Why NFT Collectibles Are Overhyped | Hacker News Reader

Why NFT Collectibles Are Overhyped

twocents.lifehacker.com

11 pointshacksilver13 comments

I find it interesting how much “concern” there is in the media about how people are spending or investing their own money. The markets will work all this stuff out. There will be winners and losers.

Isn't talking about how good or bad NFTs are in the media a big part of how the market works this stuff out?

Like, some people will go buy an NFT because they read an article saying how they're awesome and the future of artwork or something. Other people won't because they read an article similar to this one, or maybe this tweet thread:

https://twitter.com/joshmillard/status/1370088760663179266

Theres a store on my cities “high street” that sells high end furniture. Among these items are louis vuitton branded tiles which are exactly what they sound like. Its a ceramic tile with the LV logomark embdedded in gold leaf. Each of these tiles costs $10,000 dollars. Obviously this is abusurd, but when the house prices are 5-6M the tile adds an extra social signal to others about your wealth. I suppose NFT items are the same. Theyre not for the buyer. Theyre for the people the buyers know.

If someone sells an nft claiming ownership of someone else's intellectual property, damages can certainly be collected through the courts.

The biggest issue I see is that many wallets don't allow users to sign messages, which is required to prove ownership of an nft.

Any eth*/web3 wallet that supports NFT's (and thus supports arbitrary 'web sourced' transactions, such as the approve() message and the transfer() methods) supports signing messages. eg: metamask. This is a non issue for the NFT holders. The https://github.com/walletlink/walletlink standard appears to be what a lot of 'stand alone' type wallets are using for this compatibility.

If the client doesn't support arbitrary transactions (eg: it is a 'receive and spend ether' only type wallet), its probably not interacting with NFT contracts in the first place.

I still don't understand. My coinbase wallet has collectables, but no way to prove ownership of the collectable. If I can't take a challenge from anyone a spit out a signed response without downloading/installing additional software it kinda defeats the whole purpose no?

What NFT claims is kind of blurred. Ianal, but it will take a real.life test to confirm 'stealing' of anything in counterfeit NFTs case in court.

> If someone sells an nft claiming ownership of someone else's intellectual property

NFTs don't transfer ownership though. This isn't like theft. You're basically making a certificate of authenticity and selling just the certificate. I don't have any idea how courts would interpret that.

So I tried to put content on rarible. It was $900+ to create a ERC 721 token, $13 to create a rarible token. Will be looking into other options.

Then you have to look into tezos. There are some marketplaces for NFTs one is https://www.hicetnunc.xyz/

Transactions on tezos are currently 9000x cheaper than ethereum.

https://twitter.com/ignoranceit/status/1370316451920379905?s...

does tezos have some sort of mechanism that makes it scale better than ethereum, or is it only cheap because transaction volume is lower? If it gets popular, would transaction fees skyrocket?

No worries about the fees. It has the ability to evolve. Every 3-4 months a proposal with upgrades will undergo a voting phase. All bakers (PoS participants) are able to vote on this to accept or reject the proposal. The source code is written in a purely functional language on which formal verification is applied. Recently the 5 upgrade was adopted, featuring sappling, privacy for smart contracts and more. Adjustements targeting gas costs have already been made in september. So it steadily evolves and takes the tech of other chains if needed.

Eventually people will realize that NFT collectibles are actually fungible unless tied to a non-fungible real world rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com