Bill Gates says NFTs are ‘100 percent based on greater fool theory’ | Hacker News Reader

Bill Gates says NFTs are ‘100 percent based on greater fool theory’

theverge.com

12 pointszathan12 comments

He's right. This was obvious to anyone who wasn't instantly blinded by the promises of getting rich quick or the FOMO around it.

Steve Mould (sp?) brought up one of the only reputable use case I can think of, and that is an NFT can function like a ticket does.

I agree with Gates.

Achually methinks Steve Mould mostly said, this is a handy way to support your favourite artist. The ticket and art you get maybe of value later, but megarich sponsors seldom see art as particular investment.

I do not take NFTs seriously myself. They have zero investment value as far as I am concerned.

The tech used to produce tickets electronically has merit. I do not endorse doing that. Just am saying that someone could do that.

Like existing tickets, they have no intrinsic value beyond entitlement to attend an event, or whatever is ticketed. Maybe proof of attendance, like people keep old tickets for now, has some minor value.

Otherwise?

I pretty much do not care about NFTs and see the deals done as a fad, or experiment at best.

In the sense Steve talked about, perhaps one could present an NFT to gain entry to an special event, or see products in a store that others cannot, or some other ticket type task.

Sure. Maybe. If that all worked in a lean way, where the artist sees the lions share, it could be good and making that possible is a good living for someone maybe.

I would not use such a system, unless it were truly small and lean. If it is somehow about making someone else a ton of money, count me out. I can donate to an artist and know they get the money and also know it costs me the least possible to do that.

But we already have this technology in a far more efficient form. It's called a ticket.

Yes we do. I am not encouraging the NFT as our next big thing in tickets.

Just saying the things could be used for ticketing.

He's right, for a change.

At a minimum, NFT's have facilitated the digitization of the art market. The digitization of film, books, music, games etc, has already happened. The art market was the last domino to fall, and it happened because of NFTs.

But PFPs of animals are going to zero.

Okay, but the Bill Gates Pregnant Man NFTs have value beyond their monetary worth.

Let us not fall into the same trap of spewing absolutist statements, and guarantees to feed the outrage machine to bring out more outrage. Like I said before there is a problem with that 100% certainty figure and blanket generalising on all NFTs that Mr Gates is saying.

Not all NFTs are useless and ridiculous JPEGs. ENS domains are NFTs and have a use case in many applications, more than JPEG NFTs do. So, I'm afraid that the 100% figure really is a trap. Did all dotcom startups get destroyed by the dotcom crash? No. The remaining 10% of them survived and exist today whilst the 90% of useless ones disappeared.

Really, the only absolute is: There are no absolutes. Rather I would say 90% of them are going to get wiped out, with the remaining 10% like ENS still surviving and having a valid use case.

I was going to say that, as usual, Sturgeon's Law[0] applies.

However, based on the single example you provided, assuming it's the only one you've got, I'm not so sure about that

>Really, the only absolute is: There are no absolutes.

That is true.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_Law

Tickets!

Add up all the similar scenarios and that's the success space!

Maybe licenses, medallions and the like could be done.

Or... not! I am totally OK with not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com