4 ms·

I work in crypto and own two NFTs (one of which is a domain name, the other of which is a 20$ fun lottery ticket / community memorabilia). I don't think the sp

I work in crypto and own two NFTs (one of which is a domain name, the other of which is a 20$ fun lottery ticket / community memorabilia). I don't think the speculative bubble around JPG makes much sense. An interesting thought I had though, is that the traditional art market makes ""no sense"" either. People keep insisting it's so different because you pay for something tangible that can't be easily copied. In reality, you could buy a copy of a masterpiece that would be indistinguishable to everybody except a handful of experts, for many order of magnitudes less money than the original. The world's most expensive paintings sell for hundreds of millions. The best Mona Lisa replica are auctioned (!) for hundreds of thousands, and you can buy "good enough" canvas replica for a few hundred dollars. The reason people buy art NFTs are the same that people buy expensive real world art: (1) patronize the artist, (2) tax evasion, (3) status symbol, (4) price speculation NFTs just takes the logic to its paroxism / logic conclusion. Note that is specifically about "art NFTs". NFTs is a much broader category that has useful uses (e.g. the aforementionned domain name).

Youden 5y ago
Your explanation only makes sense if you base the value of the art on the experience of viewing it, or the intrinsic value. People like owning objects that have a history or story about them, like a ring worn by their great great grandmother, a medal earned by their grandfather for fighting in a war, or something their child made for them. These things have little to no intrinsic value, yet people can regard them as priceless because of the history surrounding the object. The same can be true of paintings and other works of art. It's one thing to hang a thing on your wall that a world-famous master created and an entirely different thing for a copy made by a low-wage worker in Asia. Physically they could be identical but the history is different. To get to NFTs specifically, I don't think an NFT as currently implemented captures this concept.
- musicale 5y ago
  Physical artifacts do have historical value that may be hard to quantify. For example, you can examine the "real" Mona Lisa to find out interesting (and possibly novel) things about Leonardo's technique, brush strokes, materials, etc.. MRI or X-ray imaging might reveal the underpainting, layers, glazes, possible changes to the painting (either original or restorations), etc.. How much are first-hand information or insights into the painting, painter, or era "worth?" I have no idea. Though another painting by Leonardo would probably do as well, if you can find one. Failing that, another painting from the same era/locale would probably do, although they won't provide direct information about Leonardo himself.

Youden 5y ago

Your explanation only makes sense if you base the value of the art on the experience of viewing it, or the intrinsic value. People like owning objects that have a history or story about them, like a ring worn by their great great grandmother, a medal earned by their grandfather for fighting in a war, or something their child made for them. These things have little to no intrinsic value, yet people can regard them as priceless because of the history surrounding the object. The same can be true of paintings and other works of art. It's one thing to hang a thing on your wall that a world-famous master created and an entirely different thing for a copy made by a low-wage worker in Asia. Physically they could be identical but the history is different. To get to NFTs specifically, I don't think an NFT as currently implemented captures this concept.

musicale 5y ago
Physical artifacts do have historical value that may be hard to quantify. For example, you can examine the "real" Mona Lisa to find out interesting (and possibly novel) things about Leonardo's technique, brush strokes, materials, etc.. MRI or X-ray imaging might reveal the underpainting, layers, glazes, possible changes to the painting (either original or restorations), etc.. How much are first-hand information or insights into the painting, painter, or era "worth?" I have no idea. Though another painting by Leonardo would probably do as well, if you can find one. Failing that, another painting from the same era/locale would probably do, although they won't provide direct information about Leonardo himself.