> Most of the NFT marketing I've seen is very fast and loose about this — Stop listening/reading marketing material then and dive into the technology itself.

> Most of the NFT marketing I've seen is very fast and loose about this — Stop listening/reading marketing material then and dive into the technology itself. > people will talk like it's owning the item but only when pressed will admit that it means owning the NFT pointing to the item. Yes, most people (on both sides of the "love/hate" side of NFTs) misunderstand the technology and what promises itself makes. > This is conceding the author's point: a hash on a blockchain has no innate value and being the purest form of a fiat currency with weak backing means that nobody has a strong reason to need them. Nobody buys a hash because they like the pattern of ones and zeros. This is such a rabbit hole and where you end up is "Nothing has value" or "Everything has value". I guess you can put me in the camp arguing for the latter, even for crazy things like "high-art" that I don't really get, but I understand that some people value it. > When the most popular cryptocurrencies used are not PoW, this will be more convincing. Right now it's Bitcoin, Ethereum, and a rounding error. No, I think you misunderstand what I mean. "Cryptocurrencies" is an umbrella term for a lot of things. The authors argument that "cryptocurrencies" are bad for the environment is just not true, just like "serverless" cant be called bad for the environment. It's the implementation that matters, not the concept.