NFT are just like tweets. An NFT of a torrent is the same thing as a tweet linking to a torrent, just that in this case the tweet is stored in a blockchain and people can buy it.
I understand what NFTs are, but torrents are ephemeral and recreatable and frequently replaced even for the same source data, more akin to indices. Proving you had a copy in the past or traded for said proof conveys nothing if no seeders exist anymore, and abandonment rates are huge outside of archival communities.
Other than the mystery and the joke what's the meaning of a NFT for the URL of a deleted tweet?
I think the biggest problem the art project will face is that nobody actually wants 19.5TB of not-terribly-good art.
If there wasn't a fun speculative element, then most of the artists would have trouble getting anyone to download their stuff even for free (just like most game devs struggle to get anyone to play their games - even when they're pretty good).
So really, if this art project does succeed it could be an interesting new distribution channel!
Actually, I was about to rent a big server and download the torrent as I wanted to build a reverse image search for NFTs. But since it's not 19TB, I won't do it.
Ah yess, when you put something publicly available then claim piracy and copyright infringement when people actually use those "public bits".
Gotta love this logic.So if i don't right-click your precious NFT I don't pirate it, how about if i get it from my browser's image cache?Am i pirating it then or not?(I'm not going into copying and selling, which is more nuanced, but even then one could argue in the same manner).
To me these questions are extremely rhetorical, especially if one believes in the concept of property. If you don't want to freely give people copies of your precious hard work,don't put it on the internet, period, not even under a protected information system. I would further argue on this principle about computer security aswell, but that actually requires understanding how computers work, which the vast majority doesn't know.
By putting your work publicly available you already explicitly give permission on people to copy your bits into their computers(a.k.a viewing).I guess people think machines are like humans and automatically "forget" what they see, thus enforcing the value of copyright.
I think that is kind of the point. This a social commentary on the absurdity of NFTs and crypto.
There was the study yesterday that showed that 70% of crypto trading was wash trading. I.e junk to inflate the appearance of the market. I see this being mostly zeros as effectively the same. It was meant to be found to be junk, to show how stupid it all is.
right, but doesnt the alledged spill over effect of increasing the price on the unregulated exchange, impact the price regardless of exchange?
You don't ask for btc price X on coinbase versus btc price Y on biance? Wouldn't you just care about the price of btc? and if it rises on certain exchanges, then it would arbitrage until it rose on other exchanges as well?
Well, then how many % of crypto volume happens on properly 'regulated' exchanges? And what are the requirements those exchanges must meet (are they held to the same standard as major stock exchanges, for example?)
Given that Coinbase paid a fine for wash trading, performed by none other than former Coinbase employee and Litecoin creator Charlie Lee, I’m not sure what you’re suggesting here.
That study was not rigorous and their claim easily falsifiable. You can't prove wash trading on centralized exchanges. It's a study specifically made for people to quote in arguments such as yours.
> That study was not rigorous and their claim easily falsifiable.
Specifically, what part of their methodology is not rigorous?
Given that a substantial chunk of the top tier exchanges have been caught and charged with wash trading (Bitmex, Coinbase), I think we already have quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to suggest it is likely an issue.
I don’t understand; did the author of the torrent toss in a bunch of nothing to pad out the number, or is there that many references to nothing in the NFT chain?
The former seems pointless, but for the latter, I’m under the assumption that the NFT chain stores the image hashes directly, and those hashes are enforced to be unique — so there should be only one instance of a zero hash? Or I suppose a ton of images with like three bytes set and bunch of nothing for padding
Most NFTs do not hash media themselves; instead, they hash a link to the media that only exists as long as it is hosted. I'd imagine the zero hashes are links that are already dead.
Given the authors deleting of tickets on the matter it stands to reason that he didn't want to actually go through the trouble of pulling all images and is kind of being a fraud.
Of course, given enough unreasonably scepticism someone might instead intuit that 18.99 TB of 19TB of data has disappeared.
No, it was quite deliberate. The "RAR" files in there are not even RAR files, they are ext4 filesystems filled with zeros. There is literallt nothing in there - the 10GB of "data" is ext4 FS metadata. https://twitter.com/originalcvk/status/1462099991858753547?s...
Isn’t the point of NFTs that it verifies ownership, not “you’re the only one that can access the content” (although there are indeed NFTs that can only allow the owner to decrypt the content)? It’s like video game cosmetics - many people can have the same skin, but people you want to impress or show off to can see that you own x, y, and z.
Video game cosmetics derive their appeal from people using them while they actually play the game, not from showing off the database flag that activates it for the account. With NFTs, the whole game part of the game cosmetics analogy is missing.
What I mean is if an avatar outit hashes to X, change one shade of grey by one LSB and it hashes to Y. You now copied the outgit, and have the earliest hash of your clone on the blockchain. A human has to review if it is the same thing or just had miniscule modifications. Something like neural hashes may eventually solve it somewhat.
> You can build games that verify your NFT and allow you to use the art/resource in game.
While true, the only one deciding whether you are granted the ingame usage is still the developer/publisher, so in that scenario you basically just did exactly the same thing as before: a database lookup to check if a player "owns" a particular item. Only this time with a much slower and more inefficient database.
Nothing about it being a NFT grants any advantages in that case, the developer can still take it away, ban your account, remove the item from the game etc. because they are still the ones controlling everything. You just decentralized the database entry.
Only this time, the database is global and multiple independent games can all be using a common set of NFT resources that can be unique and transferred from one game to another. COD could release some NFT for a uniform or a gun or something, and an indie developer could incorporate that nft into their game if they wanted.
Because the nft can be used in any game at any point in the future. It's not just one game with one database. It can be multiple independent games all using the same resources that can be transferred from one game to another.
Like....what? If the games are by the same publisher then that's trivial to do anyway. If they are not from the same publisher....then what kind of "resource" can you transfer? And why would NFT make it any easier?
Idk man, use your imagination. It could literally be anything. NFT just stands for non-fungible-token. It's like a unique ticket sitting on the public blockchain that can be tied to any digital asset sitting on IPFS. Any game or software can verify that you own the NFT without a third centralized party. I don't even play or like video games so this isn't my domain of expertise. Im more interested in seeing NFTs replace ticketing systems and financial systems, where they would represent things like claims to some financial asset.
Games can load them from ipfs and verify ownership or somehing, but to counterfeit all you have to do is change the shade of pixel by one bit and get a new hash.
