I don't even know where to begin.... :/<p>"An Original Banksy Has Been Burned and Turned Into an NFT"
<a href="https://decrypt.co/60070/an-original-banksy-has-been-burned-and-turned-into-an-nft" rel="nofollow">https://decrypt.co/60070/an-original-banksy-has-been-burned-...</a>
Eh, this is just some crotchety "get off my lawn" style rant. The truth is that regardless of hype around NFTs, the world is digital and there are people looking to create meaning around "digital ownership". Not everyone is after it to make a buck, the same way that early adopters of crypto currency are interested in the technology and its social implications.<p>The thing is you don't have to participate, it's not hurting you, so what's the problem?<p>And before you highlight the environmental impact, I'd say that point just highlights some issues our society has with mismanaging energy. Let's switch to nuclear power and proof of stake blockchains.
Like any new thing there will be profiteers, scammers, spammers and the like. The true value, just like any other art, comes from the value you place on it. I could 100% imagine myself buying a digital frame, hang it on my wall and display some NFTS that I own. Those tweet spammers who are pumping tweets onto the chain every second automatically are stupid in my opinion. Often times it isn't about the art as much as it is about the artist. They're just muking up the seas.
NFTs for video games objects (such as guns in Counter-Strike):<p>1. Can be traded on the chain the publisher integrated in their game,<p>2. Can be limited in numbers based on random drops, such that the publisher will not have infinite "printing" privilege,<p>3. Will require the wallet connected to your account in the game,<p>4. Owning the digital file permits the owner to actually use the item.<p>I don't see digital ownership for video games NFTs as unfeasible, nor bullshit.