The NFT market hasn’t crashed – it was never not crashed | Hacker News Reader

The NFT market hasn’t crashed – it was never not crashed

amycastor.com

45 pointslegrande27 comments

It's hard to imagine a topic less interesting than NFT. Anytime I read anything about this topic my primary reaction is astonishment that anyone cares.

That's cruel and true and that's why it's funny. Woody Allen's Harry applauds too

It is interesting to me because it has exposed people that were once respected and now look like grifters.

People like Tom Brady.

I'm reminded of a previous article and discussion from January: "Shock Stat: More People Own Items in Second Life Than Own NFTs" [1][2]

[1] https://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2022/01/second-life-nft-ownership-...

[2] HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29789584

Not shocking aItemst all. in second life actually mean something (in-game), and cost far far less than most NFTs.

> Second Life hasn’t been “hot” in the tech world since 2008

This would be a bit more damning if the claim was "More People Bought Items in Second Life _in 2022_ Than Own NFTs".

I'd expect _anything_ that started in 2008 and hasn't formally died to be more successful than something that's barely had over a year in the market.

This article is 5 months old, and talks more about NFT trade volumes than NFT prices. Having volumes decline from peak speculation is more a sign of market maturity than a market crash.

NFTs were always a scam.

Lebron James rookie cards were always a scam.

Less of a scam than NFTs though

Yea, you actually get the card. Not a pointer to it

So you pay money for cardboard with ink on it, and it’s worth thousands? Sounds sus

No, but I'd be more amenable to the price for the verifiable cardboard than infinitely numbered unauthoritative pointers

You realize it’s not the pointer to a jpg that makes an NFT valuable, it’s the provability of the artist that published it?

I recognize the distinction, but I don't believe it makes it particularly valuable.

The concepts are so abstract I have a hard time even discussing it. I'm not a collector or market person at all.

I'd be hard to convince buying anything of this sort of novelty. No judgement against those who do, I just grew up poor and protect my disposable income like a dragon.

The 'pointer' tells me the thing I reportedly own exists as a part of the chain, it doesn't certify any particular uniqueness or rarity, for example.

As long as it's affordable to mint, could I not could lob a personal attack and 'devalue' an NFT by cloning it? I suspect given the amount of speculation around these, it may even prove profitable for some time.

Yes, you could go and mint NFTs claiming to be authentic.

The same way you can try selling fake Rolex’s or picasso’s.

Any serious buyer would attempt to vet the items provenance to make sure it’s authentic. You might be able to pull a quick one on some, but that’s not unique to crypto.

That's like calling an Andy Warhol a piece of paper with acrylic on it. Provenance is a thing.

And cryptographic proofs are not a form of provenance?

A physical object with provenance is of significantly more historical significance.

A minted basketball card is actually even more anti-fragile than crypto. The crypto network may flop and cease to exist or be relevant. A card is a true artifact of sports history.

> is of significantly more historical significance

Hmm, maybe, or maybe a video representation of the moment, endorsed and co-branded by the league and the athletes, will come to be as valuable or more valuable than a physical photo print of that moment as represented by trading cards.

A trading card doesn’t survive a house fire or flood. How can a card be a true artifact of sports history when its also just a derivative product?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com