> NFTs do solve a problem, and the problem that they solve is that creatives are getting paid for their creative output. It did not. There are already plenty o

> NFTs do solve a problem, and the problem that they solve is that creatives are getting paid for their creative output. It did not. There are already plenty of ways artists can get paid for their work. If you had said "this creates another way for artists to get paid," sure (ignoring all the NFTs that are blatantly stolen), but asserting that this is the only way is false. > The promise of NFTs is that they offer a different way for people to interact. Ownership is always based on social constructs, so folks that are involved in this space need to have some consensus of what it means to "own" an NFT on whatever chain. I see "ownership" tossed around so often. But I just pulled up two recently sold listings on OpenSea (one from Bored Apes, the other from Cryptopunks), and unless OpenSea hides information if you're not logged in, there were no rights transferred for the original works themselves - you just own the NFT listing. What's the point of shelling out six figures for mass-generated artwork when you don't even have any IP rights? Sure, there's the "exclusive community" of Bored Apes (though you can apparently have your NFT stolen but still be in the community, so...not sure how exclusive it really is), but other than that, it just seems like a way to flex on everyone. I have more legally enforceable rights to a $20 drawing I commissioned (paid for on ko-fi) than many NFTs going for $100k+. It's either a speculative bubble which will burst eventually, or the community is worth the price (plus the flexing privileges).