5 ms·
Even aside from the baloney idea of ownership they offer, the thing that continues to baffle me about NFTs is that the very nature of them assumes that ownershi
by deergomoo 5y ago
Even aside from the baloney idea of ownership they offer, the thing that continues to baffle me about NFTs is that the very nature of them assumes that ownership is inherently valuable.
Buying a painting allows me to hang it on the wall and admire it, where is where I derive the value of owning that painting. Buying a digital videogame allows me play it, even though there is no physical good (and is also a questionable definition of ownership due to DRM).
Buying an NFT allows me to...show off I guess? It entirely separates the ownership from the ability the experience the owned thing, which I find bewildering. To me, 100% of the value of owning something is the ability to experience it. If I can freely experience something, then the concept of "owning" it is worthless. It would be different if it endowed some semblance of actual ownership, e.g. copyright, but that has been functioning perfectly well without blockchains for hundreds of years.
- temp438 5y ago> Buying an NFT allows me to...show off I guess? And buying some other piece of shit for millions doesn't, right? What's the difference? Why nfts are so important?
- gruez 5y ago>Buying a painting allows me to hang it on the wall and admire it, where is where I derive the value of owning that painting. That's true, but why do people spend millions on an original [famous artist] painting? If all they want to do is admire the painting, surely a high quality replica (ie. the type that can fool the naked eye) would be more than sufficient?
- mikeg8 5y ago“People” in your comment being an extremely small class of wealthy individuals whom have the luxury of trading art. Most people would be totally fine purchasing a high quality replica, as that is their only option.
- deergomoo 5y agoTo me—and I'm not at all a high art person, so take this with a pinch of salt—I think the value in owning an original painting would be knowing that it is the original, crafted first hand by the artist, rather than the notion that it is mine and not someone else's (which to me continues to be a worthless concept in isolation). If The Lourve said I could keep the Mona Lisa above my mantelpiece forever more, I would not be looking to place bids on it. For digital art that obviously doesn't apply as the concept of "the original" artefact is borderline meaningless, however that leads neatly onto the other thing I dislike about NFTs, which is the introduction of artificial scarcity in a medium not burdened by it.
- tablespoon 5y ago> ... Even aside from the baloney idea of ownership they offer, the thing that continues to baffle me about NFTs is that the very nature of them assumes that ownership is inherently valuable. It's less baffling if you realize it's just BS "power of positive thinking" [1]. A bunch of people latched on to NFT's because they wanted to be in on the ground floor of the next big speculative bubble. However the thing is fundamentally BS, but to admit that would contradict their goals, so they use positive thinking to believe the BS in the hope that their belief will somehow make the BS true. So, basically: I want NFT's to be valuable, so that means whatever it is they provide must be valuable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Positive_Thinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Positive_Thinking
- danaris 5y agoIt's not just positive thinking; it's about creating a new kind of scarcity-based status symbol.
- majewsky 5y agoSo like beanie babies, then?
- danaris 5y agoAt least with beanie babies, after the market crashed, you still had a cute stuffed animal. My family still has a large collection of the purple platypus "teeny beanies". When and if the NFT market crashes, anyone who bought one will have....nothing.
- cassianoleal 5y agoI thought they would be allowed to keep the JSON. /s