3 ms·
> Using your reasoning Clearly not, the point being made was that you owned a thing, e.g. a Pokemon card. To own an NFT is to, bafflingly, claim to hold a toke
by hsartoris 4mo ago
> Using your reasoning
Clearly not, the point being made was that you owned a thing, e.g. a Pokemon card. To own an NFT is to, bafflingly, claim to hold a token of ownership of some asset represented by the NFT - where that representation is indicated by the NFT immutably containing, typically, a thoroughly mutable Google Drive link to a picture. The whole thing was always farcical.
Again, at least you actually own the Pokemon card at the end of the day.
- vmg12 4mo agoThe value of pokemon cards or birkin bags is not because they are physically owned. This should be obvious from the fact that I could cheaply reproduce them and my identical reproductions would have 0 value compared to the original. I still own them though so again, according to your reasoning they should have the same value. Some pokemon cards are worth so much i could reproduce them with gold instead of cardboard and it would be worth less than the cardboard version (assuming the same weight)
- brap 4mo agoThings can have value beyond their physical substance. A Pokemon card isn't just paper and ink. I'm not arguing about whether the asset has value, I'm arguing about whether you actually own it.