> 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.
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 means anything!
This NFT is not "The Brooklyn Bridge", this NFT is "Remember when John Cleese sold the Brooklyn Bridge NFT". Do you think nobody wants the bragging rights of owning that? I certainly do, but not for $50k, which it already has.
I disagree, but this is a common objection which is worth addressing. Specifically I disagree that NFTs are grounded in that particular conceptual framework.
NFTs aren't attempting to be bearer instruments which convey ownership of some physical good, or even of a piece of intellectual property. Those require a corresponding Ricardian contract. This remains a good idea, but, to put it mildly, there are unsolved problems associated with it.
A NFT is just a baseball card, what you're proposing is more like a baseball player packaging up 10% of his lifetime earnings into 5000 instruments and selling those.
Baseball cards have provenance, scarcity, and IP protection of their appearance: that is, they're demonstrably produced by a company with a right to do it, there are only so many in existence, and it's illegal to make identical copies of the baseball card.
NFTs have two of these properties and an adequate substitute for the third. They're signed, giving provenance, and scarce, due to blockchain-verified artificial scarcity. It's not illegal to make copies of the referenced digital artifact, because what fun would that be? No one could load the image or whatever in a browser.
Nor is copyright currently assigned. I don't believe it's conventional to purchase copyright for an artwork along with the artwork itself, but I could be wrong about that, and it doesn't matter: this would be a cool thing to add to some NFTs, but we can just agree that it isn't a part of the package right now and move on.
But it is impossible to make an actual copy of the NFT itself, even with the private key used to sign the original. That makes IP protection an inferior good: it's fraud to make a forgery of a rare baseball card, but it's quite profitable fraud if one happens to get away with it.
Disclosure: I own no NFTs in the usual sense of the term, and don't intend to.
IMO NFT are a path to the commoditisation of belief and the communities which spring up around shared beliefs. Imagine if QAnon were to launch their own, with the proof of patriotism baked in to your online in or if some religion reinvented the indulgence. These would probably be done on their own coinbase.
In the case of real property the clearinghouse for this is the local courthouse. Deeds, liens, etc... all flow through the local (city/county) clerk. If you can create NFT's such that transfer requires two signatures (one of those being the jurisdiction of the real property) then it would function little different than how property transfers happen today. Furthermore NFT transfers signed by the court could reduce or eliminate the costly need for title searches and title insurance. If real property moves to the block chain in this manner all you need is one final title search, then signed by the court, from then on out title can be ensured by the blockchain. If you can do fractional ownership of an NFT then it greatly simplifies land development, mineral rights, and other more complex transfers such as sub-division of a tract.
Having knowledge of this business for some time now I believe it's an issue of when, not if, real property will move to a blockchain of some sort.
I'd like to defend NFTs from a slightly different angle.
(Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake)
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.
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.
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.
The name of the artist is "gcp-nyc", which is evidently a reference to George C. Parker, the only con artist who has successfully "sold" the Brooklyn Bridge to date: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker
I can't imagine any real purpose for NFTs except money laundry and the 'I Am Rich' complex.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
tbf if I was stupidly rich and not particularly philanthropically inclined, I'd see far more value in an NFT John Cleese personally mocks me for buying than any others
Having that it’s John Cleese this may truly become a very valuable NFT even if that wasn’t the intention. The only thing John can do to at this point is get this event as public as possible then denounce it as a big scam and refusing to cash in a very large bid. Alternatively he may actually help jumpstart the NFT
> 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.
They don't call it 'contemporary art' for no reason. We all know that the drawing itself is worthless but the signature is what is 'valued'.
NFTs are just giving life to 'contemporary art' again which can be shortened to 'con-art'. Allowing celebrities a get rich quick route with their signatures. Heck, even an AI can paint something and auction it at Christie's and then re-auction it as an NFT.
As for this NFT and the rest of them, No thanks and no deal.
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.
Does being the winning bidder on this actually make you the owner (i.e. transfer all associated IP rights to you) or do you just get a higher res version of the image if you win? Both? Neither?
[+] [-] schoen|5 years ago|reply
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/secure-property-titles/
At the very end he says:
> 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.
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 means anything!
[+] [-] koonsolo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samatman|5 years ago|reply
NFTs aren't attempting to be bearer instruments which convey ownership of some physical good, or even of a piece of intellectual property. Those require a corresponding Ricardian contract. This remains a good idea, but, to put it mildly, there are unsolved problems associated with it.
A NFT is just a baseball card, what you're proposing is more like a baseball player packaging up 10% of his lifetime earnings into 5000 instruments and selling those.
Baseball cards have provenance, scarcity, and IP protection of their appearance: that is, they're demonstrably produced by a company with a right to do it, there are only so many in existence, and it's illegal to make identical copies of the baseball card.
NFTs have two of these properties and an adequate substitute for the third. They're signed, giving provenance, and scarce, due to blockchain-verified artificial scarcity. It's not illegal to make copies of the referenced digital artifact, because what fun would that be? No one could load the image or whatever in a browser.
Nor is copyright currently assigned. I don't believe it's conventional to purchase copyright for an artwork along with the artwork itself, but I could be wrong about that, and it doesn't matter: this would be a cool thing to add to some NFTs, but we can just agree that it isn't a part of the package right now and move on.
But it is impossible to make an actual copy of the NFT itself, even with the private key used to sign the original. That makes IP protection an inferior good: it's fraud to make a forgery of a rare baseball card, but it's quite profitable fraud if one happens to get away with it.
Disclosure: I own no NFTs in the usual sense of the term, and don't intend to.
[+] [-] monkeydreams|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanmarsh|5 years ago|reply
Having knowledge of this business for some time now I believe it's an issue of when, not if, real property will move to a blockchain of some sort.
[+] [-] andybak|5 years ago|reply
(Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake)
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] dleslie|5 years ago|reply
Shit's on fire, yo.
[+] [-] craz8|5 years ago|reply
New technology, same scam
[+] [-] skybrian|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cs702|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] runeks|5 years ago|reply
I see a dollar equivalent, but I don’t see how they translate from the 0.015 figure.
EDIT: Never mind. Apparently, the symbol Ξ refers to the Ether cryptocurrency.
[+] [-] sn_master|5 years ago|reply
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich
[+] [-] tippytippytango|5 years ago|reply
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] wrs|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wan23|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hatboxreappoint|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] BurningFrog|5 years ago|reply
It's like Cleese is personally making fun of the buyer!
I'm pretty sure this will go down as the Pet Rocks of this era. But... I'm not entirely sure.
[+] [-] notahacker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tartoran|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vl|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ASalazarMX|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daenz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcrittenden|5 years ago|reply
> 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.
https://decrypt.co/resources/non-fungible-tokens-nfts-explai...
[+] [-] pazimzadeh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rvz|5 years ago|reply
NFTs are just giving life to 'contemporary art' again which can be shortened to 'con-art'. Allowing celebrities a get rich quick route with their signatures. Heck, even an AI can paint something and auction it at Christie's and then re-auction it as an NFT.
As for this NFT and the rest of them, No thanks and no deal.
[+] [-] ping_pong|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frongpik|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cs702|5 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1372944852325789704
It's brilliant parody, as usual, from Cleese. Regardless of what you think of NFTs, you will get a good laugh.
[+] [-] dang|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dylan604|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geoduck14|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tibbydudeza|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] runeks|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomerico|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] saltminer|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] insert_coin|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]