3 ms·

> I alluded to this before, but the alternate explanation is that they're not going to the museum because it offers the best fidelity, they're doing so for othe

by GDC7 5y ago

> I alluded to this before, but the alternate explanation is that they're not going to the museum because it offers the best fidelity, they're doing so for other reasons (eg. social clout) What % of social media posts are museum oriented? We are talking 0 percent.... it's only a matter of seeing what's the first decimal point. Regardless, it seems to me that there is a lack of common sense among the NFT crowd, and you seem to be somehow on the same wavelenght. The vast majority of people who right-click an NFT image have subsequently no desire to acquire said NFT. And if a museum were to start charging for an NFT collections, people would not pay to get in. The vast majority of people who right-click an image of the Mona Lisa do have a desire to one day go out and see the painting in person as they think it would be a cool thing to do and would pay for it. There is a clear difference, at least for people who have common sense. Given that museums have existed for hundreds of years and have generated trillions of dollars in revenues, the burden of the proof is on NFTs, not the other way around. When NFTs museums (either virtual or real) will open up then it will be possible to make a comparison.

TigeriusKirk 5y ago
NFTs have no "burden of proof." People who collect them can explain to you what they see in them, and you can agree that you also see it or you don't. There's little to no point in continuing beyond that.
gruez 5y ago
>What % of social media posts are museum oriented? We are talking 0 percent.... it's only a matter of seeing what's the first decimal point. I don't go on social media so I can't really comment on that. That said, I do see a lot of people taking pictures of paintings (mostly famous ones) at museums. What gives? If they wanted the best fidelity recreation of the picture, they'd be better off going to wikimedia commons and getting something that a professional photographer took. Maybe they're after the sentimental value, in both the case of going to the museum in person, and taking the picture. It's definitely not for the remaining 0.0000000000001%, especially when you consider that you need x-rays or radiocarbon dating to tell a fake from the original. >Regardless, it seems to me that there is a lack of common sense among the NFT crowd, and you seem to be somehow on the same wavelenght. What's your point? That because I'm "somehow on the same wavelenght" as "the NFT crowd", that I have "lack of common sense" by association? >The vast majority of people who right-click an image of the Mona Lisa do have a desire to one day go out and see the painting in person as they think it would be a cool thing to do and would pay for it. >There is a clear difference, at least for people who have common sense. >Given that museums have existed for hundreds of years and have generated trillions of dollars in revenues, the burden of the proof is on NFTs, not the other way around. So your point is... that NFTs are a bad investment if you plan to start a museum and charge patrons? I don't think that's really controversial, or anywhere close to what we were discussing. Are you trying to use "can charge people to see it" as a proxy for "has value"? While I do agree that's one way to objectively value works of art, it isn't hard to see that's not the only source of value. Like I mentioned before, private collections goes totally against this.
- GDC7 5y ago
  > What's your point? That because I'm "somehow on the same wavelenght" as "the NFT crowd", that I have "lack of common sense" by association? No. I said "wavelenght", not "same as". It seems to me you are looking at the price action of some NFTs, the price action of the ETH token and the volumes on the auctions houses built on top of Ethereum, plus the social hype being generated. And using those as your starting point you are trying to walk your way backwards towards pointing at some sort of underlying value. I honestly don't think you'd be trying to find value in NFTs if not for the price action and volumes going amber red to bring the phenomenon to your attention. It's FOMO-lite, the same that had Stanley Druckenmiller buy the very top of the Nasdaq in 1999, back when he was running Soros' Quantum Fund. Sometimes no matter how hard you look there is no underlying value beneath the price action, there is no reason or rhyme as to why people become maniac about stuff, and feel like they MUST have it. Tulips, beanie babies, NASDAQ in 1999, NIKKEI in 1997, Real Estate in 2007...
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Sometimes no matter how hard you look there is no underlying value beneath the price action, there is no reason or rhyme as to why people become maniac about stuff, and feel like they MUST have it. ...like people paying millions for an original painting rather than getting a replica made for $100k (or whatever) for their private collection? My point isn't that NFTs have underlying value (whatever that means), just that they're valuable in approximately the same way that original paintings have value over replicas. I'll quote an earlier comment here: >But you still paid a few million more for the original painting, even though it's virtually indistinguishable from a replica. It's more helpful to think of an original painting as a bundle of two things: >Original painting = thing that looks like a painting + bragging rights >An NFT is just the "bragging rights" part of the original painting, and the JPG that anyone can access is the "thing that looks like a painting ".
    - GDC7 5y ago
      > like people paying millions for an original painting rather than getting a replica made for $100k (or whatever) for their private collection? The official art market action amounts to 50B/yr. Of the aforementioned figure the vast majority of that is then sent on loan to museums and thus produces revenues for the museum and passive income for the owner. Let's say 5B is the amount that people pay yearly for paintings they intend to keep in their private collection. Let's further say the average amount that a collector spends in a year to enrich their private collection is 5M. 5B/5M = 1000 individuals. Of course we are 8 billion humans, you'll always find 1000 individuals who behave in a way that you cannot explain logically or whose actions leave you scratching your head. > Original painting = thing that looks like a painting + bragging rights > An NFT is just the "bragging rights" part of the original painting, and the JPG that anyone can access is the "thing that looks like a painting " A person with common sense would not even think about splitting the experience and the bragging rights, or even re-arrange something as self evident and self-explanatory as watching a painting in a museum. You are trying to come up with this explanation in order to justify NFTs and their price action, pretending to know what goes on in the minds of people who buy them, to further reverse-engineer the value that they see in them. NFTs buyers not only aren't doing all the above reasoning, but they hardly know why they buy them. In conclusion, there are some things that are just self evident, and need not to be explained. Even in the case of a person spending millions for paintings which will never be sent to museums. If a common sense person is invited to some rich person mansion and are shown a private collection of real paintings worth millions the thought that come up is inevitably: "A hard working rich person who likes expensive stuff and is not afraid to spend to enjoy life" If on the other hand a common sense person is invited to some crypto-rich person mansion and are shown a collection of hashes and blockchain transactions pointing to a JPG on twitter or imgur....the thought that comes up is inevitably: "A stoner cryptobro who won the lottery and now is wasting away their money paying 6 figures for some monkeys JPGs"

by GDC7 5y ago

TigeriusKirk 5y ago

NFTs have no "burden of proof." People who collect them can explain to you what they see in them, and you can agree that you also see it or you don't. There's little to no point in continuing beyond that.

