Washed Up
infrequently.org
infrequently.org
Ever since I've been flooded with NFT advertisements on Facebook. None of these images are any good, which I can tell because I have no interest in saving them like I do with great art and photographs. They want me to pay $300 for a link to an ugly image that I don't even want to save to my hard drive, much less own a link to it on some random blockchain.
I've seen some weird human behavior in my 27 years on the internet, but this makes me worry about the future of the human race.
Somehow the author never mentions that, once Makersplace is gone, that image will stay up until IPFS goes away. Makersplace seems to be hosting a cached version of the image, but if you open up Brave Browser and go to ipfs://bafybeie6nurk3frh4dpxeocg3rlucqj75c22wqcxrd6feesyk4nyhlc4wa/ you'll see the preview image.
I'm not a web3/crypto maximalist by any means, but we can't have valid arguments if we don't even understand the ideas that underpin what we're criticizing.
First, that if you really care about what you're buying, you'll make sure what it references points to a content hash and not a URL, and you'll pin it yourself.
And second, that if you have to store the image yourself that you paid for a pointer to, you've wasted your money.
I'm a fan of cryptocurrency, cryptography underlying the internet, even the concept of a one of a kind, non fungible token is interesting and I see how it could be useful. But all this web3 stuff and in particular the hype with which the NFT concept is being marketed to sell useless shit are things I'm not a fan of.
With so many nefarious actors in the crypto space it's very hard to argue against that level of "trust in large numbers". It definitely feels like an uphill battle when explaining to non tech friends about the implications of the system they are buying into. Moreso when brands they usually trust are also trying to peddle it.
IMHO, regarding your point on ownership, is what kind of ownership do people want or expect with NFTs.
When I buy a book, a CD, a game or an Amazon movie, I buy it with the expectation to enjoy it for a period of time, I'm not really concerned[0] about lifetime permanence.
If I buy a work of art for millions, I'm probably more worried about permanence, maintenance, security and beign able to pass it down to someone.
NFTs seem to neither here or there in this subject.
[0] What I mean is, I _hope_ the Amazon movie will be available for many years, but I accept the potential loss as not really terrible.
I buy the objects but I'm not putting sheets between the pages or building UV-blocking furniture to prevent paper yellowing. I might even give half of them to charity after a few years.
My point is that although I consider them "mine" I'm not too bothered because the investment is usually not that big. Otherwise I would be worried if they suddenly vanished into thin air like an NFT.
I'd never thought about that! With the exception of physical books, places like Amazon can just yank whatever content from under you (web3 calls it a "rug pull"). Like the time they removed 1984: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18am...
I think we're only ok with "buying" jpgs because we're at the point of absurdity that almost anything we buy is actually rented today. So, thanks to SaaS businesses pushing this model, "buying" digital goods does seem like a natural progression.
I think people understand that, and consequently they're reluctant to buy from new players in the market. Launching an app store or a digital content store is hard. People will only be customers when they believe there's a strong chance the store will survive for a long time. That's why there aren't many stores, and the ones that exist are generally from pretty massive corporations that have deep pockets.
NFTs try to be the same, with less chance of survival, but crucially they also claim that the decentralized nature of what they sell means tokens will last even if the seller goes bust. That's not a lie; the token will survive. What the token points to won't though. You may understand that and be happy with it, but if you're selling NFTs to people without explaining exactly what it is you're essentially running a scam by preying on people's ignorance of tech.
You can consume NFT content whether you buy it or not. You just get to brag that you're the original owner while everyone else is just a "filthy right-clicker".
It sounds ridiculous to me, sorry.
There's a premium placed on first-edition hardcover books. The contents are identical to the trade paperback or the EPUB.
There's value attached to the original limited pressing of a vinyl record which has since been repressed, reissued on CD, and is now available for download (legally or otherwise) in digital form.
Consuming the media, in either example, is available to all. Possessing some marker of specialness is coveted. People are complicated.
NFTs are silly, but collectors are inherently silly if you choose to look at it that way.
You consume the more convenient/less valuable copies. The usage is commoditized, but the possession is exclusive.
