3 ms·

I really don't think that Mona Lisa example is correct. Maybe I misunderstand NFTs, but wouldn't it be more like a printmaker who can make as many copies as des

I really don't think that Mona Lisa example is correct. Maybe I misunderstand NFTs, but wouldn't it be more like a printmaker who can make as many copies as desired, but the museum sells something like the Artist's Proof and documents the sale in an official newsletter that goes out to all members? Yes, everyone else has a print or a poster version, but only one buyer has the Artist's Proof and can prove its provenance. Not a perfect analogy, but closer in my opinion.

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
NFTs don't necessarily represent ownership of the underlying asset. They're like minting a commemorative coin celebrating the asset, and only minting a single coin. The coin does not represent ownership of the asset. It's just...a coin. A token. Supposedly, the uniqueness gives it value, but if I decide to record a single fart, that fart is unique, but the uniqueness does not inherently create value. An NFT for the Mona Lisa caries no benefits or rights, other than saying "I own the NFT for the Mona Lisa". It's inherently worthless, with a supposed value being created from absolutely nothing. Anyone buying NFTs either doesn't know what they're actually paying for, or thinks they're going to be able to find a greater fool who will eventually be willing to pay more.
- stolenmerch 5y ago
  Right, and that's why the physical art analogy breaks down. Was just trying to come up with a slightly better physical art analogy. Copies are possible, forgeries are possible, and provenance is a real challenge. However with NFTs it all takes an abusive amount of electricity.
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    I like the idea of them being a commemorative coin. The analogy I've been using is that NFTs are like signatures. There may be a famous photo of Elvis that anyone can print, however, if someone had that photo printed and authentically signed by Elvis, it could be worth a lot more money, if people want to have the signature. If Elvis signed 500,000 of that same photo, the signature may not be worth much. Perhaps in the future if NFTs get some sort of legal backing and therefore more enforced property rights, maybe it'll be different, however I think the analogy works well for now. Thoughts?
- acdha 5y ago
  > An NFT for the Mona Lisa caries no benefits or rights, other than saying "I own the NFT for the Mona Lisa". It's not even “the NFT” — anyone can create a new NFT for the same image on a different blockchain or make a 1 pixel modification and create a new NFT for something visually indistinguishable. You could imagine an art museum making something potentially harder to clone but at that point it's like a donor buying a new frame or putting a bench in front of it, and they don't have a reason to give money to the blockchain grifters when the only value comes from the reputation of a single trusted party. > Anyone buying NFTs either doesn't know what they're actually paying for, or thinks they're going to be able to find a greater fool who will eventually be willing to pay more. My assumption is that most of it is simply an attempt to make cryptocurrency look valuable. Nobody has a requirement to use it so they need people to think that an NFT is an investment to get new marks buying Ethereum. Sell it to your buddy, make sure every reporter in the world hears the transaction price in hard currency values, and either write that off as marketing cost or quietly have your buddy transfer the tokens back later minus a commission.
- zepto 5y ago
  > NFTs don't necessarily represent ownership of the underlying asset They don’t ever.
  - jtsiskin 5y ago
    That’s not true. If I owned the Mona Lisa what is stopping me from writing a legal contract “whoever owns this NFT is the legal owner of the Mona Lisa”?
    - zepto 5y ago
      Yes, it is true. You can write that text all you like, but it wouldn’t be a legal contract. Hint: Who is do you think is signing that contract, and who is going to enforce it?
Dylan16807 5y ago
In so many of these systems, completely random people keep making "Artist's Proofs" and selling them. It's documented in a newsletter, but there's no real authority behind the newsletter. That's why it has the sentence saying that the person selling you the receipt has never owned the mona lisa.

Sohcahtoa82 5y ago

NFTs don't necessarily represent ownership of the underlying asset. They're like minting a commemorative coin celebrating the asset, and only minting a single coin. The coin does not represent ownership of the asset. It's just...a coin. A token. Supposedly, the uniqueness gives it value, but if I decide to record a single fart, that fart is unique, but the uniqueness does not inherently create value. An NFT for the Mona Lisa caries no benefits or rights, other than saying "I own the NFT for the Mona Lisa". It's inherently worthless, with a supposed value being created from absolutely nothing. Anyone buying NFTs either doesn't know what they're actually paying for, or thinks they're going to be able to find a greater fool who will eventually be willing to pay more.

stolenmerch 5y ago
Right, and that's why the physical art analogy breaks down. Was just trying to come up with a slightly better physical art analogy. Copies are possible, forgeries are possible, and provenance is a real challenge. However with NFTs it all takes an abusive amount of electricity.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  I like the idea of them being a commemorative coin. The analogy I've been using is that NFTs are like signatures. There may be a famous photo of Elvis that anyone can print, however, if someone had that photo printed and authentically signed by Elvis, it could be worth a lot more money, if people want to have the signature. If Elvis signed 500,000 of that same photo, the signature may not be worth much. Perhaps in the future if NFTs get some sort of legal backing and therefore more enforced property rights, maybe it'll be different, however I think the analogy works well for now. Thoughts?
acdha 5y ago
> An NFT for the Mona Lisa caries no benefits or rights, other than saying "I own the NFT for the Mona Lisa". It's not even “the NFT” — anyone can create a new NFT for the same image on a different blockchain or make a 1 pixel modification and create a new NFT for something visually indistinguishable. You could imagine an art museum making something potentially harder to clone but at that point it's like a donor buying a new frame or putting a bench in front of it, and they don't have a reason to give money to the blockchain grifters when the only value comes from the reputation of a single trusted party. > Anyone buying NFTs either doesn't know what they're actually paying for, or thinks they're going to be able to find a greater fool who will eventually be willing to pay more. My assumption is that most of it is simply an attempt to make cryptocurrency look valuable. Nobody has a requirement to use it so they need people to think that an NFT is an investment to get new marks buying Ethereum. Sell it to your buddy, make sure every reporter in the world hears the transaction price in hard currency values, and either write that off as marketing cost or quietly have your buddy transfer the tokens back later minus a commission.
zepto 5y ago
> NFTs don't necessarily represent ownership of the underlying asset They don’t ever.
- jtsiskin 5y ago
  That’s not true. If I owned the Mona Lisa what is stopping me from writing a legal contract “whoever owns this NFT is the legal owner of the Mona Lisa”?
  - zepto 5y ago
    Yes, it is true. You can write that text all you like, but it wouldn’t be a legal contract. Hint: Who is do you think is signing that contract, and who is going to enforce it?

Dylan16807 5y ago

In so many of these systems, completely random people keep making "Artist's Proofs" and selling them. It's documented in a newsletter, but there's no real authority behind the newsletter. That's why it has the sentence saying that the person selling you the receipt has never owned the mona lisa.