Hacker News Reader

Comment by worik | Hacker News Reader

> all the idiots who participated losing their shirts would really be a wonderfully great outcome.

Very harsh.

I can see no ethical way that they can keep their shirts (unethical is sell to greater fool). I do not think this is a "...great outcome". Wonderful or otrherwise

It is yet another repeat of the age old lesson: There is no magic.

View on HN

I'm convinced that's what NFTs were partially invented and pushed to do. Hot new shiny thing to bring new money in to let the original crypto group cash out.

NFTs are a concept no different than Rai stones used by Micronesians for centuries, or any other property deeds style exchange. Hating on them is absurd - it's just another concept/financial construct.

As a concept, they are more like me selling a photograph of the deed to my house.

Thinking that they solved a problem that anyone has ever had is what's absurd.

Except that you basically have a photograph to the deed of your house. The deed to your house is not normally considered a bearer certificate, so if you lose it, the property tax office can issue you another one.

In fact, your possession of the deed doesn't really entitle you to anything. While you assume that law enforcement would accept it as proof, they do not have to, and ultimately judges and the county registration system decides who owns what. And it's not even all that straightforward in some cases.

So sure, your deed to your house. Okay.

NFTs typically don't even entitle you to copy the content you "own" - DEFINITELY not to re-license it, for any popular crypto market. If you are not the original buyer (i.e. if you bought your monkey NFT from someone else, not from the original issuer), they may well not entitle you to anything at all, since you do not have any kind of contract with the original issuer.

They were probably made with good intentions, but it's hard to conceive of a more powerful device for laundering money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com