3 ms·

> The reason that something is valuable to collectors is the social contract between creator and recipient. No, it’s because the valuable object is physically

by zepto 5y ago

> The reason that something is valuable to collectors is the social contract between creator and recipient. No, it’s because the valuable object is physically scarce, and exists as a material historical artifact independent of any ledger. NFTs have never and will never have these attributes. You can't ignore this reality when advocating for them, otherwise you're peddling a fantasy.

danuker 5y ago
> independent of any ledger This seems an arbitrary restriction to me. Why must something be independent of a ledger to have value?
- zepto 5y ago
  This is a property that NFTs can never have, so claiming that NFTs are equivalent to physical collectibles is certainly false. If you are saying that something requires a ledger entry to have value, then you are simply proving that it has no intrinsic value.
  - danuker 5y ago
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value : > An intrinsic theory of value (also called theory of objective value) is any theory of value in economics which holds that the value of an object, good or service, is intrinsic, meaning that it can be estimated using objective measures. If you use "what someone last paid for it" as a measure of intrinsic value, then they have intrinsic value.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > If you use "what someone last paid for it" as a measure of intrinsic value, then they have intrinsic value. Clearly this doesn’t meet the requirements of an objective measure. A single tulip bulb was purchased for 2500 florins in 1636. That represents 10 years of a skilled laborers earnings at the time. If you believe that the price an NFT sold for on a ledger represents its intrinsic value, then you must also believe that a tulip bulb’s intrinsic value was equivalent to 10 years of skilled labor. Obviously this is absurd, and history proved it so.
      - danuker 5y ago
        > objective measure How would a bunch of subjective meatbags be able to come up with an objective measure? If everyone agreed that X is an objective measure, it could still be wrong. Give me a concrete example of what you think is an objective measure.
        zepto 5y ago
        Sorry - I edited my comment while you were posting this. Feel free to reply to my full comment, since I address the consequences of this line of reasoning there.
        danuker 5y ago
        Thank you for the response! And sorry for taking so long with mine. I agree that the example you provided is a more "objective" one, more grounded in physical reality - a tulip costing the same as a 10 years' salary. > Obviously this is absurd, and history proved it so. Had the tulips kept their scarcity, and had social interest remained at such high levels, couldn't it have kept its value? An example I have is gold: people have been hoarding and valuing it for millennia. Sure, it occasionally crashes, but so do a lot of assets. Is it in a constant bubble? Is it overvalued? What is the intrinsic value of gold? It is not very useful in itself, but it is in demand and scarce, as opposed to fiat currency, which is in free fall. http://pricedingold.com/us-dollar/ http://pricedingold.com/us-dollar/ I argue that value comes from what people attribute it to be. The markets are an aggregation of such value decisions from many people.
        zepto 5y ago
        It seems like you are in full agreement with me that the way we value NFTs is exactly equivalent to the valuing of Tulips during the bubble of 1637. > Had the tulips kept their scarcity, They did. > and had social interest remained at such high levels, couldn't it have kept its value? You mean if the tulip bubble had never burst would we still be paying 10 years of a skilled persons salary for one? Sure. It’s worth noting that the courts ultimately held the debts owed for Tulip futures to be ‘gambling debts’…
douglaswlance 5y ago
>No, it’s because the valuable object is physically scarce, and exists as a material historical artifact independent of any ledger. NFTs have never and will never have these attributes. Collectible cards are scarce by design. Manufacturers print millions every year. They could reproduce the same card for decades. They could also print them on demand. Whenever someone orders the card, print it for them, and ship it out. It is artificial scarcity. Collectible cards must be graded and registered to be valuable. An unregistered Michael Jordan rookie card would be assumed to be a fake. They exist in a ledger. The social contract between collectors and manufacturers is what creates the value. The manufacturer agrees to generate verifiable scarcity, and the collector agrees to purchase seemingly worthless cardboard and ink at a markup.

by zepto 5y ago

danuker 5y ago

> independent of any ledger This seems an arbitrary restriction to me. Why must something be independent of a ledger to have value?

zepto 5y ago
This is a property that NFTs can never have, so claiming that NFTs are equivalent to physical collectibles is certainly false. If you are saying that something requires a ledger entry to have value, then you are simply proving that it has no intrinsic value.
- danuker 5y ago
  From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value : > An intrinsic theory of value (also called theory of objective value) is any theory of value in economics which holds that the value of an object, good or service, is intrinsic, meaning that it can be estimated using objective measures. If you use "what someone last paid for it" as a measure of intrinsic value, then they have intrinsic value.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > If you use "what someone last paid for it" as a measure of intrinsic value, then they have intrinsic value. Clearly this doesn’t meet the requirements of an objective measure. A single tulip bulb was purchased for 2500 florins in 1636. That represents 10 years of a skilled laborers earnings at the time. If you believe that the price an NFT sold for on a ledger represents its intrinsic value, then you must also believe that a tulip bulb’s intrinsic value was equivalent to 10 years of skilled labor. Obviously this is absurd, and history proved it so.
    - danuker 5y ago
      > objective measure How would a bunch of subjective meatbags be able to come up with an objective measure? If everyone agreed that X is an objective measure, it could still be wrong. Give me a concrete example of what you think is an objective measure.
      - zepto 5y ago
        Sorry - I edited my comment while you were posting this. Feel free to reply to my full comment, since I address the consequences of this line of reasoning there.
        danuker 5y ago
        Thank you for the response! And sorry for taking so long with mine. I agree that the example you provided is a more "objective" one, more grounded in physical reality - a tulip costing the same as a 10 years' salary. > Obviously this is absurd, and history proved it so. Had the tulips kept their scarcity, and had social interest remained at such high levels, couldn't it have kept its value? An example I have is gold: people have been hoarding and valuing it for millennia. Sure, it occasionally crashes, but so do a lot of assets. Is it in a constant bubble? Is it overvalued? What is the intrinsic value of gold? It is not very useful in itself, but it is in demand and scarce, as opposed to fiat currency, which is in free fall. http://pricedingold.com/us-dollar/ http://pricedingold.com/us-dollar/ I argue that value comes from what people attribute it to be. The markets are an aggregation of such value decisions from many people.
        zepto 5y ago
        It seems like you are in full agreement with me that the way we value NFTs is exactly equivalent to the valuing of Tulips during the bubble of 1637. > Had the tulips kept their scarcity, They did. > and had social interest remained at such high levels, couldn't it have kept its value? You mean if the tulip bubble had never burst would we still be paying 10 years of a skilled persons salary for one? Sure. It’s worth noting that the courts ultimately held the debts owed for Tulip futures to be ‘gambling debts’…

douglaswlance 5y ago

>No, it’s because the valuable object is physically scarce, and exists as a material historical artifact independent of any ledger. NFTs have never and will never have these attributes. Collectible cards are scarce by design. Manufacturers print millions every year. They could reproduce the same card for decades. They could also print them on demand. Whenever someone orders the card, print it for them, and ship it out. It is artificial scarcity. Collectible cards must be graded and registered to be valuable. An unregistered Michael Jordan rookie card would be assumed to be a fake. They exist in a ledger. The social contract between collectors and manufacturers is what creates the value. The manufacturer agrees to generate verifiable scarcity, and the collector agrees to purchase seemingly worthless cardboard and ink at a markup.