So then you have to move to a whitelist system where someone centralized (or a DAO) has to manually act as a copyright system, whitelisting hashes, duplicating the work of the existing copyright and legal system.
You can create a smart contract where only a set group of people (ie, the devs) can mint NFTs. You cant just mint arbitrary nfts whenever you want, that's why they are unique.
I'm assuming the idea was games only let the person who owns the NFT (oldest entry of the hash on the chain, or transferred from it, plus however the limited number serial works for "limited edition" vs singular NFTs).
Who is going to pay a studio to develop the models, artwork and code required to have a ‘NFT skin’ in a game? Money is made by selling a skin multiple times to return effort.
And what if I want that skin in League, rather than GTA? The whole concept is a nonsense.
Influencers + shady finance have collided to *create a climate melting scam.
NFTs are a form of Status or Veblen good. This means being useless or grossly overvalued, exploiting craftspersons, being exclusive, prices defying reason are all good properties to have.
A physical world example is the combination of social media marketing, fast fashion and product drops. Items are sold for many multiples of their production cost due to a manufactured air of exclusivity and scarcity. As the items are mass produced from exploited labor, a bottleneck from time consuming highly skilled craftwork cannot be the cause of high prices.
There are many examples of conspicuous over consumption and status goods, all of them defying common sense to most. Remember the "I AM RICH" app? The NFT version is the same principle, merely on a different type of datastore.
Particularly relevant to NFTs is the art world of artificially inflated prices, donations to manufacture prestige and where fakes are hard to tell to the untrained eye and wealthy buyers bring lawsuits or otherwise buy the silence of those who can prove forgeries.
The artifact or artwork is not the goal, instead the ability to take something useless or mundane but somehow demonstrable as unique, prove provenance and flaunt wealth to some peer group considered high status is the goal. I suspect NFTs are currently in a gold rush stage and comparatively more open. When the loose flow of money is over, I expect it will decay back to gated elitism typical of the existing art world.
Underlying something like an Ethereum linked IPFS hash artifact are interesting consensus algorithms for persistent data-structures on open distributed networks. That they're being used in this manner is not surprising. It's reflective of humans, not something inherent to the utility of the tech.
I think you could argue that Discord/Twitter is the game, which is a much bigger space than Fortnite or CSGO, meaning that the "skins" cost more. Instead of runing around a 3d character, you just type words on a web page/chat client and get points the more people see it.
I don't see anything replacing the internet any time soon it is too entrenched currently, it certainly isn't the "metaverse". People will revolt against that. I've already seen facebook overload the past few years along with other social media.
Except to have some skin in a game, you actually have to have that skin in the game. To put a monkey as your profile picture on Discord or Twitter, you can just do that without owning the monkey. If anything, not owning it is better social proof.
Think of it as breaking out of the games, imagine something like steam profile avatars/pictures etc. tied to your identity that you can use on any page that implements it.
From your original comment: "imagine something like steam profile avatars/pictures etc. tied to your identity that you can use on any page that implements it."
That sounds 100% like Gravatar. We already have exactly that, without any of the problematic aspects of being tied to NFTs or blockchain.
I assume you never used steam in the last years? Games drop avatars as items for steam inventory, and you can trade them and put them in special slots, they aren't just random images, its not just avatars its also frames of avatars, slots of stuff to show on profile, animated backgrounds etc.
But does it verify ownership of anything other than the token itself? What are the typical contract terms, if any, related to NFTs? And are those terms enforceable in any given jurisdiction?
So basically Twitter is outsourcing copyright enforcement via NFTs. Which actually doesn’t sound totally useless, but could also be done without a blockchain.
Now, when many content displayers (websites, games, multiverses, etc) outsource their copyright enforcement to multiple copyright-enforcers maybe using the blockchain starts making more sense.
> I think a blockchain can still be useful in federated systems.
How so? As soon as you have to trust someone, you've lost the only benefit of blockchains and using one would only give the terrible performance characteristic of those for no benefit.
Each trusted enforcer having its own database is a way better architecture.
Tying a copyright license (at least non exclusive) to the NFT transfer sounds not that far fetched. It would be a little bit tricky to make that work globally but you could probably do that as well.
The question is would courts accept it as a valid contacts and how to enforce them. How would NFT prevent infringement (aka mme creating the latest bansky NFT)?
You guys are approaching this from the wrong direction: you've taken NFTs and decided they are valuable, and set about trying to prove you can do useful things with them.
All of the things you've mentioned already exist, with a lot less effort. Copyright law is well established on digital goods. Contract/IP law is well established.
If NFTs have utility, beyond greater fool theory, then surely it will exist beyond having to go replicate all of these web2/tradfi/whatever concepts. Otherwise, what's the point?
Are games with virtual assets bubbles? The whole NFT space might be, but it's still value creation analog to games with virtual assets. Last 15 years we've gone from MMOs with lots of game and in some of them you could buy land plots, and of course shiny armor. To less game with casual mobile games and loot boxes, to now no game with social media flexing and NFTs.
As an investment asset? Almost certainly. Nobody is going to want your CSGO skins in 20 years time when it doesn't have any players anymore, and we don't often hear about $50k second life purchases anymore when they were a weekly news item in the noughties.
If you buy one because you want to play with it? Fine, that's not a bubble. Enjoy!
If you are just buying one just because you think the value will go up, and the asset doesn't generate any returns other than the price people are willing to pay for it, and other people primarily want it because they think the price is going to go up - you are probably in a bubble.
I think that's a good clarification, I agree with your point-of-view. The question is for how long this JPEG-NFT-bubble will go on, as long as Second Life or longer/shorter. The word "bubble" can be a bit loose definition, it might inflate/deflate slow/fast; and depending on that be relevant or irrelevant. Usually people seem to mean fast and blow off top, which might not necessarily be the case.
Incorrect, often NFTs contain the hash of the content, where the content itself is pinned to IPFS.
That said, tokens that are not pinned to IPFS are fucking worthless, and it's hard to tell whether an NFT is pinned to IPFS unless you're skilled at navigating Ethereum contacts.
NFTs are probably best thought of as a recapitulation of status goods into the digital world, outside video games. The physical good versions has never made sense to me either.
Thorstein Veblen already in the late 1800s had pointed out that an object's utility as a status signal increases in tandem with its uselessness. The object must then also be recognized among peers as difficult to obtain. For the moon shares analogy to work, being objectively worthless or grossly overvalued is insufficient, it had to have also been exclusive and coveted among the "high class".
