
    I specifically said: > ...that is 'downloadable' and 'right-click-saved' That does not mean all NFTs. There are some that are not 'downloadable' and have more utility than others.
kkielhofner 5y ago
Just wait until people discover you can essentially clone not only the image itself but also all of the metadata and simple mint it again on the same blockchain, a different blockchain and/or marketplace. Additionally, while the original creator always maintains copyright ownership any terms associated with the purchase are essentially lost when it’s resold because presentation of the terms and agreement to them almost often aren’t always presented and agreement enforced, acknowledged, and recorded.
- casi18 5y ago
  cant believe people are paying artists for their contributions to the world, don't they know the data is all freely available?! just wait until they discov..... for real tho, im very happy that there are people making a living drawing jpegs and making mp3s and collecting royalties on resales (with their own distribution rules coded) whilst still able to make their work freely available to the world. Im happy that people value reputation, legitimacy, and provenance represented by digital signatures. its funny i keep seeing this criticism directed at the nft space, that it is obsessed with money, yet those making the criticism never seem able to go beyond the money/legal rights aspects themselves. meanwhile we're making cakes and clothing: https://twitter.com/creatureNFT/status/1456758941753528326 https://twitter.com/creatureNFT/status/1456758941753528326 "wait it's about social agreements, trust, and culture?" "Always has been "
  - emptyparadise 5y ago
    Royalties on resales is probably the first actually interesting pro-NFT argument I've heard. Otherwise it always just makes me ask: "you do realize it's possible to pay people for art already, right?" Hell, you could use cryptocurrency for art credit card companies wouldn't touch already.
    - casi18 5y ago
      I quite like them for token gates chat rooms, i'm in a few discords that use nft ownership as keys, keeps out the spam, and I can always sell my access by selling the token, and if I do the creator gets 10%(standard but varies) of the sale. I can use them for voting in https://snapshot.org/#/ https://snapshot.org/#/ I can rent them out on places like https://dapp.renft.io/ https://dapp.renft.io/ for example if you have a stonercat nft (mila kunis and ashton kutchers new animation series) you have a key to watch episodes, but you could always rent that key out to others to watch episodes. I could (and do) buy music and art that isn't nft'd, but i like that it gets stored in my wallet. I can open rainbow and it has all the links to everything ive bought. I like that i can deploy a contract and then add some js to my website to connect it to eth, and then people can come to my website and mint/buy my art. I dont need to set up stripe or shopify and get it connected to my bank account. I can have a shopfront up in like 30 mins, even less if i use zora/opensea. I dont need to store databases with peoples emails and passwords, they just use their wallet to log in. I can easily gift them to friends, I can pull the meta data into whatever website/app/display i like. I can make rules in my contract that it can only be transferred once a year, or that it gets split into two on each transfer, or that you have to feed it and play with it like a tamagotchi. I can play with the responsibility of ownership, make it much more involved and participatory. Maybe all the owners of my nfts have to work together to activate it. You could probably still do some of that without cryptocurrencies, but programmable tokens and a big shared database/computer make it much easier.

54 points by gabea 5y ago

baud147258 5y ago

at first I though it was from the onion

everyone 5y ago

This generations beanie babies.

