> There might be a sense in which bubbles are getting more ridiculous over time (e.g., NFT) but it would be hard to prove it in any objective sense.
Remember tulips? [0]
I think tulips were probably at least as ridiculous as NFTs.
Remember tulips? [0]
I think tulips were probably at least as ridiculous as NFTs.
Expecting others to enter a bubble and trading accordingly can be a perfectly rational calculation following observations of behaviors in a given market context.
[1] https://theconversation.com/tulip-mania-the-classic-story-of...
It could have been rational to spend a lot on a good one as you could then cultivate it a grow lots of that type.
The role of scarcity is something interesting to consider as input. Scarcity (perceived or actual) is more natural with tulips or anything that is a tangible, real object.
NFT's tortured way of creating "digital scarcity" sets them, imho, apart from other bubbles. Given how much of modern life revolves around digital they are probably the forerunner of much worse to come.
strange but true, scarcity comes in different sizes. Is the infinity of NFT's the same as that of paintings? How many types of infinite junk are there? Or is this infinite itself?
In contrast, while digitally reproduced crap is also fundamentally finite, it can be replicated gazillion upon gazillion times more without any effort or sacrifice.
This is the so-called zero-marginal cost of (re)production [1]. Some people think its a blessing, some people think its a curse.
With AI algorithms it gets even worse. You don't only have infinite copies of the original, you also have infinite variations of the original.
Interesting times.
[1] https://books.google.nl/books/about/The_Zero_Marginal_Cost_S...