You're completely correct that over-exuberance, gambles and scams are playing a large role in the amount of money flowing. It is unclear whether the current level of openness compared to the usually highly elitist gate kept artworld will persist.
There is nonetheless a clear mapping to physical art world collections in terms of owning a rare work by a skilled artist and having it connected to some trusted proof representing a unique transaction with that artist.
I don't see that mapping at all. If you own a rare work by a skilled artist, you are in possession of a unique physical item. If you own an NFT, you are not. All you "own" is proof that you paid some money to someone.
> NFTs are probably best thought of as a recapitulation of status goods into the digital world
Status cannot be manufactured, it spurs naturally due to having rare things such as a big mansion, grammys, academy awards, winning the Super Bowl , winning the NBA title, winning the World Series etc.
All those things are both rare and cannot be copied.
NFTs instead are easily copied idividually (right click) or even in bulk as this torrent file proves.
Second life did a much better job at representing status goods in the digital world than NFTs.
And I know people in here don't want to hear it, but given its history and its budget Zuck's Meta will improve upon what Second Life did and knock it out of the park like it did with social networks.
Agreed, and NFTs are probably conferring anti-status, rather than status, considering NFT owners can be easily perceived as simpletons who have fallen for an obvious scam.
While I agree such transactions and dynamics make more sense in established widely accessed virtual worlds, status can in fact be manufactured. I can give two examples.
In the art world, wealthy collectors will overbid on works by artists within their collection to hugely inflate their price. There is also a large amount of pressure on appraisers to overvalue work and for Art houses to turn a blind eye to some known forgeries. The wealthy will donate to museums to lend to an air of prestige to their collections (with tax evasion by charity write offs a nice bonus) and, whenever forgeries are found in collections, lawsuits and bribes are used to silence all but those with rare levels of integrity.
A less exclusive but still grossly over priced example is the recent world of fast fashion product drops. There, mass produced, cheaply manufactured, labor exploited goods are sold for many times their production costs by creating an illusion of scarcity and prestige. This is done by manipulative marketing tricks where social media and celebrity worship are key vehicles.
This, sadly, is the nature of humans. NFTs are in the process of attempting to install themselves as status goods. That is the psychology when denouncing "right clickers".
> NFTs instead are easily copied idividually (right click) or even in bulk as this torrent file proves.
No, you're copying a piece of media that NFT links to. What you're not copying is a verifiable claim of spending unreasonable amount of ETH to have a record in blockchain pointing to that piece of media.
Except the company that sold Moon shares had no authority to offer ownership over any part of the moon. The blockchain does have authority to offer ownership over particular tokens on that blockchain. Those are valuable so long as there are enough people that agree they are valuable and are willing to exchange other goods and services for them. Oh yeah, kind of like fiat money.
Within the moon share ecosystem, moon shares have the exact same kind of authority.
Value's always worth what someone will pay, sure. But blockchain authority isn't more special than any other database. It has some fancy properties, but they don't affect the authority.
What does it mean to own something? It what sense does a Moon share give you any ownership over any part of the moon? If someone else goes up to the Moon and builds a lunar base on "your" piece of the Moon, does your Moon share give you any way to stop them? Can you sue them in any court? Does it prevent anyone in any way from doing whatever they want with that piece of the Moon? No, it doesn't.
Contrast with a token in your wallet on the blockchain. As long as your private keys are secure, nobody else but you can transfer that token anywhere else. Nobody else can convincingly represent that they are the owner of it. The blockchain proves irrefutably that you own it. The blockchain, as represented by the consensus of thousands of nodes, is the ultimate authority of who owns what on that blockchain.
Outside of the blockchain, a token on the blockchain means nothing. Outside of the Moon company, a piece of the moon is still a real thing that means something. You can only "own" a physical object if you either have sufficient physical force to assert your ownership of it or the government recognizes your ownership and will exert force on your behalf to assert it.
Neither of those are necessary for the blockchain because nobody can assert ownership of the blockchain tokens without the private keys to your wallet.
It doesn't prove that you own part of the moon at all. The moon is a physical object. To own it, you need to be able to prevent other people from using it, or have an authority that can do so recognize your ownership and do that on your behalf. The Moon shares don't do that. The NFT on the blockchain does prevent other people from using that NFT without your authorization.
It's an entry in the blockchain. A record in a database.
Let's say you go to Sotheby's and you buy Van Gogh's Starry Night at auction. Along with the actual painting, you'd get a certificate of authenticity showing the provenance of the work. Basically, a record showing everyone who owned it before you and certifying that this is, in fact, the real Starry Night that Van Gogh painted. The real value of the painting is not in the painting itself, but in that certificate proving that it's the real original. If you tried to sell the painting without it, you wouldn't get many buyers. There's lots of people who could paint an exact replica of Starry Night, but there's still only one real Starry Night. Likewise, anyone can make a copy of a piece of digital art, but there's only one NFT, and if you don't have the NFT in your crypto wallet, you don't actually own it.
So, think of it as a certificate of authenticity for digital artworks, although it can be used to represent ownership of other things as well, if people agreed to it. It can also do neat things like transfer a portion of the sale price back to the original artist every time it's sold, which isn't currently done with regular artworks.
Except the real value is in the painting. If it were destroyed, then the certificate would be worthless. If the certificate were destroyed, you could have experts inspect the painting to see how old it is and compare minor defects to those found in duplicates to show its authenticity. No one would want to buy the certificate from you but let you keep the painting in your vaults
> Except the real value is in the painting. If it were destroyed, then the certificate would be worthless.
Not true. Banksy sold a painting for $1.4 million and it shredded itself right after the auction ended. Three years later the shredded remains (presumably with the certificate of authenticity) sold for $25.4 million[1]. So, no, the value is not in an intact painting.
Forgers can artificially age paintings. It's amazing the lengths they go to. Maybe something like Starry Night has been analyzed enough that it could be verified, but other works are not. It's not really known how many works of art on the market are forgeries.
> No one would want to buy the certificate from you but let you keep the painting in your vaults
Actually people do this all the time. They pay millions upon millions of dollars for a work of art and it gets loaned to a museum and possibly sent all over the world. They still own it though. There's also freeports[2] around the world with warehouses full of art. You can buy an artwork and it never moves from the warehouse, just the record of who owns it changes.
Of course art is heavily used for money laundering. Nobody ever claimed otherwise. That is a simple fact and has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Nothing that you claim about value is going to change the fact that art is used for money laundering.
> It what sense does a Moon share give you any ownership over any part of the moon? If someone else goes up to the Moon and builds a lunar base on "your" piece of the Moon, does your Moon share give you any way to stop them?
