4 ms·

> like people paying millions for an original painting rather than getting a replica made for $100k (or whatever) for their private collection? The official ar

by 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"

gruez 5y ago
>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. Source? Moreover, considering that museums need donations/government subsidies to stay afloat, I doubt "making money" is the primary reason people/institutions buy art. >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. So your point of contention is that NFTs have too many people relative to the amount of people buying expensive original art? >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. I'm seeing a lot of words devoted to dismissing my comment, but many words being devoted to explaining why my comment is incorrect. Declaring "self evident and self-explanatory" does not make for an argument. I don't see how "a person with common sense" would buy your explanation of people paying millions for the imperceptible 0.000000001%, so they can enjoy it more. >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" The thing that ties both of them is spending money on a non-productive asset, which serves as a costly signal[1] of your wealth. Old paintings definitely have more awareness than NFTs, I'm not going to dispute that. However, all that means is that old paintings are more mature than NFTs, not that paintings are valuable and NFTs are completely worthless. Before archeology was a thing, ancient artifacts probably had zero value beyond scrap, but nowadays there's a thriving market for it. Maybe NFTs will turn out to be like beanie babies, but maybe they'll turn out to be like artifacts? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Human_honest_signals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Human_honest...
- GDC7 5y ago
  > The thing that ties both of them is spending money on a non-productive asset, which serves as a costly signal of your wealth For a common sense person only an expensive painting serves as tool to signal one's wealth. An expensive NFT is a tool to signal one's foolishness. For all practical purposes it's like paying 6 figures for some bottled air sampled in Times Square and trying to use it as a way to impress people. You'd get a huge minus both in your wallet as well as your social status. You could be living in Versailles but if you get to the last room and show people your collection of hashes....then you throw all the other 1000 gold plated rooms straight into the bin and your guests will laugh at you. That is of course unless you preselect people who hang out in /r/NFTs and only ever invite them over. There's only 237k of them. Let's say 25% would endorse spending 6 figures for an NFT and still think highly of you. So that's 60k people. You have to preselect among 60k people on the planet, whereas the expensive paintings would get you the admiration of each and every of the 8.2 billion people. No preselection needed. Again: Common sense.

by GDC7 5y ago

gruez 5y ago

>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. Source? Moreover, considering that museums need donations/government subsidies to stay afloat, I doubt "making money" is the primary reason people/institutions buy art. >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. So your point of contention is that NFTs have too many people relative to the amount of people buying expensive original art? >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. I'm seeing a lot of words devoted to dismissing my comment, but many words being devoted to explaining why my comment is incorrect. Declaring "self evident and self-explanatory" does not make for an argument. I don't see how "a person with common sense" would buy your explanation of people paying millions for the imperceptible 0.000000001%, so they can enjoy it more. >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" The thing that ties both of them is spending money on a non-productive asset, which serves as a costly signal[1] of your wealth. Old paintings definitely have more awareness than NFTs, I'm not going to dispute that. However, all that means is that old paintings are more mature than NFTs, not that paintings are valuable and NFTs are completely worthless. Before archeology was a thing, ancient artifacts probably had zero value beyond scrap, but nowadays there's a thriving market for it. Maybe NFTs will turn out to be like beanie babies, but maybe they'll turn out to be like artifacts? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Human_honest_signals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Human_honest...

GDC7 5y ago
> The thing that ties both of them is spending money on a non-productive asset, which serves as a costly signal of your wealth For a common sense person only an expensive painting serves as tool to signal one's wealth. An expensive NFT is a tool to signal one's foolishness. For all practical purposes it's like paying 6 figures for some bottled air sampled in Times Square and trying to use it as a way to impress people. You'd get a huge minus both in your wallet as well as your social status. You could be living in Versailles but if you get to the last room and show people your collection of hashes....then you throw all the other 1000 gold plated rooms straight into the bin and your guests will laugh at you. That is of course unless you preselect people who hang out in /r/NFTs and only ever invite them over. There's only 237k of them. Let's say 25% would endorse spending 6 figures for an NFT and still think highly of you. So that's 60k people. You have to preselect among 60k people on the planet, whereas the expensive paintings would get you the admiration of each and every of the 8.2 billion people. No preselection needed. Again: Common sense.