Watching that video on and off.
In up to the bit about pay to earn games.

It amazes me that there are enough marks with enough money and willingness to jump through the hoops for any of this to exist.

mannaboy wrote:

Yeah you come out with a very good understanding of crypto and NFTs. His other vids are also worth a watch, I think it was someone on here who linked to his flat earth one.

Enjoyed his Jamie Oliver one.

drumbeg wrote:

mannaboy wrote:

Yeah you come out with a very good understanding of crypto and NFTs. His other vids are also worth a watch, I think it was someone on here who linked to his flat earth one.

Enjoyed his Jamie Oliver one.

A lot of that can be applied to high end chefs and foodies. 'Proper' food is a concept with serious pompous and exclusionary attributes.

We'll all see who is laughing when I'm a kabillionaire.

The difference I guess is that NFTs are entirely artificially scarce. Holding on to a rare toy or magic card for 30 years and it being worth a lot to buyers is tied to a lot more real-world stuff: shifting copyright, lost casting moulds, production not favouring re-printing something/re-printing something not being desirable unless you limit it, and a host of other factors including probably the most important one: time, therefore physical wear, tear, rot etc.

This is forced scarcity, in a medium that doesn't really support it, with the added caveat of most of the price being inflated by insider trading. I guess you could argue that insider trading is also the case with other collectibles, but it's when you combine the two things together it's nonsense. Rare NES carts, weird printings of Pokemon cards, Black Lotus Magic cards, rare old Warhammer sculpts from the Perry twins or RTB01 sprues, that one Wu-Tang- these are tangible and I understand why they matter to some, if not to me. A link to a receipt of content that can be accessed with the receipt, that is the outcome of a notoriously harmful technological system, coupled with the  fact that most of the price is bollocks in order to line the pockets of the already wealthy? 

Rankles a fair bit more.

It their express purpose wasn't tied to a future hell-scape that sees people like Peter Thiel and other devil-spawned cunts getting more rich, maybe I'd be more inclined to look the other way. First printing Black Lotuses are barely hurting anyone, this stuff is basically an evil con.

djchump wrote:

I can see how people interested in crypto/digital-currency see them positively as a long-term play against the power of the banks/financial industries

Because, for the time being, those near the bottom can win. Trouble is, despite this reversal, Randolph and Mortimer will still run the show at the end.

Yeah, I just mean its power-to-the-people perception unravels when you consider who'll end up with the largest pots. I'd say credit unions are the closest we have to low-bar community finance.

LivDiv wrote:

for the approval of piers.

Antivax and climate-change denial?

Non-fungible towers.

I like my tower because it's made of wood and has a rope bridge, and I once played on a wooden fort with a rope bridge as a child. I think that was the year Michael Fish got the weather wrong, so the fort might be gone.

Non-fun(climb)able towers.

I mean - I could see an interest in someone wanting to own the actual storage media a famous digital artifact was initially created on (well - sort of). But that's a physical , tangible thing.

Well, that's it. One of the powers of digital is perfect reproductivity. It's more than a power, it's an inherent attribute.

Holding rights is perfectly valid. It's the ability to enforce that's the problem. It's never been easier to circumvent controls.

Some think because it's easy then that makes it OK.  I can understand a kick against that but I don't think a retro fit is feasible.

@davy 
For sure. This is where the "right click, save" argument is flawed.
That is effectively piracy as much as downloading a torrent of a movie. I dont really want to go off tangent into a morals argument there but legally there is little difference its just Universal, Sony, Disney etc can't make billions out of that image.

None of this is an argument for NFT or blockchain or the absolute state of the scene that has emerged.

LivDiv wrote:

@davy  For sure. This is where the "right click, save" argument is flawed. That is effectively piracy as much as downloading a torrent of a movie. I dont really want to go off tangent into a morals argument there but legally there is little difference its just Universal, Sony, Disney etc can't make billions out of that image. None of this is an argument for NFT or blockchain or the absolute state of the scene that has emerged.

That's as much about the ability to reproduce digital replicas though. There is no difference between the digital image of a shit monkey that NFT owners have, and the digital image of a shit monkey that I can get by right clicking. If you have a painting of a shit monkey and I take a picture of it, we have very different things.