66 ms·

Concretely there are a variety of metaverse projects which only allow you to spawn the item if you own the (creator sanctioned) NFT.

by gfodor 5y ago

zepto 5y ago
It’s perfectly fair to say that NFTs work as an in-game currency and nothing more.
- gfodor 5y ago
  If you presume that we will in large part be continually living in a video game of varying levels of immersion relatively soon then this becomes something fairly significant.
  - nefitty 5y ago
    Zuckerberg's moves make sense in this context. NFT's make sense in it as well. I don't feel compelled to play video games, and I don't feel interested in joining an AR metaverse. That might just be personal shortcoming clouding my expectations of Web3...
  - zepto 5y ago
    I partially agree with this. But then why all the bullshit? Why don’t people just come out and say that it’s all about in-game items for the metaverse rather than all the talk about owning media? Nothing suggests that existing NFTs will be relevant in that world even if the technology is. It’s also not obvious that a distributed ledger has an advantage over a centralized one.
    - gfodor 5y ago
      I think whenever you see someone say "owning media" you should re-write it in your brain as "owning the only author-signed copy of media" - that's probably the most effective rewrite that maximizes the utility of analogy. The value of the distributed ledger is rooted in a theory: that it will be, in the long term, the most durable and agreed upon place to look to for arbitrary third parties to decide whose artist's signature is legitimate. The thing that suggests the NFTs of the world today will be relevant in that future world is pretty simple: take any piece of art where the artist involved has publicly sanctioned an NFT for it, and ask the question if the signature of that artist on that work will theoretically be something valued by society in the future. (Grounded by the well placed assumption that this is truly non-fungible - the artist can't even reneg on this, since history will record this was the original.) The number of times you can affirm this as a "yes" should increase the weight you put on the hypothesis today's NFTs will be valuable in the future. It's worth noting: these two hypotheses are decoupled. The blockchain has already been written. So even if the idea of an NFT burns out so much that future artists do not make them anymore, this doesn't necessarily mean the NFTs that exist today will not be valuable or recognized. They are in the public record, and those who control the wallets they are assigned to will always be able to prove they are the owners of them, even if the chains they are on stop adding new blocks in the future.
      - zepto 5y ago
        NFTs are not signatures on works of art. The media is not signed by the NFT. A signed artwork is more valuable than an unsigned artwork. However NFTs do not create signed artworks. The artwork remains the same. The NFT is just a receipt for someone paying money to someone else, who in some cases is linked to the an artist. Is that valuable? Maybe. I concede that a bill of sale from some point along the chain of ownership of ‘the last supper’ might have value to some kind of collector. But, an NFT is not equivalent even to the bill of sale. If you have the bill of sale, you have a unique historical item, whereas the NFT is on the public blockchain where everyone can see it and copy of it, so even that doesn’t have any scarcity. Both the media and the NFT are infinitely copyable.
        gfodor 5y ago
        You seem determined to think with analogies. If my attempt above didn’t help you understand why people are paying tons of money for these things, I’m afraid I’ve run out of ways to help.
        zepto 5y ago
        > The value of the distributed ledger is rooted in a theory A theory which many people disagree with. > You seem determined to think with analogies. So do you. An NFT is not a signature on a piece of art. You are trying to convince us that an NFT is analogous to a signature on a piece of art. Whether the analogies of the crypto community hold is what is being debated here. I assume you are aware that NFTs are not actually signatures on physical artworks. > If my attempt above didn’t help you understand why people are paying tons of money for these things, I’m sure you wouldn’t be claiming that people never pay money for things that later turn out not to be valuable.

Concretely there are a variety of metaverse projects which only allow you to spawn the item if you own the (creator sanctioned) NFT.

by gfodor 5y ago

Concretely there are a variety of metaverse projects which only allow you to spawn the item if you own the (creator sanctioned) NFT.

zepto 5y ago

It’s perfectly fair to say that NFTs work as an in-game currency and nothing more.

gfodor 5y ago
If you presume that we will in large part be continually living in a video game of varying levels of immersion relatively soon then this becomes something fairly significant.
- nefitty 5y ago
  Zuckerberg's moves make sense in this context. NFT's make sense in it as well. I don't feel compelled to play video games, and I don't feel interested in joining an AR metaverse. That might just be personal shortcoming clouding my expectations of Web3...
- zepto 5y ago
  I partially agree with this. But then why all the bullshit? Why don’t people just come out and say that it’s all about in-game items for the metaverse rather than all the talk about owning media? Nothing suggests that existing NFTs will be relevant in that world even if the technology is. It’s also not obvious that a distributed ledger has an advantage over a centralized one.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    I think whenever you see someone say "owning media" you should re-write it in your brain as "owning the only author-signed copy of media" - that's probably the most effective rewrite that maximizes the utility of analogy. The value of the distributed ledger is rooted in a theory: that it will be, in the long term, the most durable and agreed upon place to look to for arbitrary third parties to decide whose artist's signature is legitimate. The thing that suggests the NFTs of the world today will be relevant in that future world is pretty simple: take any piece of art where the artist involved has publicly sanctioned an NFT for it, and ask the question if the signature of that artist on that work will theoretically be something valued by society in the future. (Grounded by the well placed assumption that this is truly non-fungible - the artist can't even reneg on this, since history will record this was the original.) The number of times you can affirm this as a "yes" should increase the weight you put on the hypothesis today's NFTs will be valuable in the future. It's worth noting: these two hypotheses are decoupled. The blockchain has already been written. So even if the idea of an NFT burns out so much that future artists do not make them anymore, this doesn't necessarily mean the NFTs that exist today will not be valuable or recognized. They are in the public record, and those who control the wallets they are assigned to will always be able to prove they are the owners of them, even if the chains they are on stop adding new blocks in the future.
    - zepto 5y ago
      NFTs are not signatures on works of art. The media is not signed by the NFT. A signed artwork is more valuable than an unsigned artwork. However NFTs do not create signed artworks. The artwork remains the same. The NFT is just a receipt for someone paying money to someone else, who in some cases is linked to the an artist. Is that valuable? Maybe. I concede that a bill of sale from some point along the chain of ownership of ‘the last supper’ might have value to some kind of collector. But, an NFT is not equivalent even to the bill of sale. If you have the bill of sale, you have a unique historical item, whereas the NFT is on the public blockchain where everyone can see it and copy of it, so even that doesn’t have any scarcity. Both the media and the NFT are infinitely copyable.
      - gfodor 5y ago
        You seem determined to think with analogies. If my attempt above didn’t help you understand why people are paying tons of money for these things, I’m afraid I’ve run out of ways to help.
        zepto 5y ago
        > The value of the distributed ledger is rooted in a theory A theory which many people disagree with. > You seem determined to think with analogies. So do you. An NFT is not a signature on a piece of art. You are trying to convince us that an NFT is analogous to a signature on a piece of art. Whether the analogies of the crypto community hold is what is being debated here. I assume you are aware that NFTs are not actually signatures on physical artworks. > If my attempt above didn’t help you understand why people are paying tons of money for these things, I’m sure you wouldn’t be claiming that people never pay money for things that later turn out not to be valuable.