5 ms·

If I buy a replica Rolex, which is indistinguishable from a real one, it has less value than a genuine. Why? Some of you are really stretching to find reasons

If I buy a replica Rolex, which is indistinguishable from a real one, it has less value than a genuine. Why? Some of you are really stretching to find reasons to not understand NFTs and why people like them. Yes you can “right click save as”. I can also buy a replica Rolex, but I would much rather own the real thing. What’s the “real” that I’m buying with a gen Rolex as opposed to a rep?

Haunted_Cabbage 5y ago
I wonder if there's a targeted misinformation campaign.
- pavlov 5y ago
  Yes, the campaign waged by venture capitalists to establish “web3” as a thing.
mikeg8 5y ago
Right click, save as = free. A worthy replica Rolex that feels similar in quality to a real one will still cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. The $20 dollar replicas feel noticeably cheaper and will not provide the same satisfaction. If people feel like they can get more personal enjoyment from spending money on a digital asset that everyone else can enjoy for free, great. That's a signalling game. But I don't think its hard to understand why a lot of people are skeptical on the real utility behind NFTs in regards to art and creative works.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cdot2 5y ago
The "real" thing that you're buying is the social credit of having been able to afford a "genuine" Rolex. If Rolex sold them for less they would destroy their brand. This is why Apple prices their stuff so high.
pistachiopro 5y ago
I wonder if that's actually true. I mean, is the value of a Rolex retained in a world with true perfect replicas (like we can get with digital goods)? Right now, a good fake Rolex is still hundreds of dollars, and if someone does spot the difference you just look like a poser who's down $500, so why bother. The existence of the fashion cycle feels like an argument against NFTs. Yes, people like to signal with exclusive things, so influencers seek out new, exclusive fashions. Most of the time these styles are fairly easy to copy, though, and so the followers start wearing them and the influencers need to move on to the next thing. Eventually, anyone left wearing the old fashion looks kind of laughable. Yes, the actual NFT token always remains exclusive, but is that really something you can signal with on a human level? Or do too many right clickers eventually cause bored apes to go out of style and become laughable?
- brosirmandude 5y ago
  I'd argue it's the opposite. Having many right clickers around does the opposite of their intention, it gives the NFTs free marketing and exposure. More right clickers > more eyeballs on the NFT > more people intrigued enough to learn more.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
heyitsguay 5y ago
There are two sleights of hand here that make this analogy sound reasonable when it actually isn't. (1) "Buying" a Rolex (or knockoff) vs NFTs - buying a physical (or digital) good gives you privileged access to it. The same is not true of an NFT, which just adds your name next to a pointer in a (decentralized) database. Nothing changes in regard to access to the underlying good unless people decide to build mechanisms on top of the chosen blockchain to artificially enforce access privileges, but you don't need a blockchain for that (cf. skins in CS-GO or stock images one pays for to purchase and download). (2) "Indistinguishable" - with physical goods, that's a perceptual property and when you're talking about knockoffs of luxury goods, it really just means "hard to tell the difference (unless you examine it closely)". With digital media, the way it's been set up with NFTs, indistinguishable means completely identical. There are ways to actually sell protected digital media - e.g. you show a low-res version on a website and only send a full-res version once a purchase is made. But that's also been happening since the internet became a thing and doesn't need blockchains or NFTs either.
- carpo 5y ago
  Buying a house is the same. It just adds your name onto a title document that is stored in some custom government database. Imagine if there was a global way to register property title and ownership. Imagine if multiple countries used it. How do you think that could change the property market - or any other market that is currently geo-locked or database locked or company locked? We're talking about a decentralized, trustless and immutable proof of ownership for any good. I really don't understand why people focus so much on the images, gaming etc part of it. This tech is just starting with images - it's finding it's feet, perhaps frivolously, but it will end up changing the world when it's used for other things. It's a little shocking actually to see the lack of imagination on HN about a technology that could revolutionize multiple industries.
  - heyitsguay 5y ago
    Great idea. I just registered your house on my favorite blockchain. You can leave any furniture you don't want on your way out. If you feel this is an error, please don't resort to any centralized statist mechanisms to resolve this dispute. The issue isn't a lack of imagination on the part of skeptics who actually understand the underlying technical mechanisms behind blockchains. It's a lack of understanding by proponents about how the physical world works and how it can and can't be made to relate to digital comstructs.
alanlammiman 5y ago
signalling doesn't even have to be expensive and so status focused as with luxury goods. If I get a freebie baseball cap from an event I went to and wear it, that's signalling, even if the cap is economically worthless. Also, it's not all about signalling: I might buy a tshirt from a concert I went to, even though it's pretty overpriced, and I could have a copy printed for less if I wanted to, and it would have the same signalling value. Likewise I could get all my TV and music and books and software from torrenting, but I don't. Finally, I could play magic the gathering or yu gi oh or pokemon with printouts of cards, but I don't...
tigerInATurvy 5y ago
If the fake Rolex was a bit-for-bit, atom-for-atom copy of the original, then it would have the same value as a real Rolex. At that point, there would be no difference that would matter in the slightest. If what I get by right-clicking is the same as what you get by purchasing an NFT, then there's no difference that matters. Well, there's one difference: I got this image for free and you paid for it.
quickthrower2 5y ago
To most people Rolex has no premium value at all. Hence they buy a Casio. And choose to spend the Rolex money on say a house. To the people who value Rolex, a fake is not valuable. To some (vain but poor) a fake is valuable but barely more valuable than a standard watch. NFTs are not comparable because they are useless instruments of gambling and speculation.

