I do not understand why digital proof of ownership of a jpeg of a procedurally generated cartoon ape is worth anything at all, never mind hundreds of thousands of dollars. Suspect most of the people buying them don’t understand it either. Greater fool.
The people buying them and selling them are often related parties generating a fake "market price" who wait for some idiot to turn up at which point they cash out.
I think this stuff is classic top of the market behaviour, in a couple of years we’ll be saying “can you believe that in 2021 NFTs were changing hands for more than a house?”
I think the general idea of digital identity and online registries of ownership of digital artefacts is interesting
agree though that none of the current use cases really demonstrate the utility of the tech
the majority of the market today is a pump and dump scam, as others have said. They are legally worthless too. The registry of “ownership” is maintained by a private organisation with very little controls or regulation. The “asset” registered there is generally a link to the asset rather than the asset itself. If the link changes, there is no provable record of ownership.
Summary: tech interesting, current applications are total nonsense
Another red flag is i have yet to hear any of the advocates for this tech clearly explain the utility without resorting to buzzwords and gibberish.
Absolutely, and generally falling back on the notion that others just need to do more research. If I as a person of normal intelligence can’t understand the value with a few minutes of explanation, I’m pretty sceptical that there is genuine value there.
They normally direct you to a YouTube channel for an explanation. I've noticed it particularly in the last year or so, not just with NFTs but with crypto generally.
This then acts as proof that i own this post. I can sell if to you and you then have irrefutable proof that you own it on the spreadsheet because we all agree among ourselves that this is the case.
Dont forget to like and subscribe to my YouPube channel!
I "minted" an NFT on opensea as a jokey part of a colleague's leaving present. I thought I could just transfer it to him and then we could all have a laugh to see how much it would sell for.
Turns out just to transfer it to him and/or sell it I had to pay about £90 gas fees! Needless to say I wasn't willing to piss that sort of money away so it's just sitting there...
Two sides to this, one has a reasonable use case and one is a scam. Everybody talks about the latter.
Creating a token for a virtual item and selling it can make sense (think selling a pair of sneakers and adding a token for the virtual version an avatar can wear in Fortnite or Roblox or whatever kids play these days). Creating useless little images and selling tokens as "ownership" is simply selling a box of nothing to people who know they can sell to ever greater fools.
Also, a bar of gold obviously has more utility. You can melt it down and make pretty things or use it within industrial processes/products. Of course, you could argue that none of these things are intrinsically useful, which is a slightly more existential question.
Certainly more useful than a few million pixels on a screen (which anyone can right click and save or copy should they wish)
Melting gold to make pretty things doesn’t add utility. It takes one useless lump and reshapes it into another useless lump. Some people find NTFs pretty.
Amd the gold price has zero to do with industrial application.
Creating a token for a virtual item and selling it can make sense (think selling a pair of sneakers and adding a token for the virtual version an avatar can wear in Fortnite or Roblox or whatever kids play these days)
Sure but you don’t actually need any of the NFT stuff to do this. You can do it now with existing technology already in widespread use. People have been buying and selling virtual items for their characters in games like World of Warcraft for donkey’s.
Perhaps not, but it provides some kind of residual value or floor. If people decided tomorrow that gold was super ugly and ill suited to bling, it would still be worth something
A sting of characters pointing at a web address that hosts a few million pixels has no residual value. In fact, it is a liability given the expense of maintaining the blockchain that it is stored on (appreciate that gold also has storage costs)
Sure but you don’t actually need any of the NFT stuff to do this. You can do it now with existing technology already in widespread use. People have been buying and selling virtual items for their characters in games like World of Warcraft for donkey’s.
Indeed. There were people whose full-time jobs were making things in Second Life and selling them in a virtual shop there. Items could go for thousands of dollars.
Problem was a lot of people figured out how to simply clone these items.
Weirdly, in the recent sell offs the NFTs haven’t really been sold. People seem to be holding onto the NFTs because once sold they cannot get them back, but an ETH is an ETH, bought now or in the future. I guess that’s their value demonstrated.
FAOD I would never invest in one of these as it's like buying the emperor's new clothes. I mean WTF is the actual point of owning the first ever tweet, which sold recently I think for a ridiculous sum. What does that even mean to "own" it? It's still there, on the web, and I can get it on my computer any time I like for nothing.
However, if there is a market for something, however dumb that may seem, and demand is growing, then I can see a certain logic in investing for the very short term but I wouldn't want to still hold one in five years' time.
0
0
No.
0
0
I do not understand why digital proof of ownership of a jpeg of a procedurally generated cartoon ape is worth anything at all, never mind hundreds of thousands of dollars. Suspect most of the people buying them don’t understand it either. Greater fool.
0
0
The people buying them and selling them are often related parties generating a fake "market price" who wait for some idiot to turn up at which point they cash out.
0
0
someone launched NFT hamsters here because hamster cull etc
0
0
Yeah I was just reading this recently actually. I never thought of it before but it makes perfect sense.
0
0
I think this stuff is classic top of the market behaviour, in a couple of years we’ll be saying “can you believe that in 2021 NFTs were changing hands for more than a house?”