In what sense does a Token give you any ownership over any part of the image? If someone does a copy&paste operation and starts selling "your" image on a t-shirt, does your NFT give you any way to stop them?
You don't need to stop them. You don't own an image, you own a token. People can copy the image all they want, that doesn't give them ownership of the token.
I can go to the Louvre and take a picture of the Mona Lisa. That doesn't mean I own the Mona Lisa.
Similarly, if you buy a certificate implausibly claiming that you own a bit of the moon, well, you own a certificate implausibly claiming that you own a bit of the moon.
Heh, that reminds me of these ads I kept seeing some time ago, that claimed to offer some sort of title in Scotland that was based on owning some minuscule plot the company was selling.
In that case, while the title's not real, you may at least _actually_ be buying a very small amount of land (though some of those things are just scams).
That might matter in a niche case where the ownership of my moon share database entry is in dispute. (And each system has positives and negatives, blockchains aren't a strict upgrade.)
But the potential authority over the actual moon is the same under both systems.
Ownership only ever matters when there's a dispute. If you go build a house on a piece of land, and nobody ever comes along and disputes whether you own that land, does it matter whether you do or not? I mean, we even built into our laws that if you do that and nobody disputes it for long enough, then you get to officially own the land.
> Ownership only ever matters when there's a dispute.
Right.
And a blockchain only solves a tiny percentage of ownership issues. It solves those issues with powerful mathematical certainty, and if you could live inside a blockchain your problems would be solved*, but don't confuse that sliver with the full set of real-world ownership issues that exist with or without a blockchain being involved.
Moon Shares were legal ownership over particular tokens that signified (but not enforce in any legal way) ownership of land on the moon. Just like NFTs are legal ownership over particular tokens that signify (but not enforce in any legal way) ownership of JPEGs.
The JPEG is incidental. What you own is the token. You don't need the legal system to enforce your ownership of it because it is essentially impossible for anyone else to assert ownership of it without your private keys.
But whatever, think whatever you want. Just know that you're the guy in 1995 ranting about how this silly Internet fad is just something nerds waste time with.
The “owner” part is the issue though. The NFT owner's is just that: they own the NFT and nothing else. There can be infinitely many NFT pointing to the same art asset.
> There is more value in being the owner of the thing everyone has
Everybody has a Yankees logo on hat or on a cup or a scarf somewhere.
Small detail is that everybody who does has to pay royalties to the Yankees and as a consequene to Yankees' owners : the Steinbrenner family.
What you claim the NFT crowd is enthusiast about is basically what Gucci, Ray-Ban, LVHM and all the other luxury brands have been fighting for ages now.
Chinese copies not paying any royalties selling on the street for 5$ whereas the original sells for 5000$.
Luxury brands fight it with lawsuits and holograms, whereas the NFT crowd aims to fight it with blockchain.
But images are images and outside the lunatics of the NFT community if I right click a cool piece of art and show it to somebody, they'd reply that it's cool and would not ask for proof of ownership. The thing being on my computer or on my wall is all the proof of ownership they need before complimenting me . Very much like people would compliment my 5$ Ray-Ban shades and my GF 25$ LV handbag and nobody is going to check the hologram on either
Ownership implies some kind of exclusive rights. If everybody has the same rights over the content as the supposed owner, it means they're not the owner.
But just because you have the ability to download something from the internet doesn't mean you have the same rights to it as someone who has given some kind of license to it (which is often attached to NFT sales).
Is it recognized by the law? Can people sue those who fail to comply with it?
You can do all the circular reasoning you want but at the end of the day everything is backed by violence and coercitive power.
That's why nations have army/navy , to make other countries know that what they say carries weight because they can back it up with bullets and bombs, not just words.
> How can you enforce copyright law when I right click an NFT piece of art, then print it and hang it in my home?
Yep, same as any other licensed thing. Because copyright law is still just copyright law. NFTs don't magically add universal enforcement, and aren't supposed to.
> NFT enthusiasts have the illusion that the graphic art market is big. It's not.
Yes, there is a lot of crazy hype and over-expectations around, and sadly getting most of the attention.
A license to download some content that is otherwise publicly accessible? At any rate, copyright licenses cannot be enforced with smart contracts, because smart contracts cannot stop members of the public from making unauthorised copies. Copyright licenses can only be enforced by entities that have coercive power over individuals, e.g. courts of justice, but then the whole NFT becomes redundant because owning the NFT doesn't do anything, because in order to enforce your license you would need to have the proper paperwork and file a suit against the offending party.
There are more types of rights than "the right to download", I didn't say anything about that.
> At any rate, copyright licenses cannot be enforced with smart contracts
Wasn't claimed either. Why do people keep inventing claims to then criticize them? (I'm not even into NFTs, don't own any and don't plan to, but a lot of the reaction is just bizarre. No, they don't magically enforce copyright. No, they also aren't supposed to.)
I’ve tried but failed to understand NFTs. One thing I don’t understand is —- couldn’t you change one pixel in an image and register your ownership of the slightly different image in the blockchain? Then how would it be adjudicated which is the authentic version?
> Isn’t the point of NFTs that it verifies ownership
A lot of people think that, but I would consider that more of a requirement than the purpose.
The point of NFTs is to allow the original artist to share some of the financial rewards that the art dealers and collectors get each time they resell a piece of artwork in the future. The goal is to help restore some balance and fairness to the financial side of the art trade, particularly for new artists, who often can't earn a living wage on the original sales alone. And of course, being able to verify "ownership" of the "original" work is necessary to get the artist a piece of the pie whenever that NFT is sold.
Yes, you're right about access to the work... as an observer, anyone can enjoy looking at the art just the same as the person who owns the rights to it. Just like any other image on the internet, making a copy of it doesn't give you the rights to that image. So, I don't understand the point of this archive unless it's truly just to archive the data incase the blockchain goes down.
Not really, if anything we have more art (since each piece of art is infinitely replicable). What could conceivably happen is a decrease in the production of new art, but I don't see evidence of that either.
NFTs are obviously a bit silly, BUT, it would be nice if things bought on platforms like Steam, Roblox, Amazon, iTunes etc. were transferable to other games/platforms.
The platform providers would still need to agree that a specific blockchain / NFT is actually the source of truth, and so it's not really trustless. But the internet itself isn't perfectly decentralized either. I could see a future where developers could enable web3 support in their games/apps and allow importing assets, identities etc. between platforms, which would be nice.
