Hacker News Reader

Comment by Flockster | Hacker News Reader

> "Initially, de Vries explained, the car will be sold in a limited run of 88 – referencing the speed needed to time-travel in the 1985 sci-fi film Back To The Future, in which the DMC famously starred.

Each will serve as an avatar for an associated NFT, meaning they won’t be road-registered and suitable only for track use."

Why?!

View on HN

NFT shouldn’t have anything to do with roadworthiness, it’s just an early production run for collectors that doesn’t go through the various hoops to get rated for public roads and perhaps breaks some rules in order to be more fun on tracks. NFT is just a gimmick on top of a limited edition they can charge extra for and use to test things for the real run.

> suitable only for track use

Ah, so NFT means Not For Transportation here, then.

What purpose does the NFT serve when there is a physical object to back it?

NFT to represent ownership or something like that, since they aren't road legal they probably won't have titles. As for actual purpose, it is of course marketing.

Side note: it looks like they tried to sell a DeLorean DMC-12 via NFT last year, but didn't actually sell it.

This is a brand licensing company, not a car production company, thus the vagueness of what the vehicles actually are.

https://brandsuntapped.com/licensing-haus-maria-alcaide-on-c...

Well, you see, the physical object can be funged, while the NFT cannot!

So after it disappears into the 1950s in two streaks of flames you can claim you still own it of course..

The ability for the manufacturer to get a cut from resales.

And whatever they bundle to force the above.

I could sell the car without ever caring about the "associated NFT".

What if the NFT gave you access to buy the next car, or some other perk with real value?

To get attention and maybe they can actually get enough investment based on attention to actually go into production.

It gets dumb people with lots of expendable money excited

€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€

Yes, but then they follow up with:

> "The rest of the production run, while still low-volume, will be built and marketed more conventionally and so will go through the necessary homologation processes for legal use on the road."

Why can't the fancy, expensive, showoff NFT cars go through the same process?

Seems like a lot of early builds go through recalls (e.g. Lucid’s new Airs have been recalled a couple of times already). If collectors are willing to spend big bucks and buy cars that don’t come with road-worthiness and legal compliance, why not take their money?

This comment is the only time I have EVER said, "yeah, I guess an NFT makes sense"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com