Then I read the following in the FAQ:
> The price for a replica starts at 0.001 ETH. Each time a particular NFT piece is replicated, its next replication cost will double. So be sure to replicate popular pieces early!
> Why can't I replicate a replica?
> Do you want black holes? Because that's how you get black holes.
Pretty sure the pricing is part of the whole joke[0]. It sounds an awful lot like the fictional cryptocurrency I came up with: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26120703
[0] God I do hope it is a joke
The quicker can we play through this entire thing, the sooner it will be over.
In practicality, with the abundance of popular NFTs out there and the starting price of just 0.001 ETH (which is around 4 bucks), I'm not exactly expecting to make much from this. Hell, it cost me over $400 in gas fees just to deploy the contract, I'd be counting my lucky stars if I even recoup that!
And to be clear, the price doubling is not global, but applied to each specific source NFT.
Scarcity on it's own does not equal value. The value comes either from social consensus or direct utility.
Real numbers are scarce. There's only one of each.
This gives me ideas! Who wants to join me in this new fad?
This is an important point that a lot of the crypto bros don't seem to grasp.
Antiques and thrift stores are crammed with millions of things that are scarce. One-of-a-kind, even. But still nobody wants them. Eventually the cost of storing them becomes more than they're worth, and they go into the trash.
I first noticed this incongruence with time tested business models when all Bitcoin related business plans/pitch decks, they'd never even list price comparisons as a competitive factor - arguably the #1 most important metric to address when wanting to disrupt an industry or model.
Blockchain has almost no practical uses right now but it does provide a way to make something digitally unique, even if it's just a JSON with an ID and an URL. Not saying the data is unique but the ledger entry is. Only one wallet can own it at a time and it's easily proven. Maybe it will never have any practical applications but I don't see how that could be done without a blockchain.
Is it inherently valuable? No, but it's scarce. There's only one such entry on the blockchain and it can only be owned by one wallet at a time.
It's all a social construct.
I guess one important thing to understand in these discussions is who exactly are you worried about?
-The original creator?
-The initial purchaser/minter from the original creator's collection?
-The person that currently owns the item in that collection?
-The replicator?
-The replicator that tries to sell a replicant?
-A future buyer that is trying to figure out which one to buy?
These are all distinct people with distinct realities. But people arbitrarily talk about a random one of these market participants as an indictment of the entire NFT concept, when each one is experiencing something unique that is either the same as the existing art world or better. Out of all 6 market participants, none of them encounter something worse than the non-NFT art world. Out of all 6, some of them encounter something better.
Except that unlike the original object, or even a replica, "an entry on the blockchain" has -- no intrinsic value whatsoever. It's basically like you're buying the rights to a "Like" on that painting, or trading card, or whatever. Nothing more.
My hunch though is that 90 percent of the people buying these things are utterly oblivious to this distinction. And that, plus "it's new" and "it's value is just going to keep skyrocketing" is essentially what is driving the NFT "market" as such.
I also don't disagree with your second paragraph.
Gosh, I don't know -- a loaf of bread? A shiny new car?
Do you understand the meaning of the word, actually?
But it's still scarce.
So what?
Anyway, my point with that parentheses was that there are a lot of things that has no intrinsic value but still has value on the market.
I didn't mean to come across with attitude.
Only that your question about intrinsic value seemed rather .. weird.
My point with that parentheses was that there are a lot of things that has no intrinsic value but still has value on the market.
Can you provide some examples, please?
I can think of plenty of market assets which have what we might say is slightly abstract kind of value -- "brands", naming rights to stadiums, etc -- but still, it's pretty straightforward to see the intrinsic utility they provide, and that this easily translates to dollars.
With NFTs though -- there just isn't it any. Other than to sell to the next sucker in line.
EDIT: Wait, I can think of one asset class that compares to NFTs: signed sports memorabilia. Which of course have crap resale value (except for items signed by ancient players like Joe Dimaggio). But the modern versions team franchises regularly crank out -- not so much.
NFTs are mostly just that. An ID minted by Wallet X which itself is unique and the social contract gives it a value. That's it.