emptyparadise 5y ago
At least you actually get to own beanie babies.
- notahacker 5y ago
  You could play with them to. My sister had loads as toys, bought for around £10 and given away to other kids when she was too old. There was a point to beanie babies other than trying to convince some bigger sucker it had rarity value and they should pay more money for it. I bought my niece a beanie baby recently. I doubt she'd have as much fun with a cryptographic signature claiming she owned a gif.
- tata71 5y ago
  What if Beanie Babies had had authenticity NFTs on the Loopring chain (meaning secured by the Ethereum chain, if Loopring encounters a escalator-becomes-stairs moment), in order to cut down on the knockoffs, fake tags etc that ate into the LTV of Beanie Babies?
  - emptyparadise 5y ago
    Is there any advantage to doing this over just having a certificate of authenticity signed with the manufacturer's key?
    - tata71 5y ago
      Ease of transfer, even/especially if their centralized app and server goes down.
      - emptyparadise 5y ago
        But that's still detached from the actual physical object. I'm thinking you'd want a physical certificate with a verifiable signature, which would be easy if we have the relevant public keys. Or equivalent, something like a tiny QR code on the actual physical thing that can be scanned to verify the details + their authenticity. Digital stuff is blurrier but actual physical possession of an item is the only absolute way to determine its owner at a specific point in time, all contracts be damned.
        tata71 5y ago
        Yes, you can etch the key onto the thing as a QR — but I'm not beating away the evangelicals who will call you the Antichrist when you do!
      - acdha 5y ago
        You don’t need a centralized app to make or verify a public key signature and it’s many orders of magnitude less expensive than a blockchain transaction.
        tata71 5y ago
        Those can be copy and pasted. Ownership of your unique token, from the Beanie Baby collection on Loopring/the Ethereum protocol, cannot. And, of course, you wouldn't take one without the other, in most cases....
        acdha 5y ago
        They can be copy and pasted just like messages on a blockchain — all that does is give someone else a backup copy of your signature. They can’t use that to forge messages to create new copies - only the holder of the private key can do that, and if you try to cheat by issuing the same transaction multiple times it’s immediately obvious. The key to understanding how this works is remembering that blockchains are only useful when none of the parties involved have identities or trust relationships. In this scenario, you’re exchanging physical objects in the real world which need to be verified for authenticity (which cannot happen on the blockchain) and the trust is rooted in the idea that the manufacturer will not issue the same serial number to multiple people. A blockchain doesn’t add trust or safety, just overhead and expense.
- eldelshell 5y ago
  I'll sell you a paper that says you own a Beanie Baby. That's NFT for you, but without the paper, so you don't even own a paper.
abetusk 5y ago
I don't really disagree but it's worthwhile noting that Beanie Babies were the first "killer app" of EBay (from Peter Thiel's "Zero to One: ...", pg 43-44 [0]). > eBay also started by dominating small niche markets. When it launched its auction marketplace in 1995, it didn’t need the whole world to adopt it at once; the product worked well for intense interest groups, like Beanie Baby obsessives. Once it monopolized the Beanie Baby trade, eBay didn’t jump straight to listing sports cars or industrial surplus: it continued to cater to small-time hobbyists until it became the most reliable marketplace for people trading online no matter what the item. [0] http://morfene.com/021.pdf http://morfene.com/021.pdf

casi18 5y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMDBmP56s8o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMDBmP56s8o in the words of Stuart Brand "Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive, that tension won't go away" - people often only write the first half of the quote, but nfts address the tension.

dismalpedigree 5y ago

This story makes me happy. NFTs for digital artwork are one of the most ridiculous use cases.

nerdponx 5y ago
I disagree in principle. It's a form of patronage. In practice, it's evolved into some kind of very expensive Beanie Baby collecting. Strange stuff.
casi18 5y ago
Thats probably one of the reasons I like them, ridiculousness is fun. We're not beep-boop-logical vulcans, we're humans following bliss.
tata71 5y ago
Agree. We need it for trading tranches of currency (cryptocurrency especially), shares of stock, ownership of physical items like real estate/trading cards/authenticity documents for signed memorabilia/trading used games (GameStop and Loopring!), much more.

unionpivo 5y ago

This sounds funny now, until somebody tries to sue someone or even pass laws that would make it illegal.

user-the-name 5y ago

This article misses the very deepest level on which this is all utter nonsense: An NFT does not actually grant you "ownership" of an image in any meaningful way. The only real way to "own" a digital image is to own the copyright to it, but NFTs do not grant you that. Sometimes, you may have a separate contract of transfer of copyright that you get along with the NFT, but the NFT is not part of that contract. You can sell the NFT on and keep the copyright, if you want. The only thing you "own" when you buy an NFT is the NFT itself, which is basically nothing but a receipt.

