41 ms·

> Owning scarce items gives them status. NFTs are not scarce. A painting is scarce because you can never replicate the original painter physically impressing w

by GDC7 5y ago

> Owning scarce items gives them status. NFTs are not scarce. A painting is scarce because you can never replicate the original painter physically impressing whatever they see in their mind on a blank virgin canvas. If the original painter happens to be on the right side of the Power law and becomes famous, then the painting value also skyrockets because said canvas was touched by them (e.g. Leonardo da Vinci) Stuff on the internet cannot be scarce, you'd need the metaverse with its own rules to create scarcity. E.g. "Ferraris" and "Lamborghini" cars in GTA V. Their rarity is enforced but as soon as the internet gets hold of it then the scarcity is immediately eliminated on the PC version with mods

matwood 5y ago
> NFTs are not scarce. This is why provenance matters. The NFT with the same provenance is scarce. When an artist mints an NFT and sells it, the NFT provenance is part of the value. If I mint an NFT pointing to a frame in Pulp Fiction, no one cares. If Quentin Tarantino mints one, now it has value.
- notahacker 5y ago
  Except of course, that [i] the provenance of Quentin Tarantino himself minting it (and not also offering his blessing to other NFTs associated with that frame) is entirely trust-based and off-blockchain and [ii] its hard for anyone to argue with a straight face that some cash in digital certificate made by some programmer three decades after the film is the "original" in the same way that, say, a square of canvas that some famous artist actually applied paint to, or at least a garment Travolta actually wore. So whilst the provenance exists, it's more autograph level than original artwork level, and not necessarily a step above a scrawl on a bit of paper in terms of trust and uniqueness.
- GDC7 5y ago
  > When an artist mints an NFT and sells it, the NFT provenance is part of the value. Except when I buy a painting I can lend it to a museum and get a steady income, with NFTs you are only hoping that some bigger fool will buy your jpg, because everybody sees what you see, and a jpg is not a painting, you don't have to stand in front of it to appreciate it. An example was the recent sale of the original picture from National Geographic 1983 issue. The "Afghan girl" is one of the most famous pics of 20th century if not the most famous. The "original" sold for a mere 63k, that's because it doesn't give you anything more than the pic which was on the cover of NG or you have seen countless times on the internet since. Compare it to famous paintings or even a Banksy and it's a very small sum of money. Most famous jpg sells for less than 1/10 of a mediocre painting Also most importantly once you have taken the painting from the artist hands you are in power. With NFTs the artist needing money can and will mint the exact same JPG undercutting all the fools who bought the previous NFT. He will get the money and the praise (ohh distributing his work to everybody instead of select few how cool is him!!!) and you'd get a huge financial loss.
  - codetrotter 5y ago
    > With NFTs the artist needing money can and will mint the exact same JPG undercutting all the fools who bought the previous NFT. People will still be able to ascribe meaning to which NFT was minted when. So an earlier minted NFT may be more valuable to some than those that were minted later. Just like when Banksy “destroyed” that piece by shredding it half way, the “destruction” actually worked to increase the value of the piece. In the same way, conceivably, a first batch of NFTs that supposedly should lose value after the artist starts minting a bunch more, could turn out to instead increase in value, because of their history of having been minted and sold before the event of the artist minting a bunch more.
    - GDC7 5y ago
      > So an earlier minted NFT may be more valuable to some than those that were minted later Are dollars printed during the 2008 recession more valuable than those printed during the 2020 recession? > In the same way, conceivably, a first batch of NFTs that supposedly should lose value after the artist starts minting a bunch more, could turn out to instead increase in value, because of their history of having been minted and sold before the event of the artist minting a bunch more. But why? It's the same JPG.
      - codetrotter 5y ago
        > Are dollars printed during the 2008 recession more valuable than those printed during the 2020 recession? No because dollars are not used the way that NFTs are. > But why? It's the same JPG. But it's not the same NFT.
        GDC7 5y ago
        Is a Brad Pitt autograph from 1999 worth more than his autograph in 2020? We are really latching onto the pipe smoke here.

by GDC7 5y ago

matwood 5y ago

> NFTs are not scarce. This is why provenance matters. The NFT with the same provenance is scarce. When an artist mints an NFT and sells it, the NFT provenance is part of the value. If I mint an NFT pointing to a frame in Pulp Fiction, no one cares. If Quentin Tarantino mints one, now it has value.

notahacker 5y ago
Except of course, that [i] the provenance of Quentin Tarantino himself minting it (and not also offering his blessing to other NFTs associated with that frame) is entirely trust-based and off-blockchain and [ii] its hard for anyone to argue with a straight face that some cash in digital certificate made by some programmer three decades after the film is the "original" in the same way that, say, a square of canvas that some famous artist actually applied paint to, or at least a garment Travolta actually wore. So whilst the provenance exists, it's more autograph level than original artwork level, and not necessarily a step above a scrawl on a bit of paper in terms of trust and uniqueness.
GDC7 5y ago
> When an artist mints an NFT and sells it, the NFT provenance is part of the value. Except when I buy a painting I can lend it to a museum and get a steady income, with NFTs you are only hoping that some bigger fool will buy your jpg, because everybody sees what you see, and a jpg is not a painting, you don't have to stand in front of it to appreciate it. An example was the recent sale of the original picture from National Geographic 1983 issue. The "Afghan girl" is one of the most famous pics of 20th century if not the most famous. The "original" sold for a mere 63k, that's because it doesn't give you anything more than the pic which was on the cover of NG or you have seen countless times on the internet since. Compare it to famous paintings or even a Banksy and it's a very small sum of money. Most famous jpg sells for less than 1/10 of a mediocre painting Also most importantly once you have taken the painting from the artist hands you are in power. With NFTs the artist needing money can and will mint the exact same JPG undercutting all the fools who bought the previous NFT. He will get the money and the praise (ohh distributing his work to everybody instead of select few how cool is him!!!) and you'd get a huge financial loss.
- codetrotter 5y ago
  > With NFTs the artist needing money can and will mint the exact same JPG undercutting all the fools who bought the previous NFT. People will still be able to ascribe meaning to which NFT was minted when. So an earlier minted NFT may be more valuable to some than those that were minted later. Just like when Banksy “destroyed” that piece by shredding it half way, the “destruction” actually worked to increase the value of the piece. In the same way, conceivably, a first batch of NFTs that supposedly should lose value after the artist starts minting a bunch more, could turn out to instead increase in value, because of their history of having been minted and sold before the event of the artist minting a bunch more.
  - GDC7 5y ago
    > So an earlier minted NFT may be more valuable to some than those that were minted later Are dollars printed during the 2008 recession more valuable than those printed during the 2020 recession? > In the same way, conceivably, a first batch of NFTs that supposedly should lose value after the artist starts minting a bunch more, could turn out to instead increase in value, because of their history of having been minted and sold before the event of the artist minting a bunch more. But why? It's the same JPG.
    - codetrotter 5y ago
      > Are dollars printed during the 2008 recession more valuable than those printed during the 2020 recession? No because dollars are not used the way that NFTs are. > But why? It's the same JPG. But it's not the same NFT.
      - GDC7 5y ago
        Is a Brad Pitt autograph from 1999 worth more than his autograph in 2020? We are really latching onto the pipe smoke here.