As a prolific watcher of the show Pawn Stars, I can tell you exactly why this is. Imagine the first edition of Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone. JK Rowling is an unknown author, the original run is comparatively very small and there's nothing special about the book so people read them which adds wear and tear and worse they sometimes throw them away! So you're left with very few pristine copies of that first edition. It's rare as hell and there's nothing you can do to make more of them.
Subsequent editions sell about 107 million copies. There are tens of millions of later editions in pristine copy. People bought them explicitly to collect them and put them in plastic containers. There are tons of them!
So that first edition has real scarcity. You can never make more. Can't say that about NFTs.
NFTs are silly, but collectors are inherently silly
I don't think this is what is happening at all. I think NFTs are a tax scam that cause them to sell for ridiculous $100,000+ prices and then regular people see that and think they can get rich by getting into NFTs. All the while not realizing the real deal is to dodge taxes and this NFT collector stuff is nonsense.
Lots of things are scarce, but have no value. The value is in possessing a scarce and "authorized" representation of a popular thing.
> You can never make more. Can't say that about NFTs
Like any limited-edition thing, the promise is that there won't be more. You could absolutely forge a first-edition Harry Potter book. Someone probably has. And it would probably be more convincing than a "forged"/regenerated NFT. There has to be some trust in the official producer, and yes that's hard to come by in this space!
> I think NFTs are a tax scam
Well sure, like art or wine. But not all art or wine.
The use of the word "authorized" seems artificial in this context. I agree with you on scarcity and popularity being a requirement. But authorized seems off. A first edition Harry Potter book isn't authorized, it's just real. Forgeries are just fake, they aren't "unauthorized".
Another thing I learned from Pawn Stars are that things that were manufactured for collecting often are valueless. Harry Potter was written for the purposes of telling a story. It became popular because many people enjoyed it. First editions of the book had a natural progression to scarcity and popularity. On the flip side, Disney manufacturers "collectibles" all the time but they often are worthless. NFTs seem to be manufactured for collecting. Will they be more popular than Beanie Babies ended up being?
Well sure, like art or wine. But not all art or wine.
I think all NFTs selling for large dollar amounts are for tax dodging.
For a tulip or beanie baby, you have a thing worth little. For an NFT, you have an entry in a ledger that no one pays attention to outside the context of the speculative market that's disappeared.
I've had success reminding older people of a company in the U.S. that was selling stars in the 1980s. You gave them cash, they gave you a certificate with unique stellar co-ordinates and a claim that you owned the star there. At the end of the day, you had a certificate, not a star, and no one would ever see the certificate as anything but a novelty, even if there was a brief moment when they were trading for stupid amounts.
To people that believe in it, blockchain and cryptocurrency enables this. They claim that existing payment providers cannot handle large numbers of payments of $0.002. They further claim that this will take over everything, not just the web and that even cloud providers will go out of business as people make micropayments to others to store files and the like.
I think it's all ridiculous but after a lot of researching this is my current understanding. Appreciate any corrections.
The big selling points are censorship resistance, distributed access, direct middleman free payment for services all sound great. Unfortunately most of what we are getting right now doesn't solve any of these problems and is rent seeking garbage.
Well, yes? ENS is a GoDaddy-like domain provider on blockchain with all the root keys to themselves. At least that has a use-case unlike the NFT JPEGs.
You can explain it right in front of their face and they will not listen since they are driven by the price of a cryptocurrency. So the time that they only listen is when it is too late and they whole market collapses.
But here we are once again, unable to stop it or ban it since everyone still 'loves' talking about blockchain, web3, cryptocurrencies again and again on HN even after it collapses. [0] If you think web3 is useless, maybe you should ignore the hype and watch it crash instead?
Those 'useless things' have me money as I already sold some at more than $60k months ago and now I watch everyone hodling at $68k whilst shorting it from $59k.
So, yes I am happily watching more money come in as it drops lower.
but your main point stands, the paper money depended on the power of the state.
Graeber's book Debt the first 5000 years might be a good starting point.
A lot of people still haven't fully internalized what it means for cash not to be tied to any particularly tangible item in terms of value.