I'm deep into cryptocurrencies / blockchain tech and still don't see the appeal of current generation NFTs. Anyone have a positive perspective they can share?
It's a scam, no more, no less. Just like ICOs. People poured billions in ICOs a few years ago because of FOMO, the only people that got rich is the ones that did the coin offering.
Traditional art is 90% money laundering and recent laws worldwide have attempted to address that with AML/KYC. I believe that is one of the reasons we have seen a huge influx of money into NFTs.
NFTs are a tool. If they can convince regulators they are art, then they can be donated, and you can write it off on your taxes. You just need a service that produces estimates of value.
The one good thing about NFTs is the ability to manipulate prices legally (just like they do with art), and create arbitrary value out of nothing.
If the main point of cryptos is speculation, not payments, then NFTs are a better crypto. You can better inflate them and sell them, the only problem is you need to create demand, which is harder if you are not a celeb. Better to partner with someone well known and split the profits.
Currently, NFT is about collecting and speculation, which is currently the exact same use case as many collectibles like baseball cards. I believe the space will evolve to allow NFT holders to have additional rights and utility, such as copyright and ability to earn royalties from licensing the art.
NFT is simply provable ownership of a digital asset. What that asset actually is and what it provides is an experimental and evolving space. I think HNers need to think less narrow about this.
I think the gaming and mass-market collectible space will be huge. See NBA Topshot for a recent successful example (~$300 million in sales this year) https://nbatopshot.com/
> NFT is simply provable ownership of a digital asset.
No. NFTs are provable ownership of a token representing a digital asset, but not ownership of the asset itself. Buying an NFT doesn't confer copyright ownership, for example. Nothing prevents minters from just lying about their ownership of an asset, and they do.
I'm not sure I follow you. According to ERC-721 spec, there is a token owner, and it is assigned to a blockchain address. Signing a message with that address proves you own it. If the source code of the smart contract shows that no one can seize it from you, then you are indeed the owner.
What an NFT actually is can be different for every token. Nothing stops the creator of an image from declaring the owner of the NFT the owner of the copyright. Like I said, I think this is an area of future innovation.
But right now, ownership of the NFT declares ownership of the NFT. What you can do with that is where companies and software engineers are experimenting. It is a very raw, early space that is exceedingly well-funded, and I expect many clever inventions to come out of it.
> I'm not sure I follow you. According to ERC-721 spec, there is a token owner, and it is assigned to a blockchain address. Signing a message with that address proves you own it. If the source code of the smart contract shows that no one can seize it from you, then you are indeed the owner.
Anybody can sell a NFT of the Mona Lisa. It's worthless.
> Anyone can sell a proof of ownership of the Mona Lisa, too. That doesn't mean that the proof of ownership in the Louvre is worthless.
Except that there is only one Mona Lisa, the painting. There can be as many NFT of Mona Lisa as one wants. It's worthless, and your proof is a proof of ownership of something worthless. Good luck defending your ownership of a NFT in a court of law.