I'm gonna copy my questions from another thread about transferable items because I'm genuinely curious about the answers.
Why would an asset designed for one game make sense or look good or feel at home in a completely different one?
Why would companies make one of them and sell it for a million bucks instead of trying to convince more players to buy it in a shop for two bucks?
Is the mechanic of a weapon gonna adjust to the new game when you import it or stay the same? If it stays the same, it's gonna be exploit galore. If it changes, well then, what's the point? Gonna be the same AK-47 as everyone else's, but this tiny sticker on it that nobody's gonna pay attention to is unique!
Even if we pretend this is somehow a promising field, why even use NFTs and make each one a couple of pixels different instead of making a common one, selling it for like $50, buyers get a file in whichever format is agreed upon, and import them in the settings?
Ignore the speculation on NFTs as a “single owner” of a piece of digital art for now, like most high art, it’s BS.
Just think about the things you buy online, be it movies, artwork, music, in app upgrades etc. Today we trust each individual app developer to honour the purchase agreement, eg. if the Amazon disappears or changes their license agreement, all your purchases are gone.
Tomorrow we might be able to purchase a license to the asset, registered on a public blockchain, and use that to prove ownership within an application. You could actually own some of things you currently “buy” online.
>Tomorrow we might be able to purchase a license to the asset, registered on a public blockchain, and use that to prove ownership within an application. You could actually own some of things you currently “buy” online.
How? Why does it matter that it's on some blockchain?
It could be on a normal database/server, but then all parties would have to agree on who controls that, and it would be difficult for new developers to join.
We’d need some kind of way to trust a public database among untrusted participants- which is what a blockchain basically does.
I guess you could point at some metadata/description and let each game render that how it likes?
Eg if I have a red hat nft you could have that as 2d sprite art or a 3d model or just a buff to some other stat or just ignore it.
Why wouldn’t they sell it for a couple of bucks? It doesn’t have to be expensive because it’s an nft, plenty of them are sold for pennies. erc1155 is designed with lots of varying items being created on the same contract.
Why nfts? Because it’s easy to do today and has been getting more and more popular over the past three years. It seems people like them.
People don’t want to download files and import them into programs. Having one login(wallet) that you connect to anything you want and it takes your data and belongings with you seems pretty neat to me.
I seldom play video games, but I would definitely hate to have an advantage in one game, just because I had won the same or a similar advantage in some other game. Sharing stuff across different games seems a really stupid idea to me.
This could be done without NFTs. There aren’t that many platforms, they could all build api integrations if they wanted. But they don’t want to because they like having users locked in.
NFTs along with all non money crypto feel like a solution in search of a problem. And all of these solutions are things already possible and easier without crypto.
Just imagine, if you bought a movie or game and could "consume" it on any platform you want, or event download files from web, skipping platforms. While technology is there, and you could prove ownership using public or private blockchain, this is obviously "bad for business" and no company will ever implement it. They better re-sell you same digital goods few times on several platforms.
Are NFTs likely to do that? No. Why would game/platform creators do a ton of work so they could make less money? And even if they wanted to, which they won't, why would they bless some specific blockchain with that power? If that is at all viable, somebody like Steam or Amazon will want it to be their own digital assets registry that wins. For that, they don't need a blockchain, just a database.
>Why would game/platform creators do a ton of work so they could make less money?
I know, right? Or to look at another similar situation: why would Verizon, China Mobile, T-Mobile, and AT&T all make their voice/data networks interoperable?
Exactly. The early history of telephone systems was rife with refusal to interconnect.
And the analogy is terrible because the whole purpose of telephones is interconnection; the value is in the size of the network. But from the consumer perspective, portability for music purchases or game assets is at best a secondary concern.
Steam has already disallowed "Applications built on blockchain technology that issue or allow exchange of cryptocurrencies or NFTs." from their platform. They have a very successful item marketplace which they get a cut of and aren't interested in blockchain systems competing. Epic has said they will allow it, presumably to differentiate themselves and because they don't have such a system.
I'm not holding my breath for transferable content between platforms when big game studios cannot make save data compatible between the same PC game if bought on different stores. If you start playing Forza Horizon 5 on Xbox Game Pass and then decide to buy it on Steam, you have to start from the beginning because the save data is not compatible between the two different store versions.
So the idea is that when I play Call of Duty, I can wear the hat I purchased in Roblox? And when I'm in Roblox, I can use the character I purchased in Call of Duty?
Yeah, nobody wants that. I think they shoehorn this idea in every NFT discussion, even though they know it's not a very good idea, because so far it's the only use-case they have been able to come up with.
NFTs are about the token ownership, not the asset, so this archive is rather pointless on its own.
But it's a very meta "art" piece as described by the article, especially if it also serves as an NFT asset itself. Will be interesting to see how how far this layer cake will go.
I think it does illustrate that NFT themselves are useless (other than being some sort of performance art). If you legally bought the right to something, what has value is not the NFT, it is the legal contract of the transaction. If you don’t sign a contract, the NFT is just a few bytes stored somewhere that have no consequences. The value is in the legal agreement.
That's true, it's just another medium of execution via cryptographic signatures exposed as on-chain tokens. The legal foundation is still being figured out (mostly due to transparency and global jurisdiction issues) but there is something unique about having a much more programmable system.
It's like DocuSign + APIs + banking + decentralized security and governance all rolled into one, and I think societal and economic changes will catch up to make this new system of transactions much more valuable.
> It's like DocuSign + APIs + banking + decentralized security and governance all rolled into one, and I think societal and economic changes will catch up to make this new system of transactions much more valuable.
What makes you think that? When I see that the people that are the most invested aren't bothering to tie any real rights to the NFTs, that's a really bad sign.
Blockchains are also pretty bad at banking in general.
Yeah, blockchains are incompatible with exercising coercive power, and it turns out without coercive power there are not that many useful things you can do. For example, enforcing a copyright license, or a loan agreement, requires coercive power.
there is a certain irony in peer hosting IPFS-based NFTs thru BitTorrent as an attempt at some kind of critique… I hope they do this with Hicetnunc[1] NFTs too and help back up all that media. :)
I’m very confused about NFTs. If they are kind of an in-joke (that maybe some influencer types are taking a bit too seriously) why did they get mentioned by zuckerberg in his keynote address for meta? Say what you want about him, but I think he and his team are above falling for crypto jokes making fun of influencers.
183 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 214 ms ] threadOther than the mystery and the joke what's the meaning of a NFT for the URL of a deleted tweet?
