Hacker News Reader

Comment by agravier | Hacker News Reader

Same with paintings, etc. So yeah it's a wonky argument because it ignores subjective judgement

Yes and No.

Most paintings don't have (much) value. Behold my latest work, the brown ring of quality... do I hear... 5 cents?

A few paintings have value, primarily due to the fame of the artist or the history of the piece (It hung <place>). Supply is frequently capped by the fact the artist is dead...

Yes, the historical and social context, etc, which are subjectively valued. I expect that those who purchase NTF with the hope that they appreciate also count on the value of the token being part of a "limited collection", or being one of the first (an NFT from 2021 becoming a "historically significant" thing due to being one of the first ever produced), or such speculative considerations.

You can hang a painting on your wall and flaunt it. Nobody looks at the bits on your hard disk.

Many NFTs either come with or are designed for a physical representation. 100s or 1000s are already installed and viewable IRL. Being an NFT does not preclude the art from being traditionally enjoyed.

Being an NFT does not preclude anyone else from hanging the exact same physical representation on their wall. Exclusivity matters if you want to impress your rich friends.

That is a circular argument. That is the same argument as print vs original -- NFT owners are paying for the original to support the art regardless of how accurate a print may be.

It's much more impressive to those people to have paid to support the original rather than having a knockoff... This has been true as long as goods have been produced.

> NFT owners are paying for the original to support the art

This is a funny way of saying "to enter a speculative market with foolish money."

The physical representation of the "print" and "original" can be identical and indistinguishable in the case of an NFT

Reply on news.ycombinator.com