nybble41 5y ago
Exactly. There isn't anything "exclusive" about the content referenced in an NFT. The closest analog in physical artwork would be a signed & numbered print from a limited series—there may be many other copies of the same image, but this particular one is yours. The protocols for NFTs basically dictate that the underlying image must be available to everyone so that whoever purchases the NFT will be able to access it. Usually this means publishing the content on a decentralized network like IPFS. For the particular NFT in this story, the metadata can be seen here: https://api.opensea.io/api/v1/asset/0x8943c7bac1914c9a7aba750bf2b6b09fd21037e0/348 https://api.opensea.io/api/v1/asset/0x8943c7bac1914c9a7aba75... Note that there is nothing in the metadata about a transfer of copyright or an exclusive license. The original image was shared to the world by the artist through IPFS here: ipfs://QmaeqEgbu2sEHpJ9ghur44kcvGqBc5cvRTTu3YsRzkGFSh … which you can access using your own IPFS node or through any IPFS gateway, for example ipfs.io: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmaeqEgbu2sEHpJ9ghur44kcvGqBc5cvRTTu3YsRzkGFSh https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmaeqEgbu2sEHpJ9ghur44kcvGqBc5cvRTTu3Ys...
stemlord 5y ago
Right, many seem to have forgotten that Getty Images exists and is still probably more foolproof than NFTs at regulating ownership, at least in the commercial space
stncls 5y ago
Yes! On this point, it's funny to see how Beeple gets extra animated in this interview to make absolutely clear that he still retains copyright on all his NFT'd artwork: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=13U573keZ3A&t=1374 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=13U573keZ3A&t=1374

high_byte 5y ago

coming up next: DAO court for NFTs dispute resolutions, funded by meme coins, official legal authority: nowhere. unofficial official legal authority: the metaverse.

tata71 5y ago
Entertainment News dominates Western citizens' political views, why not scale it?!

akudha 5y ago

Imagine getting angry over someone saving an image from the public internet. How vain and stupid does one need to be, to get pissed over this? Sometimes I feel I am the one out of touch. Or maybe we are living in a simulated (bad) parody of life?

bogota 5y ago
You only feel that way because only stupidity and anger is broadcast widely over all forms of media now. It’s what sells ads and clicks. Until that changes we are living in a rage world and it’s great for sales.
frebord 5y ago
Lol and everyone is programmed to have their Karen moment at some point
vadfa 5y ago
It's clear to me that that guy is just joking. One has to be fucking autistic not to see it.
- akudha 5y ago
  Oh well, I am autistic then :( I honestly can’t tell if that person is joking. But hey, we live in a world where even The Onion is struggling to keep up!
casi18 5y ago
the person sending the dm is clearly trolling/joking. wild they wrote an article about it, but i guess the idea that people are angry gets clicks.
- geofft 5y ago
  Prove it.
rhn_mk1 5y ago
People get pissed off about downloading movies and books from the public internet. The precedent has been made.

kordlessagain 5y ago

NFTs are stupid.

tata71 5y ago
Currently, yes. In about...35min, no.
- smegcicle 5y ago
  what's happening ????

oxymoran 5y ago

“Sure, you can make your own gold-coated steak for 65GBP, but then you don’t have the satisfaction, flex, clout that comes from having eaten at Salt Bae’s restaurant… “The value is not in the cost of the steak,” Milhouse argued. “It’s all about the flex.” The Flex!!!!! $2k gold plated steak for “clout”. This is exhibit A for social media making us stupid at scale. I would rather run naked through a thicket of thorn bushes than eat at the restaurant of some internet “chef” named Salt Bae.

bil7 5y ago
The classic mistake of assuming that as you personally see no value in something, everyone who does is stupid.
- throwawayyy181 5y ago
  The point of all this is to impress others. If others aren’t sufficiently impressed, the steak or the NFT are failures.
- sennight 5y ago
  Assuming stupidity is actually the most charitable thing to do for something so objectively ridiculous. The alternative motivation being a calculated, manipulative, attention seeking stunt.