Haunted_Cabbage 5y ago

I wonder if there's a targeted misinformation campaign.

pavlov 5y ago
Yes, the campaign waged by venture capitalists to establish “web3” as a thing.

mikeg8 5y ago

Right click, save as = free. A worthy replica Rolex that feels similar in quality to a real one will still cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. The $20 dollar replicas feel noticeably cheaper and will not provide the same satisfaction. If people feel like they can get more personal enjoyment from spending money on a digital asset that everyone else can enjoy for free, great. That's a signalling game. But I don't think its hard to understand why a lot of people are skeptical on the real utility behind NFTs in regards to art and creative works.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cdot2 5y ago

The "real" thing that you're buying is the social credit of having been able to afford a "genuine" Rolex. If Rolex sold them for less they would destroy their brand. This is why Apple prices their stuff so high.

pistachiopro 5y ago

I wonder if that's actually true. I mean, is the value of a Rolex retained in a world with true perfect replicas (like we can get with digital goods)? Right now, a good fake Rolex is still hundreds of dollars, and if someone does spot the difference you just look like a poser who's down $500, so why bother. The existence of the fashion cycle feels like an argument against NFTs. Yes, people like to signal with exclusive things, so influencers seek out new, exclusive fashions. Most of the time these styles are fairly easy to copy, though, and so the followers start wearing them and the influencers need to move on to the next thing. Eventually, anyone left wearing the old fashion looks kind of laughable. Yes, the actual NFT token always remains exclusive, but is that really something you can signal with on a human level? Or do too many right clickers eventually cause bored apes to go out of style and become laughable?

brosirmandude 5y ago
I'd argue it's the opposite. Having many right clickers around does the opposite of their intention, it gives the NFTs free marketing and exposure. More right clickers > more eyeballs on the NFT > more people intrigued enough to learn more.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

heyitsguay 5y ago

There are two sleights of hand here that make this analogy sound reasonable when it actually isn't. (1) "Buying" a Rolex (or knockoff) vs NFTs - buying a physical (or digital) good gives you privileged access to it. The same is not true of an NFT, which just adds your name next to a pointer in a (decentralized) database. Nothing changes in regard to access to the underlying good unless people decide to build mechanisms on top of the chosen blockchain to artificially enforce access privileges, but you don't need a blockchain for that (cf. skins in CS-GO or stock images one pays for to purchase and download). (2) "Indistinguishable" - with physical goods, that's a perceptual property and when you're talking about knockoffs of luxury goods, it really just means "hard to tell the difference (unless you examine it closely)". With digital media, the way it's been set up with NFTs, indistinguishable means completely identical. There are ways to actually sell protected digital media - e.g. you show a low-res version on a website and only send a full-res version once a purchase is made. But that's also been happening since the internet became a thing and doesn't need blockchains or NFTs either.

carpo 5y ago
Buying a house is the same. It just adds your name onto a title document that is stored in some custom government database. Imagine if there was a global way to register property title and ownership. Imagine if multiple countries used it. How do you think that could change the property market - or any other market that is currently geo-locked or database locked or company locked? We're talking about a decentralized, trustless and immutable proof of ownership for any good. I really don't understand why people focus so much on the images, gaming etc part of it. This tech is just starting with images - it's finding it's feet, perhaps frivolously, but it will end up changing the world when it's used for other things. It's a little shocking actually to see the lack of imagination on HN about a technology that could revolutionize multiple industries.
- heyitsguay 5y ago
  Great idea. I just registered your house on my favorite blockchain. You can leave any furniture you don't want on your way out. If you feel this is an error, please don't resort to any centralized statist mechanisms to resolve this dispute. The issue isn't a lack of imagination on the part of skeptics who actually understand the underlying technical mechanisms behind blockchains. It's a lack of understanding by proponents about how the physical world works and how it can and can't be made to relate to digital comstructs.

alanlammiman 5y ago

signalling doesn't even have to be expensive and so status focused as with luxury goods. If I get a freebie baseball cap from an event I went to and wear it, that's signalling, even if the cap is economically worthless. Also, it's not all about signalling: I might buy a tshirt from a concert I went to, even though it's pretty overpriced, and I could have a copy printed for less if I wanted to, and it would have the same signalling value. Likewise I could get all my TV and music and books and software from torrenting, but I don't. Finally, I could play magic the gathering or yu gi oh or pokemon with printouts of cards, but I don't...

tigerInATurvy 5y ago

If the fake Rolex was a bit-for-bit, atom-for-atom copy of the original, then it would have the same value as a real Rolex. At that point, there would be no difference that would matter in the slightest. If what I get by right-clicking is the same as what you get by purchasing an NFT, then there's no difference that matters. Well, there's one difference: I got this image for free and you paid for it.

quickthrower2 5y ago

To most people Rolex has no premium value at all. Hence they buy a Casio. And choose to spend the Rolex money on say a house. To the people who value Rolex, a fake is not valuable. To some (vain but poor) a fake is valuable but barely more valuable than a standard watch. NFTs are not comparable because they are useless instruments of gambling and speculation.