This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Mostly used for money laundering
I'd say there's a fair number of people just speculating.
And a couple people get lucky and make it big. And that's promoted. Cuz it looks great.
But like a lot of the big movements, are money laundering as you said, or a way to bribe people. This politicians wife's cousins son sold an NFT for 4 million that's amazing!
But we get this with traditional art too. Any market where there isn't commodity pricing, price discovery is flexible, so it can be used for lots of social reasons
Isn't most art for money laundering. You move money and purchase a piece or "art" for 4 million. Art isn't worth it. But because it's been bought it now has a value. If you sell it. Now you've created money from nothing. Fucked up
Isn’t most art for money laundering.
Certainly not. Millions of people create art every day for various reasons and various success. Heck, artists are generally known to be on the poorer end of society exactly because they often care for the art even if it doesn't sell well. That is the case even for some of the now most famous artists in history. Quite a few of them died dirt poor while their pieces now sell for millions.
Is some art in certain circles used for money laundering? Most likely, but that's definitely not "most" but at best mabye a few thousand pieces which are dwarfed by the billions of art pieces around today.
correction... always were worthless.
It's always been a con game.
Their so-called "value" was always determined by the ability of the person shilling it to make up bullshit. Literally the definition of a "confidence" game. Same problem as crypto in general. It's only has value if you have confidence in the person shilling it. The moment that person loses the confidence of their marks, the entire thing crumbles to nothing because it isn't backed by any real tangible assets.
akshuallllyyyyyyyy, monetary value of anything is derivative to someone else's willingness to purchase the item
Sure, but some systems are way more stable since they are established and have the general trust of a lot of people. And others simply don't have that wide ranging trust and as such aren't stable.
You can use this logic to explain away any other ponzi scheme too.
It's not really logic, and I don't think it's defending anything, it's just the definition of monetary worth.
For better or for worse, stuff is always as valuable as people consider it to be. Which may be related to how useful that stuff is, but often is not.
Also money laundering and tax rebate schemes.
So like art. No tangible assets, but the value is derived by the highest bidder.
I still think NFTs could be used to make a form of DRM that is actually fair to the consumer, by maki g it so you can resell your digital goods and also make it so your digital rights don't vanish as soon as the seller gets bored. But nobody in a position to make that happen wants that.
How would that be fair? There would still be drm running on your computer to verify you have the nft. That would have all the issues of DRM already. And those who want information to be free could still just make illegal cracked copies and distribute them.
Video game ownership rights have been going downhill for years. Most games can disappear from your account at a whim, and you can't sell them on when you're done anymore. At least with blockchain-based DRM, you'd be able to sell it when you're done - and if the thing is hosted in a decentralized manner (IPFS, Pinata etc) then the creator can't simply delete it or delist it. You'd own it without permission.
In theory it could be a good idea. If done right.
Hmm, kind of an open source Steam client that shares game files in a secure and verified peer to peer manner and only lets users play that have the corresponding NFT in their connected wallet. Now you'd only need an incentive for someone to develop something better and way more complex than Steam without making anything close to the same profit from it. Also you'd need a reason for publishers to sell their games this way, if after half a year they won't sell a single copy anymore, as there is always someone that offers their used license cheaper.
Now you’d only need an incentive for someone to develop something better and way more complex than Steam without making anything close to the same profit from it.
Uh, yeah. GameStop is making it, from what I hear. They can't keep selling old physical copies forever and the new board knows it. They're already partnered with some blockchain firms to build it. Means + motive on a platter.
As to why a developer would go for it? This kind of token can be sold on any such marketplace, but can have a royalty baked in so that no matter who sells it or where, they get a perpetual revenue stream. I usually hate rent-seeking behavior, but in the case of software you need a way to pay for continued support, and this solves it.
You're adding another person to the equation (the player that sells their game) and everyone is supposed to profit? Someone will make a loss compared to the status quo for this to work out and it's never the marketplace operator.
CryptoPunks still going strong though.
What's with the downvotes? They are trading for ~$80k a piece currently and have been around since 2017. I'm not saying it's a solid investment, far from it actually. But I don't believe they will be "worthless" any time soon.
I find it fascinating that NFTs were supposed to be a proof-of-ownership technology, but because people are stupid & greedy made pictures to sell with it
It always reminds me of those certificates for owning a piece of the moon.
Because it's pretty much the same.
At the very core ownership that isn't recognised by the state is meaningless. So that ape picture? No one really cares about some guy claiming to own it because they have control over the token. As long as it's on the internet everyone can just copy it and there's no authority caring about it one bit since NFT isn't recognised as for example copyright is.
Even when it comes to stuff like items in games, these also are only worth anything as long as the publisher of the game recognises your claim to it! And even if they did recognise it, there's absolutely nothing preventing them from changing their minds later. Simply because they create the game however they like and have 100% control over it's development.
Except it's not ownership, it is digital rights management. Right now DRM is handled by private corporations, not the state, and it generally is anti-consumer. NFTs could be used for DRM in a more pro consumer way.
NFTs could be used for DRM in a more pro consumer way.
Only if the companies in charge would allow that. And they really have zero incentive to do so. The way it currently is, is way more profitable for them.
Dot com boom in the 90s, NFT boom in the 20s.
