4 ms·

> Sorry, I missed something. What exactly can they not build without blockchains? They can’t build tokens that people would speculate in to the point that they

> Sorry, I missed something. What exactly can they not build without blockchains? They can’t build tokens that people would speculate in to the point that they are worth millions unless they use a big ledger like eth where people might believe that the tokens have a lifespan longer than the games. > Is there a mechanism that allows NFT transfers to accumulate “royalties” to the original seller? That is my understanding yes, and this would be a premise for the whole thing. So yes - the whole idea would be to set up a market for speculation and see a cut from each transaction. And the chain isn’t necessary, technically, it’s a necessity to ensure the inflated speculation only. And both studios and users have aligned interest: speculation, only. Not hats, not currency. They get shiny gear but it’s also a lottery.

dpark 5y ago
Okay, so we’re back to it’s valuable because some people are gullible. This is not particularly compelling. Yeah, from a money grabbing, no ethics wanted standpoint, that is a compelling argument that it will make money. It is not a compelling argument that it actually provides meaningful value to anyone except the ones perpetuating the scam, though. A Ponzi scheme is also profitable. It is interesting that NFT royalties are thing. I was not aware of that. Although I don’t see that this makes it valuable. Royalties are generally paid for reproduction. If you have to pay the creator to transfer the token, then it seems evident that you don’t even own the token, whatever that’s worth.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  Yeah to be absolutely clear: I believe there is value here only in the sense that there is value at the top of any Ponzi scheme (value for early investors) or at best - a lottery or volatile instrument (value only for lucky investors). And this is the reason I think that it will happen in some spaces such as gaming. I don’t think it’s something that has or adds any value from a technical viewpoint. At least not to the point where it would warrant investment or overhead from blockchain tech. It’s hardly worth even $1 “securing” my ownership of a hat on a public ledger unless the chance of it becoming more expensive through artificial scarcity is counted as “value”.

dpark 5y ago

Okay, so we’re back to it’s valuable because some people are gullible. This is not particularly compelling. Yeah, from a money grabbing, no ethics wanted standpoint, that is a compelling argument that it will make money. It is not a compelling argument that it actually provides meaningful value to anyone except the ones perpetuating the scam, though. A Ponzi scheme is also profitable. It is interesting that NFT royalties are thing. I was not aware of that. Although I don’t see that this makes it valuable. Royalties are generally paid for reproduction. If you have to pay the creator to transfer the token, then it seems evident that you don’t even own the token, whatever that’s worth.

alkonaut 5y ago
Yeah to be absolutely clear: I believe there is value here only in the sense that there is value at the top of any Ponzi scheme (value for early investors) or at best - a lottery or volatile instrument (value only for lucky investors). And this is the reason I think that it will happen in some spaces such as gaming. I don’t think it’s something that has or adds any value from a technical viewpoint. At least not to the point where it would warrant investment or overhead from blockchain tech. It’s hardly worth even $1 “securing” my ownership of a hat on a public ledger unless the chance of it becoming more expensive through artificial scarcity is counted as “value”.