0
0
I think the general idea of digital identity and online registries of ownership of digital artefacts is interesting
agree though that none of the current use cases really demonstrate the utility of the tech
the majority of the market today is a pump and dump scam, as others have said. They are legally worthless too. The registry of “ownership” is maintained by a private organisation with very little controls or regulation. The “asset” registered there is generally a link to the asset rather than the asset itself. If the link changes, there is no provable record of ownership.
Summary: tech interesting, current applications are total nonsense
0
0
Another red flag is i have yet to hear any of the advocates for this tech clearly explain the utility without resorting to buzzwords and gibberish.
0
0
Absolutely, and generally falling back on the notion that others just need to do more research. If I as a person of normal intelligence can’t understand the value with a few minutes of explanation, I’m pretty sceptical that there is genuine value there.
0
0
Just like Oracle - ‘do your own research’
0
0
They normally direct you to a YouTube channel for an explanation. I've noticed it particularly in the last year or so, not just with NFTs but with crypto generally.
0
0
This is the deal
Say I wanted to sell my rights to this post. We could all collectively create a spreadsheet on google docs and create the following entry:
This then acts as proof that i own this post. I can sell if to you and you then have irrefutable proof that you own it on the spreadsheet because we all agree among ourselves that this is the case.
Dont forget to like and subscribe to my YouPube channel!
0
0
I’ll give you £8,000.
0
0
It's bollocks... ...but that isn't going to stop a market forming, especially when institutions like the British Museum have jumped onboard.
0
0
https://m.imgur.com/NJirDQp
0
0
You’ve got to be seriously thick to think this is anything other than a bubble. And a bad scam.
0
0
I "minted" an NFT on opensea as a jokey part of a colleague's leaving present. I thought I could just transfer it to him and then we could all have a laugh to see how much it would sell for.
Turns out just to transfer it to him and/or sell it I had to pay about £90 gas fees! Needless to say I wasn't willing to piss that sort of money away so it's just sitting there...
0
0
0
0
They may lack utility but what utility does a bar of gold have?
0
0
0
0
I am.
0
0
You could say the same about anything that’s intrinsically worthless for which people are for some reason paying lots of money.
0
0
I'd like to own the NFT of dux 'free once you've paid for it' post. Worth a mint.
0
0
Two sides to this, one has a reasonable use case and one is a scam. Everybody talks about the latter.
Creating a token for a virtual item and selling it can make sense (think selling a pair of sneakers and adding a token for the virtual version an avatar can wear in Fortnite or Roblox or whatever kids play these days). Creating useless little images and selling tokens as "ownership" is simply selling a box of nothing to people who know they can sell to ever greater fools.
0
0
That is exactly the point I made tbh
Also, a bar of gold obviously has more utility. You can melt it down and make pretty things or use it within industrial processes/products. Of course, you could argue that none of these things are intrinsically useful, which is a slightly more existential question.
Certainly more useful than a few million pixels on a screen (which anyone can right click and save or copy should they wish)
0
0
Melting gold to make pretty things doesn’t add utility. It takes one useless lump and reshapes it into another useless lump. Some people find NTFs pretty.
Amd the gold price has zero to do with industrial application.
0
0
Sure but you don’t actually need any of the NFT stuff to do this. You can do it now with existing technology already in widespread use. People have been buying and selling virtual items for their characters in games like World of Warcraft for donkey’s.
0
0
Perhaps not, but it provides some kind of residual value or floor. If people decided tomorrow that gold was super ugly and ill suited to bling, it would still be worth something
A sting of characters pointing at a web address that hosts a few million pixels has no residual value. In fact, it is a liability given the expense of maintaining the blockchain that it is stored on (appreciate that gold also has storage costs)
0
0
Indeed. There were people whose full-time jobs were making things in Second Life and selling them in a virtual shop there. Items could go for thousands of dollars.
Problem was a lot of people figured out how to simply clone these items.
0
0
I've figured out how to clone the Bored Ape NFTs. Right click -> Save as. "Oh but you don't have the digital proof of ownership!" Er, give one.
0
0
Weirdly, in the recent sell offs the NFTs haven’t really been sold. People seem to be holding onto the NFTs because once sold they cannot get them back, but an ETH is an ETH, bought now or in the future. I guess that’s their value demonstrated.
0
0
In fairness one could say the same about most fine art.
If you are not one of the handful of people who can distinguish say an original Warhol print from a copy, what value does an original have for you?
Though having said that I do vividly remember the client who had a Monet on the wall of his office
0
0
Yeah, well… but… erm… DECENTRALISED.
0
0
Seem to recall the same discussion about cryptocurrencies.
Trillions of dollars later...
0
0
... it is still unclear if they are tulips or virtual precious metal.
0
0
For the first and possibly last time ever, what Unwalt said.
0
0
FAOD I would never invest in one of these as it's like buying the emperor's new clothes. I mean WTF is the actual point of owning the first ever tweet, which sold recently I think for a ridiculous sum. What does that even mean to "own" it? It's still there, on the web, and I can get it on my computer any time I like for nothing.
However, if there is a market for something, however dumb that may seem, and demand is growing, then I can see a certain logic in investing for the very short term but I wouldn't want to still hold one in five years' time.
Join the discussion