3 ms·
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
by 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 agoYou 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.