Well, I suppose separating speculators from their money is another answer.
I wouldn’t even be mad if you kept the money.
If there wasn't a fun speculative element, then most of the artists would have trouble getting anyone to download their stuff even for free (just like most game devs struggle to get anyone to play their games - even when they're pretty good).
So really, if this art project does succeed it could be an interesting new distribution channel!
Gotta love this logic.So if i don't right-click your precious NFT I don't pirate it, how about if i get it from my browser's image cache?Am i pirating it then or not?(I'm not going into copying and selling, which is more nuanced, but even then one could argue in the same manner).
To me these questions are extremely rhetorical, especially if one believes in the concept of property. If you don't want to freely give people copies of your precious hard work,don't put it on the internet, period, not even under a protected information system. I would further argue on this principle about computer security aswell, but that actually requires understanding how computers work, which the vast majority doesn't know.
By putting your work publicly available you already explicitly give permission on people to copy your bits into their computers(a.k.a viewing).I guess people think machines are like humans and automatically "forget" what they see, thus enforcing the value of copyright.
https://gist.github.com/zhuowei/ebd5601f7dd8e5ee186bf302874e...
https://www.twitter.com/zhuowei/status/1461576936241733638
There was the study yesterday that showed that 70% of crypto trading was wash trading. I.e junk to inflate the appearance of the market. I see this being mostly zeros as effectively the same. It was meant to be found to be junk, to show how stupid it all is.
You don't ask for btc price X on coinbase versus btc price Y on biance? Wouldn't you just care about the price of btc? and if it rises on certain exchanges, then it would arbitrage until it rose on other exchanges as well?
More like the opposite. The fake price rise would be arbitraged away to match the real price.
At some point there has to be a real buyer/seller, otherwise arbitrage doesn't work. And a real buyer/seller is trading at the real price.
Not commenting on the general sentiment.
Specifically, what part of their methodology is not rigorous?
Given that a substantial chunk of the top tier exchanges have been caught and charged with wash trading (Bitmex, Coinbase), I think we already have quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to suggest it is likely an issue.
The former seems pointless, but for the latter, I’m under the assumption that the NFT chain stores the image hashes directly, and those hashes are enforced to be unique — so there should be only one instance of a zero hash? Or I suppose a ton of images with like three bytes set and bunch of nothing for padding
Of course, given enough unreasonably scepticism someone might instead intuit that 18.99 TB of 19TB of data has disappeared.
Video game cosmetics derive their appeal from people using them while they actually play the game, not from showing off the database flag that activates it for the account. With NFTs, the whole game part of the game cosmetics analogy is missing.
While true, the only one deciding whether you are granted the ingame usage is still the developer/publisher, so in that scenario you basically just did exactly the same thing as before: a database lookup to check if a player "owns" a particular item. Only this time with a much slower and more inefficient database. Nothing about it being a NFT grants any advantages in that case, the developer can still take it away, ban your account, remove the item from the game etc. because they are still the ones controlling everything. You just decentralized the database entry.
So then you have to move to a whitelist system where someone centralized (or a DAO) has to manually act as a copyright system, whitelisting hashes, duplicating the work of the existing copyright and legal system.
Who is going to pay a studio to develop the models, artwork and code required to have a ‘NFT skin’ in a game? Money is made by selling a skin multiple times to return effort.
And what if I want that skin in League, rather than GTA? The whole concept is a nonsense.
Influencers + shady finance have collided to *create a climate melting scam.
Edit: spelling and errant word
A physical world example is the combination of social media marketing, fast fashion and product drops. Items are sold for many multiples of their production cost due to a manufactured air of exclusivity and scarcity. As the items are mass produced from exploited labor, a bottleneck from time consuming highly skilled craftwork cannot be the cause of high prices.
There are many examples of conspicuous over consumption and status goods, all of them defying common sense to most. Remember the "I AM RICH" app? The NFT version is the same principle, merely on a different type of datastore.
Particularly relevant to NFTs is the art world of artificially inflated prices, donations to manufacture prestige and where fakes are hard to tell to the untrained eye and wealthy buyers bring lawsuits or otherwise buy the silence of those who can prove forgeries.
The artifact or artwork is not the goal, instead the ability to take something useless or mundane but somehow demonstrable as unique, prove provenance and flaunt wealth to some peer group considered high status is the goal. I suspect NFTs are currently in a gold rush stage and comparatively more open. When the loose flow of money is over, I expect it will decay back to gated elitism typical of the existing art world.
Underlying something like an Ethereum linked IPFS hash artifact are interesting consensus algorithms for persistent data-structures on open distributed networks. That they're being used in this manner is not surprising. It's reflective of humans, not something inherent to the utility of the tech.
>And what if I want that skin in League, rather than GTA?
Too bad. Most games are not going to put in work to support other game's cosmetics.
In what way, specifically?
From your original comment: "imagine something like steam profile avatars/pictures etc. tied to your identity that you can use on any page that implements it."
That sounds 100% like Gravatar. We already have exactly that, without any of the problematic aspects of being tied to NFTs or blockchain.
Digital “jurisdictions” like Twitter are starting to support displaying “verified” NFTs though: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bragging-rights-twitter-previ...
The next step in the chain is OpenSea, which sounds like they will enforce real world copyrights: https://support.opensea.io/hc/en-us/articles/4404423595667-H...
So basically Twitter is outsourcing copyright enforcement via NFTs. Which actually doesn’t sound totally useless, but could also be done without a blockchain.
Now, when many content displayers (websites, games, multiverses, etc) outsource their copyright enforcement to multiple copyright-enforcers maybe using the blockchain starts making more sense.
Blockchain only makes “sense” because it's hype. (And regarding Twitter, it's mostly because @Jack is a total crypto believer).
I think a blockchain can still be useful in federated systems.
How so? As soon as you have to trust someone, you've lost the only benefit of blockchains and using one would only give the terrible performance characteristic of those for no benefit.
Each trusted enforcer having its own database is a way better architecture.
Tying a copyright license (at least non exclusive) to the NFT transfer sounds not that far fetched. It would be a little bit tricky to make that work globally but you could probably do that as well.
The question is would courts accept it as a valid contacts and how to enforce them. How would NFT prevent infringement (aka mme creating the latest bansky NFT)?
It's indeed what some artists and some of the NFT marketplaces do.
All of the things you've mentioned already exist, with a lot less effort. Copyright law is well established on digital goods. Contract/IP law is well established.