gruez 5y ago

>What % of social media posts are museum oriented? We are talking 0 percent.... it's only a matter of seeing what's the first decimal point. I don't go on social media so I can't really comment on that. That said, I do see a lot of people taking pictures of paintings (mostly famous ones) at museums. What gives? If they wanted the best fidelity recreation of the picture, they'd be better off going to wikimedia commons and getting something that a professional photographer took. Maybe they're after the sentimental value, in both the case of going to the museum in person, and taking the picture. It's definitely not for the remaining 0.0000000000001%, especially when you consider that you need x-rays or radiocarbon dating to tell a fake from the original. >Regardless, it seems to me that there is a lack of common sense among the NFT crowd, and you seem to be somehow on the same wavelenght. What's your point? That because I'm "somehow on the same wavelenght" as "the NFT crowd", that I have "lack of common sense" by association? >The vast majority of people who right-click an image of the Mona Lisa do have a desire to one day go out and see the painting in person as they think it would be a cool thing to do and would pay for it. >There is a clear difference, at least for people who have common sense. >Given that museums have existed for hundreds of years and have generated trillions of dollars in revenues, the burden of the proof is on NFTs, not the other way around. So your point is... that NFTs are a bad investment if you plan to start a museum and charge patrons? I don't think that's really controversial, or anywhere close to what we were discussing. Are you trying to use "can charge people to see it" as a proxy for "has value"? While I do agree that's one way to objectively value works of art, it isn't hard to see that's not the only source of value. Like I mentioned before, private collections goes totally against this.

GDC7 5y ago
> What's your point? That because I'm "somehow on the same wavelenght" as "the NFT crowd", that I have "lack of common sense" by association? No. I said "wavelenght", not "same as". It seems to me you are looking at the price action of some NFTs, the price action of the ETH token and the volumes on the auctions houses built on top of Ethereum, plus the social hype being generated. And using those as your starting point you are trying to walk your way backwards towards pointing at some sort of underlying value. I honestly don't think you'd be trying to find value in NFTs if not for the price action and volumes going amber red to bring the phenomenon to your attention. It's FOMO-lite, the same that had Stanley Druckenmiller buy the very top of the Nasdaq in 1999, back when he was running Soros' Quantum Fund. Sometimes no matter how hard you look there is no underlying value beneath the price action, there is no reason or rhyme as to why people become maniac about stuff, and feel like they MUST have it. Tulips, beanie babies, NASDAQ in 1999, NIKKEI in 1997, Real Estate in 2007...
- gruez 5y ago
  >Sometimes no matter how hard you look there is no underlying value beneath the price action, there is no reason or rhyme as to why people become maniac about stuff, and feel like they MUST have it. ...like people paying millions for an original painting rather than getting a replica made for $100k (or whatever) for their private collection? My point isn't that NFTs have underlying value (whatever that means), just that they're valuable in approximately the same way that original paintings have value over replicas. I'll quote an earlier comment here: >But you still paid a few million more for the original painting, even though it's virtually indistinguishable from a replica. It's more helpful to think of an original painting as a bundle of two things: >Original painting = thing that looks like a painting + bragging rights >An NFT is just the "bragging rights" part of the original painting, and the JPG that anyone can access is the "thing that looks like a painting ".
  - GDC7 5y ago
    > like people paying millions for an original painting rather than getting a replica made for $100k (or whatever) for their private collection? The official art market action amounts to 50B/yr. Of the aforementioned figure the vast majority of that is then sent on loan to museums and thus produces revenues for the museum and passive income for the owner. Let's say 5B is the amount that people pay yearly for paintings they intend to keep in their private collection. Let's further say the average amount that a collector spends in a year to enrich their private collection is 5M. 5B/5M = 1000 individuals. Of course we are 8 billion humans, you'll always find 1000 individuals who behave in a way that you cannot explain logically or whose actions leave you scratching your head. > Original painting = thing that looks like a painting + bragging rights > An NFT is just the "bragging rights" part of the original painting, and the JPG that anyone can access is the "thing that looks like a painting " A person with common sense would not even think about splitting the experience and the bragging rights, or even re-arrange something as self evident and self-explanatory as watching a painting in a museum. You are trying to come up with this explanation in order to justify NFTs and their price action, pretending to know what goes on in the minds of people who buy them, to further reverse-engineer the value that they see in them. NFTs buyers not only aren't doing all the above reasoning, but they hardly know why they buy them. In conclusion, there are some things that are just self evident, and need not to be explained. Even in the case of a person spending millions for paintings which will never be sent to museums. If a common sense person is invited to some rich person mansion and are shown a private collection of real paintings worth millions the thought that come up is inevitably: "A hard working rich person who likes expensive stuff and is not afraid to spend to enjoy life" If on the other hand a common sense person is invited to some crypto-rich person mansion and are shown a collection of hashes and blockchain transactions pointing to a JPG on twitter or imgur....the thought that comes up is inevitably: "A stoner cryptobro who won the lottery and now is wasting away their money paying 6 figures for some monkeys JPGs"