5 ms·

So the real value of an NFT isn’t in the mechanism at all.

mattdesl 5y ago
The mechanism is extremely simple, see [1]. The value lies in the token which - much like art - is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. [1] https://gist.github.com/mattdesl/c1eff283039b73a093c7777d11248a72 https://gist.github.com/mattdesl/c1eff283039b73a093c7777d112...
- lottin 5y ago
  Everything is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it.
- DitheringIdiot 5y ago
  So it’s replicating the worst thing about the art market — the speculation and nonsensical pricing. But without the best thing about the art market — actually owning a piece of art. With a thin veil of technobabble.
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    That may be one view. Another view is that it allows artists across the globe a digital-first mechanism to distribute and earn revenue on their digital artwork. See Hicetnunc for example.
    - lottin 5y ago
      This view is wrong. The NFT isn't the artwork. Distributing an NFT of the artwork achieves nothing in terms of distributing the artwork. Meanwhile getting paid in return for nothing is called "a donation", and you don't need an NFT for that either.
      - mattdesl 5y ago
        You can argue the same about a signed print of a digital illustration, photograph, etc. See here: https://jackrusher.com/journal/what-does-it-mean-to-buy-a-gif.html https://jackrusher.com/journal/what-does-it-mean-to-buy-a-gi...
        lottin 5y ago
        The entire premise of this article is that a digital signature is analogous to a handwritten signature on a photograph print, in that it turns a mass-produced print into a unique (i.e. non-fungible) object. This is wrong. Digital signatures are themselves fungible, since they are made of digital information. You cannot attach something fungible to something that is also fungible and expect that the result will be non-fungible. A digital signature is like a rubber stamp, not like a handwritten signature.
        mattdesl 5y ago
        You seem very certain that a cryptographic signature can never replace a handwritten pencil scribble to enable scarcity and provenance (and non-fungibility). Artists using this technology are less certain. We will see what happens over time.
        lottin 5y ago
        I have no evidence that most people using this technology are artists.

The mechanism is extremely simple, see [1]. The value lies in the token which - much like art - is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. [1] https://gist.github.com/mattdesl/c1eff283039b73a093c7777d11248a72 https://gist.github.com/mattdesl/c1eff283039b73a093c7777d112...

lottin 5y ago
Everything is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it.
DitheringIdiot 5y ago
So it’s replicating the worst thing about the art market — the speculation and nonsensical pricing. But without the best thing about the art market — actually owning a piece of art. With a thin veil of technobabble.
- mattdesl 5y ago
  That may be one view. Another view is that it allows artists across the globe a digital-first mechanism to distribute and earn revenue on their digital artwork. See Hicetnunc for example.
  - lottin 5y ago
    This view is wrong. The NFT isn't the artwork. Distributing an NFT of the artwork achieves nothing in terms of distributing the artwork. Meanwhile getting paid in return for nothing is called "a donation", and you don't need an NFT for that either.
    - mattdesl 5y ago
      You can argue the same about a signed print of a digital illustration, photograph, etc. See here: https://jackrusher.com/journal/what-does-it-mean-to-buy-a-gif.html https://jackrusher.com/journal/what-does-it-mean-to-buy-a-gi...
      - lottin 5y ago
        The entire premise of this article is that a digital signature is analogous to a handwritten signature on a photograph print, in that it turns a mass-produced print into a unique (i.e. non-fungible) object. This is wrong. Digital signatures are themselves fungible, since they are made of digital information. You cannot attach something fungible to something that is also fungible and expect that the result will be non-fungible. A digital signature is like a rubber stamp, not like a handwritten signature.
        mattdesl 5y ago
        You seem very certain that a cryptographic signature can never replace a handwritten pencil scribble to enable scarcity and provenance (and non-fungibility). Artists using this technology are less certain. We will see what happens over time.
        lottin 5y ago
        I have no evidence that most people using this technology are artists.