The original conceptual framework for NFT-like instruments is Nick Szabo's "Secure Property Titles with Owner Authority":<p><a href="https://nakamotoinstitute.org/secure-property-titles/" rel="nofollow">https://nakamotoinstitute.org/secure-property-titles/</a><p>At the very end he says:<p>> Largely unaddressed above is the problem of divergence between actual conditions and directory rights. [...] When divergence becomes too great, a solution to address the unreality of the title registry is needed.<p>Almost nobody selling NFTs today has even bothered to address Szabo's final "correspondence to ground" point, i.e., why anyone should think that the ownership of a particular NFT <i>means anything</i>!
I'd like to defend NFTs from a slightly different angle.<p>(Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake)<p>They are stupid. They are pointless. But then so is most of the art world - and going a step forward - so is much of what we value.<p>As several people have pointed out they are no less arbitrary than a limited edition print vs a commodity print. The value of fine wines escalates exponentially whilst the extra utility you get from any quality improvements trends towards nothing.<p>Much of what we value is pointless and bordering on delusional. But unless you're a wandering ascetic or superhumanly utilitarian in your consumption (hint - you're probably not even if you think you are) then the difference is one of degree rather than of category.
There are children going hungry at school, people with trivial to fix but prohibitively expensive medical issues, and silicon valley millionaires are spending more than many will make in a year by purchasing bullshit.<p>Shit's on fire, yo.
I’m surprised that no-one has mentioned that selling the Brooklyn Bridge is a very old scam, made famous by this huckster: <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker</a><p>New technology, same scam
If you're looking for a discount, you could get this one instead:
<a href="https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c248420045cb7b5e/111671456905903448668754399825500311737993761829133923293106705775283906019329" rel="nofollow">https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c2484200...</a>
I can't imagine any real purpose for NFTs except money laundry and the 'I Am Rich' complex.<p>With paintings, you're at least getting a physical artifact that the famous painter touched and painted, stroke by stroke, that can never be duplicated.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich</a>
This is a perfect example of what NFTs really are, a mechanism to monetize attention, not ownership. Yes, they could be used to represent ownership; but, that's not what the current incarnation actually is.<p>Anyone could have made a Brooklyn Bridge NFT (I've seen many make this joke). But, the value of the NFT is based on who is selling it and how compelling the narrative around the NFT is.<p>The valuation of the NFT is going to be based entirely on expectations of growth of future attention to the minter of the NFT. The market for them is going to consist primarily of a person that is a speculator first, collector second.<p>With that said, I think that people are wildly overpricing expectations of future attention for most of these. So there will be a correction. But, I don't think they are a fad, as long as gamblers exist so will NFTs.
You should consider an NFT to be something like a certificate. Some entity has issued you a certificate saying, e.g. you are the rightful owner of the Brooklyn Bridge. The value of certificates in NFT form is that they are difficult to forge and easy to verify. However, like a paper certificate that you might hang on your wall, the actual certificate is worthless. It is representative of something that may have value, e.g. proof that someone who owns the Brooklyn Bridge has transferred ownership to you. What matters is if other people believe the underlying item is worth something and accept control of the token as being sufficient to authenticate you as the owner. Obviously, in this case no one will accept this token in place of a deed for the bridge, but on the other hand if a government did issue tokens this way and recognized them in court then it might work out pretty well (until someone steals your crypto keys).
Some people in this thread talk about "bragging rights". I am genuinely curious if anyone would be impressed by someone bragging about purchasing this NFT, or know anyone who would be impressed.<p>I wouldn't and can't think of anyone I know who would, the emotional response would probably just be of frustration at the absurd amount of money being spent, much like bragging about any large value novelty purchase.
Buying it from such a Legend is what gives it value.<p>It's like Cleese is <i>personally</i> making fun of the buyer!<p>I'm pretty sure this will go down as the Pet Rocks of this era. But... I'm not <i>entirely</i> sure.