If NFTs have utility, beyond greater fool theory, then surely it will exist beyond having to go replicate all of these web2/tradfi/whatever concepts. Otherwise, what's the point?
Although this is totally different, because it’s blockchain.
https://nftmoon.space/en/home/
How anyone thinks all this isn’t a bubble is beyond me…
As an investment asset? Almost certainly. Nobody is going to want your CSGO skins in 20 years time when it doesn't have any players anymore, and we don't often hear about $50k second life purchases anymore when they were a weekly news item in the noughties.
If you buy one because you want to play with it? Fine, that's not a bubble. Enjoy!
If you are just buying one just because you think the value will go up, and the asset doesn't generate any returns other than the price people are willing to pay for it, and other people primarily want it because they think the price is going to go up - you are probably in a bubble.
Except the blockchain only keeps the url, so the “content” doesn’t get any of the properties of the blockchain
That said, tokens that are not pinned to IPFS are fucking worthless, and it's hard to tell whether an NFT is pinned to IPFS unless you're skilled at navigating Ethereum contacts.
Thorstein Veblen already in the late 1800s had pointed out that an object's utility as a status signal increases in tandem with its uselessness. The object must then also be recognized among peers as difficult to obtain. For the moon shares analogy to work, being objectively worthless or grossly overvalued is insufficient, it had to have also been exclusive and coveted among the "high class".
its closer to tulip mania with a 'distributed' MLM pyramid scheme twist.
There is nonetheless a clear mapping to physical art world collections in terms of owning a rare work by a skilled artist and having it connected to some trusted proof representing a unique transaction with that artist.
Status cannot be manufactured, it spurs naturally due to having rare things such as a big mansion, grammys, academy awards, winning the Super Bowl , winning the NBA title, winning the World Series etc.
All those things are both rare and cannot be copied.
NFTs instead are easily copied idividually (right click) or even in bulk as this torrent file proves.
Second life did a much better job at representing status goods in the digital world than NFTs.
And I know people in here don't want to hear it, but given its history and its budget Zuck's Meta will improve upon what Second Life did and knock it out of the park like it did with social networks.
In the art world, wealthy collectors will overbid on works by artists within their collection to hugely inflate their price. There is also a large amount of pressure on appraisers to overvalue work and for Art houses to turn a blind eye to some known forgeries. The wealthy will donate to museums to lend to an air of prestige to their collections (with tax evasion by charity write offs a nice bonus) and, whenever forgeries are found in collections, lawsuits and bribes are used to silence all but those with rare levels of integrity.
A less exclusive but still grossly over priced example is the recent world of fast fashion product drops. There, mass produced, cheaply manufactured, labor exploited goods are sold for many times their production costs by creating an illusion of scarcity and prestige. This is done by manipulative marketing tricks where social media and celebrity worship are key vehicles.
This, sadly, is the nature of humans. NFTs are in the process of attempting to install themselves as status goods. That is the psychology when denouncing "right clickers".
No, you're copying a piece of media that NFT links to. What you're not copying is a verifiable claim of spending unreasonable amount of ETH to have a record in blockchain pointing to that piece of media.
POF? Proof-of-foolishness?
Within the moon share ecosystem, moon shares have the exact same kind of authority.
Value's always worth what someone will pay, sure. But blockchain authority isn't more special than any other database. It has some fancy properties, but they don't affect the authority.
Contrast with a token in your wallet on the blockchain. As long as your private keys are secure, nobody else but you can transfer that token anywhere else. Nobody else can convincingly represent that they are the owner of it. The blockchain proves irrefutably that you own it. The blockchain, as represented by the consensus of thousands of nodes, is the ultimate authority of who owns what on that blockchain.
Neither of those are necessary for the blockchain because nobody can assert ownership of the blockchain tokens without the private keys to your wallet.
Let's say you go to Sotheby's and you buy Van Gogh's Starry Night at auction. Along with the actual painting, you'd get a certificate of authenticity showing the provenance of the work. Basically, a record showing everyone who owned it before you and certifying that this is, in fact, the real Starry Night that Van Gogh painted. The real value of the painting is not in the painting itself, but in that certificate proving that it's the real original. If you tried to sell the painting without it, you wouldn't get many buyers. There's lots of people who could paint an exact replica of Starry Night, but there's still only one real Starry Night. Likewise, anyone can make a copy of a piece of digital art, but there's only one NFT, and if you don't have the NFT in your crypto wallet, you don't actually own it.
So, think of it as a certificate of authenticity for digital artworks, although it can be used to represent ownership of other things as well, if people agreed to it. It can also do neat things like transfer a portion of the sale price back to the original artist every time it's sold, which isn't currently done with regular artworks.
Not true. Banksy sold a painting for $1.4 million and it shredded itself right after the auction ended. Three years later the shredded remains (presumably with the certificate of authenticity) sold for $25.4 million[1]. So, no, the value is not in an intact painting.
Forgers can artificially age paintings. It's amazing the lengths they go to. Maybe something like Starry Night has been analyzed enough that it could be verified, but other works are not. It's not really known how many works of art on the market are forgeries.
> No one would want to buy the certificate from you but let you keep the painting in your vaults
Actually people do this all the time. They pay millions upon millions of dollars for a work of art and it gets loaned to a museum and possibly sent all over the world. They still own it though. There's also freeports[2] around the world with warehouses full of art. You can buy an artwork and it never moves from the warehouse, just the record of who owns it changes.
[1] https://nypost.com/2021/10/14/shredded-banksy-artwork-could-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_economic_zone
The value of art is art. If we disagree then you are admitting that both the art world and crypto are heavily used for money laundering.
In what sense does a Token give you any ownership over any part of the image? If someone does a copy&paste operation and starts selling "your" image on a t-shirt, does your NFT give you any way to stop them?
I can go to the Louvre and take a picture of the Mona Lisa. That doesn't mean I own the Mona Lisa.
Authority within the moon share ecosystem is validated only by the people who own the company.
But the potential authority over the actual moon is the same under both systems.
Right.
And a blockchain only solves a tiny percentage of ownership issues. It solves those issues with powerful mathematical certainty, and if you could live inside a blockchain your problems would be solved*, but don't confuse that sliver with the full set of real-world ownership issues that exist with or without a blockchain being involved.
* if there are no bugs or hacks
But whatever, think whatever you want. Just know that you're the guy in 1995 ranting about how this silly Internet fad is just something nerds waste time with.
In 1995 most of the uses of the internet were stupid. Eventually, they became useful. Hopefully the same happens with crypto
There is more value in being the owner of the thing everyone has, than the thing no one has.