rvz 5y ago

Good luck enforcing 'ownership' of an 'NFT' that is 'downloadable' and 'right-click-saved' on anyone's computer. Better not click on a random NFT giveaway. You might lose more than just your expensive certificate of purchasing a useless JPEG minted by literally anyone.

tata71 5y ago
You're writing off a technology based on its worst-case, early-days, memeified usage of it. This is like saying AI chat bots are a write off because Microsoft's was racist.
- acdha 5y ago
  This is a core architectural problem which cannot be fixed without completely changing how the system works. NFTs require non-tiny content to be hosted publicly on a separate system. You can build separate access control systems but doing that means you don’t need to pay for a blockchain in addition to the independent system which actually works.
- rvz 5y ago
  I specifically said: > ...that is 'downloadable' and 'right-click-saved' That does not mean all NFTs. There are some that are not 'downloadable' and have more utility than others.

kkielhofner 5y ago

Just wait until people discover you can essentially clone not only the image itself but also all of the metadata and simple mint it again on the same blockchain, a different blockchain and/or marketplace. Additionally, while the original creator always maintains copyright ownership any terms associated with the purchase are essentially lost when it’s resold because presentation of the terms and agreement to them almost often aren’t always presented and agreement enforced, acknowledged, and recorded.

casi18 5y ago
cant believe people are paying artists for their contributions to the world, don't they know the data is all freely available?! just wait until they discov..... for real tho, im very happy that there are people making a living drawing jpegs and making mp3s and collecting royalties on resales (with their own distribution rules coded) whilst still able to make their work freely available to the world. Im happy that people value reputation, legitimacy, and provenance represented by digital signatures. its funny i keep seeing this criticism directed at the nft space, that it is obsessed with money, yet those making the criticism never seem able to go beyond the money/legal rights aspects themselves. meanwhile we're making cakes and clothing: https://twitter.com/creatureNFT/status/1456758941753528326 https://twitter.com/creatureNFT/status/1456758941753528326 "wait it's about social agreements, trust, and culture?" "Always has been "
- emptyparadise 5y ago
  Royalties on resales is probably the first actually interesting pro-NFT argument I've heard. Otherwise it always just makes me ask: "you do realize it's possible to pay people for art already, right?" Hell, you could use cryptocurrency for art credit card companies wouldn't touch already.
  - casi18 5y ago
    I quite like them for token gates chat rooms, i'm in a few discords that use nft ownership as keys, keeps out the spam, and I can always sell my access by selling the token, and if I do the creator gets 10%(standard but varies) of the sale. I can use them for voting in https://snapshot.org/#/ https://snapshot.org/#/ I can rent them out on places like https://dapp.renft.io/ https://dapp.renft.io/ for example if you have a stonercat nft (mila kunis and ashton kutchers new animation series) you have a key to watch episodes, but you could always rent that key out to others to watch episodes. I could (and do) buy music and art that isn't nft'd, but i like that it gets stored in my wallet. I can open rainbow and it has all the links to everything ive bought. I like that i can deploy a contract and then add some js to my website to connect it to eth, and then people can come to my website and mint/buy my art. I dont need to set up stripe or shopify and get it connected to my bank account. I can have a shopfront up in like 30 mins, even less if i use zora/opensea. I dont need to store databases with peoples emails and passwords, they just use their wallet to log in. I can easily gift them to friends, I can pull the meta data into whatever website/app/display i like. I can make rules in my contract that it can only be transferred once a year, or that it gets split into two on each transfer, or that you have to feed it and play with it like a tamagotchi. I can play with the responsibility of ownership, make it much more involved and participatory. Maybe all the owners of my nfts have to work together to activate it. You could probably still do some of that without cryptocurrencies, but programmable tokens and a big shared database/computer make it much easier.