The idea (trackable ownership contracts) is getting mixed up with some sketchy things (paying inflated prices for badly drawn avatar pics).

We’re at the point where it would be difficult to use the idea for anything worthwhile instead, because the word/acronym NFT is starting to mean ‘overpriced avatar pics’ to most people who hear it.

poprock wrote:

The idea (trackable ownership contracts) is getting mixed up with some sketchy things (paying inflated prices for badly drawn avatar pics). We’re at the point where it would be difficult to use the idea for anything worthwhile instead, because the word/acronym NFT is starting to mean ‘overpriced avatar pics’ to most people who hear it.

Is there an example of how this could be used for something worthwhile?

Diluted Dante wrote:

Is there an example of how this could be used for something worthwhile?

So far I’ve seen nothing using blockchain-secured NFTs that couldn’t be more simply done with a normal old-fashioned legal agreement/contract.

I figure that an NFT is basically just a receipt stored on a blockchain. So it’s a receipt that can be tracked, and the ownership history of something could be traced in a secure, unfuckable way. I don’t see, at all, why it’s only being applied to shonky digital ‘art’ at the moment. If it’s such a great system, why aren’t we using for our cars, instead of still posting off V5 forms? Why aren’t we using to track ownership and prove originality of fine art - real paintings and sculptures? Why isn’t it being used for the land registry?

Is it because, actually, the system’s not that perfect after all?

That makes sense to me. When the world’s major law firms start using this sort of tech to secure contracts of ownership, then we should be more interested. Right now it’s just the geeks (trying to work out the tech and regulation properly) and the chancers (trying to make a fast buck before things get regulated).

Its a form of digital certification of ownership.
So its as good as the body that owns/controls the database. Same as any cryptocurrency really. The whole thing is propped up on people not calling bollocks on those databases but of course those involved wont do that because it will devalue their assets, nor will the people selling into it.

With real art I would say the systems that prop that up are just older but similarly reliant on faith. Faith in experts who can certify authenticity and slips of paper proving ownership. Of course a physical thing is always easier to track.

Land Registry is tied into laws and governments. If society fails or shifts the land registry will fail too. People will take what they decide is theirs. Its just much less likely than a random .com with a spreadsheet falling over.

LivDiv wrote:

Its a form of digital certification of ownership. So its as good as the body that owns/controls the database.

The whole point is that nobody owns the database though. That’s the big idea behind blockchain, isn’t it? The decentralisation.

So the faith falls on each other then.
Probably the people(s) with the greatest ownership or influence. People like Musk Tweeting about selling large chunks.

Big boy Pogs innit.

Cheers Folks - I get the value in the system if it is reliable (an untamperable record of ownership)

I just dont get why so much money is being spunked on the most worthless aspects of it. Again, I feel I'm missing something but the best example is the original tweet by the tweet guy, Jack Twitter. That sold for 2.9 million. I dont understand why a tweet could reach any value point, let alone 2.9 million

Probably a bit of this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

Many individuals suddenly became rich. A golden bait hung temptingly out before the people, and, one after the other, they rushed to the tulip marts, like flies around a honey-pot. Every one imagined that the passion for tulips would last for ever, and that the wealthy from every part of the world would send to Holland, and pay whatever prices were asked for them. The riches of Europe would be concentrated on the shores of the Zuyder Zee, and poverty banished from the favoured clime of Holland. Nobles, citizens, farmers, mechanics, seamen, footmen, maidservants, even chimney sweeps and old clotheswomen, dabbled in tulips

Though NFTs are arguably much shitter than tulips.

Also, wash trading, tax avoidance and money laundering.

Blockchain’s a magic spreadsheet in the cloud that can’t be fucked around with.

NFTs are ID tags stored on that secure magic spreadsheet. 

Those ID tags can be used to pretend a digital thing is actually a one-of-a-kind ‘original’, because only one unique ID tag for it exists. 

Shit art is still shit art, even when it has a unique ID and a high price tag.


Cryptocurrency is ‘digital money’ - currency stored on the magic blockchain spreadsheet instead of in the traditional magic spreadsheets of high street banks.

There’s no reason for NFTs to be tied in to cryptocurrency (even though they both run on the same underlying blockchain technology) but for some reason they currently are.

Most NFTs aren't actually tied to a cryptocurrency, apart from when purchasing. The only 'NFT' crypto is the gaming space, such as ENJ, AXS, ALICE and CHR (the one I made good profit on back in Jan), which offer in app crypto rewards for playing (ENJ, CHR), normally their own token, or require their own token (AXS, ALICE) to play the game with.

The only real outlier is CHZ, which is the sports NFT fan token thing which is tied with City, Barca, Real, PSG and multitudes of others.

Most the art stuff is just hosted on a chain usually ETH, then purchased with that crypto.

No thanks to all of that.

It feels at the moment like NFTs are being primarily used as an excuse to move crypto money around. And at the consumer end, they’re being used to turn shitty JPGs into status symbols.