For anyone else wondering what NFTs are:<p>> Non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, are digital assets that are indivisible and provably unique. They can be used to represent both tangible and intangible items.<p><a href="https://decrypt.co/resources/non-fungible-tokens-nfts-explained-guide-learn-blockchain" rel="nofollow">https://decrypt.co/resources/non-fungible-tokens-nfts-explai...</a>
What happens when I buy an NFT Type A for a piece of art, but then NFT Type B becomes more popular in the future? Is no one else allowed to create an NFT Type B for that same piece of art? What if someone creates multiple NFTs Type A for that same piece of art?
Elon Musk can make another 100 billions by claiming a chunk of Mars territory and selling NFTs backed by 1 acre lots of Mars land. The NFTs will be real so long as Elon gets the US gov to recognize his landlord rights on Mars, at least near the location of his first rocket landing. The thing is, he can start selling NFTs right now, as his promise alone is this valuable.
Please consider changing the OP link to Cleese's actual post on Twitter, which embeds a video of him describing this "work of art":<p><a href="https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1372944852325789704" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1372944852325789704</a><p>It's brilliant parody, as usual, from Cleese. Regardless of what you think of NFTs, you will get a good laugh.
Is this supposed to make blockchain look bad or something? Everyone knows John Cleese doesn't own the Brooklyn Bridge. He could have also started a title company on paper and sold the "rights" to the Brooklyn Bridge as a printed certificate and I guess he would have made title companies look like bullshit. And distributed ledgers are still technically more secure than a bunch of trusted bank employees...if that's what you care about. You can place your trust in them on in yourself. Previously, only one of those options was possible. Just more anti-hype hype.
Next up will be a set of data on the wing-flapping rate of African swallow and the instructions for the Holy Hand Grenade.<p>All the comments about supposedly "owning" a copy of an item that is trivial to make perfect digital copies... exactly.<p>If, somehow, the NFTs could be made actually non-fungible, and backed by the legal system, the one killer feature would be repeating revenue for the artist with every subsequent sale. That could truly change the economics for the perpetually starving artists in the world. If that came to pass, it might be worth all the electricity and carbon footprint.
I used to think NFTs include the copyright for the underlying work ... but I've just been educated and it seems you don't even own the copyright of the underlying work. That stays with the artist.<p>All you literally have is a few bits on a blockchain that say you paid so and so money to say you own the work on the blockchain. That's it.<p>And not every blockchain mind you. Just that specific blockchain. On another blockchain someone else can own the work.<p>NFTs are ridiculous if they don't act as a registry of actual ownership. I don't know why people think otherwise.
Buying an object, any object art or otherwise, for any reason. At least gets you that object.<p>Buying an NFT gets you a digital token. That token can say anything it likes but that is all you get.<p>Until NFTs are somehow anchored to ownership of the thing they mention... I don't see the point.<p>Do we need governments to provide a NFT Enforcement Registrar or something? Kinda defeats the purpose of "no central authority" then...
Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it?<p>I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights.<p>As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy them, it seems so strange to me though.
Here's my NFT of Brooklyn Bridge:<p><a href="https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c248420045cb7b5e/344510305779850782803553725984767142518850069361109379851915909755966586881" rel="nofollow">https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c2484200...</a>
NFTs make sense if you have a pile of volatile currency and you want to hedge that volatility by putting it into an asset with a different volatility profile, without having to convert it into a transaction that triggers income or capital gains tax.<p>I'd posit the NFT craze is an unintended consequence of cryptocurrency tax policy. The reason people are burning bubble money in NFTs is because it's more fun setting it on fire than taking on the massive accounting risk of reporting their gains.<p>While I don't hold cryptocurrencies for related reasons, if you're guaranteed to lose 35%+ of your chips when you cash them in, it makes no difference if you do something stupid and fun with it. If you have undeclared crypto gains, making it disappear into a hard to value joke NFT is even lower risk.<p>Just like real art.
Apparently there's Fuck You money, and then there's having "I buy NFTs" money.<p>(But you have to say it in Forrest Gump's voice.)
it remembers me the italian classic scene of the "selling of the Trevi fountain" from "Tototruffa '62" [1]<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlQNPg5-hgk" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlQNPg5-hgk</a>
IMO, NFTs are relevant as pop culture artifacts of a tokenized economy. It's less about the art, and more about the artist and buyers as a collective story. Valuations are high due to liquidity, technology and timing as a cultural shift.