Keep right clicking, we love it.
https://www.e-flux.com/journal/85/156418/my-collectible-ass/
Everybody has a Yankees logo on hat or on a cup or a scarf somewhere.
Small detail is that everybody who does has to pay royalties to the Yankees and as a consequene to Yankees' owners : the Steinbrenner family.
What you claim the NFT crowd is enthusiast about is basically what Gucci, Ray-Ban, LVHM and all the other luxury brands have been fighting for ages now.
Chinese copies not paying any royalties selling on the street for 5$ whereas the original sells for 5000$.
Luxury brands fight it with lawsuits and holograms, whereas the NFT crowd aims to fight it with blockchain.
But images are images and outside the lunatics of the NFT community if I right click a cool piece of art and show it to somebody, they'd reply that it's cool and would not ask for proof of ownership. The thing being on my computer or on my wall is all the proof of ownership they need before complimenting me . Very much like people would compliment my 5$ Ray-Ban shades and my GF 25$ LV handbag and nobody is going to check the hologram on either
Is it recognized by the law? Can people sue those who fail to comply with it?
You can do all the circular reasoning you want but at the end of the day everything is backed by violence and coercitive power.
That's why nations have army/navy , to make other countries know that what they say carries weight because they can back it up with bullets and bombs, not just words.
You can't.
Besides, NFT enthusiasts have the illusion that the graphic art market is big. It's not.
Just think about how many people you know that have a painting in their home. And no, the IKEA type paintings do not count. I mean a genuine painting.
Yep, same as any other licensed thing. Because copyright law is still just copyright law. NFTs don't magically add universal enforcement, and aren't supposed to.
> NFT enthusiasts have the illusion that the graphic art market is big. It's not.
Yes, there is a lot of crazy hype and over-expectations around, and sadly getting most of the attention.
In the US, anyway, doing that would not be a copyright violation.
> At any rate, copyright licenses cannot be enforced with smart contracts
Wasn't claimed either. Why do people keep inventing claims to then criticize them? (I'm not even into NFTs, don't own any and don't plan to, but a lot of the reaction is just bizarre. No, they don't magically enforce copyright. No, they also aren't supposed to.)
A lot of people think that, but I would consider that more of a requirement than the purpose.
The point of NFTs is to allow the original artist to share some of the financial rewards that the art dealers and collectors get each time they resell a piece of artwork in the future. The goal is to help restore some balance and fairness to the financial side of the art trade, particularly for new artists, who often can't earn a living wage on the original sales alone. And of course, being able to verify "ownership" of the "original" work is necessary to get the artist a piece of the pie whenever that NFT is sold.
Yes, you're right about access to the work... as an observer, anyone can enjoy looking at the art just the same as the person who owns the rights to it. Just like any other image on the internet, making a copy of it doesn't give you the rights to that image. So, I don't understand the point of this archive unless it's truly just to archive the data incase the blockchain goes down.
The platform providers would still need to agree that a specific blockchain / NFT is actually the source of truth, and so it's not really trustless. But the internet itself isn't perfectly decentralized either. I could see a future where developers could enable web3 support in their games/apps and allow importing assets, identities etc. between platforms, which would be nice.
Why would an asset designed for one game make sense or look good or feel at home in a completely different one?
Why would companies make one of them and sell it for a million bucks instead of trying to convince more players to buy it in a shop for two bucks?
Is the mechanic of a weapon gonna adjust to the new game when you import it or stay the same? If it stays the same, it's gonna be exploit galore. If it changes, well then, what's the point? Gonna be the same AK-47 as everyone else's, but this tiny sticker on it that nobody's gonna pay attention to is unique!
Even if we pretend this is somehow a promising field, why even use NFTs and make each one a couple of pixels different instead of making a common one, selling it for like $50, buyers get a file in whichever format is agreed upon, and import them in the settings?
Just think about the things you buy online, be it movies, artwork, music, in app upgrades etc. Today we trust each individual app developer to honour the purchase agreement, eg. if the Amazon disappears or changes their license agreement, all your purchases are gone.
Tomorrow we might be able to purchase a license to the asset, registered on a public blockchain, and use that to prove ownership within an application. You could actually own some of things you currently “buy” online.
This is a huge net win for end users.
How? Why does it matter that it's on some blockchain?
We’d need some kind of way to trust a public database among untrusted participants- which is what a blockchain basically does.
Eg if I have a red hat nft you could have that as 2d sprite art or a 3d model or just a buff to some other stat or just ignore it.
Why wouldn’t they sell it for a couple of bucks? It doesn’t have to be expensive because it’s an nft, plenty of them are sold for pennies. erc1155 is designed with lots of varying items being created on the same contract.
Why nfts? Because it’s easy to do today and has been getting more and more popular over the past three years. It seems people like them.
People don’t want to download files and import them into programs. Having one login(wallet) that you connect to anything you want and it takes your data and belongings with you seems pretty neat to me.
NFTs along with all non money crypto feel like a solution in search of a problem. And all of these solutions are things already possible and easier without crypto.
One day, it might not be a normal business practice.
Are NFTs likely to do that? No. Why would game/platform creators do a ton of work so they could make less money? And even if they wanted to, which they won't, why would they bless some specific blockchain with that power? If that is at all viable, somebody like Steam or Amazon will want it to be their own digital assets registry that wins. For that, they don't need a blockchain, just a database.
I know, right? Or to look at another similar situation: why would Verizon, China Mobile, T-Mobile, and AT&T all make their voice/data networks interoperable?
Obviously, they wouldn't chose to do that.
And the analogy is terrible because the whole purpose of telephones is interconnection; the value is in the size of the network. But from the consumer perspective, portability for music purchases or game assets is at best a secondary concern.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/15/22728425/valve-steam-blo...
Is this something that players desire to do?
But it's a very meta "art" piece as described by the article, especially if it also serves as an NFT asset itself. Will be interesting to see how how far this layer cake will go.
It's like DocuSign + APIs + banking + decentralized security and governance all rolled into one, and I think societal and economic changes will catch up to make this new system of transactions much more valuable.
What makes you think that? When I see that the people that are the most invested aren't bothering to tie any real rights to the NFTs, that's a really bad sign.
Blockchains are also pretty bad at banking in general.
Which is what makes art NFTs particularly mockworthy.
[1] - https://mattdesl.substack.com/p/hicetnunc-and-the-merits-of-...
Thanks for backing up all the art dude. Much appreciated.