I really have to read more into this NFT thing. I don't really get it yet.
It's just artwork tokenised on the ethereum blockchain. Would you like to own the original Mona Lisa?
Honestly, I kinda get it. Ownership is more valuable than people think, same with time. It's what people should value instead of money and status. I'm guessing a lot of people are rushing to buy because 1) they have more disposable income than hobbies & 2) possible high resell value.
It's just artwork tokenised on the ethereum blockchain. Would you like to own the original Mona Lisa?
Honestly, I kinda get it. Ownership is more valuable than people think, same with time. It's what people should value instead of money and status. I'm guessing a lot of people are rushing to buy because 1) they have more disposable income than hobbies & 2) possible high resell value.
Also, money laundering.
I guess I also kinda get, but I also kinda don't.
I get how it works technically, and I get that it has value in the sense that people will pay money for works with NFTs, but it's still kind of weird. I mean I get the speculative side of things, but put aside speculation and what "value" is left?
Like with the Mona Lisa it is true that the original has some intangible value even though it can be reproduced, reprinted, etc. But a lot of the intangible value comes from the fact that it was the canvass that da Vinci used, and you can see his precise brush strokes, etc. So it has "historicity", but also it's details are also impossible to completely reproduce.
In the case of these NFTs, the works can be perfectly reproduced. I dunno. Wikipedia says: "NFTs of artworks are therefore similar to autographed items." That kinda maybe makes sense, like it creates a link to the author of the work, and arguably establishes some "historicity" I guess, but it isn't the full picture either.
I think it's great for (digital) artists though! It's an interesting form of patronage.
Re: Cryptocurrency
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:06 am
by oxyjen
Re: Cryptocurrency
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:53 am
by Mashy
I cannot view that video because it is not available in my country. Would not be an issue with decentralised media on public blockchains.
It's just artwork tokenised on the ethereum blockchain. Would you like to own the original Mona Lisa?
Honestly, I kinda get it. Ownership is more valuable than people think, same with time. It's what people should value instead of money and status. I'm guessing a lot of people are rushing to buy because 1) they have more disposable income than hobbies & 2) possible high resell value.
Also, money laundering.
I guess I also kinda get, but I also kinda don't.
I get how it works technically, and I get that it has value in the sense that people will pay money for works with NFTs, but it's still kind of weird. I mean I get the speculative side of things, but put aside speculation and what "value" is left?
Like with the Mona Lisa it is true that the original has some intangible value even though it can be reproduced, reprinted, etc. But a lot of the intangible value comes from the fact that it was the canvass that da Vinci used, and you can see his precise brush strokes, etc. So it has "historicity", but also it's details are also impossible to completely reproduce.
In the case of these NFTs, the works can be perfectly reproduced. I dunno. Wikipedia says: "NFTs of artworks are therefore similar to autographed items." That kinda maybe makes sense, like it creates a link to the author of the work, and arguably establishes some "historicity" I guess, but it isn't the full picture either.
I think it's great for (digital) artists though! It's an interesting form of patronage.
What you're saying is that the original Mona Lisa is non-fungible (therefore valuable) because all subsequent replications of the Mona Lisa lack "historicity", right? Well genuine NFTs minted by their respective artists are non-fungible because they are tokenised with a unique hash by the artist themselves, establishing another sort of historicity like you said. Ownership of an artwork on a public blockchain might be even better because authenticity very easy to verify.
BTW, sounds trite to say this but all value is ultimately subjective, even value of historicity. Especially for things that don't seem to have an immediate utility (art, beauty, everything great in this world)
Re: Cryptocurrency
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:11 am
by Mashy
Started staking on DeFi platform PancakeSwap (I don’t feel good about it because it’s on Binance Smart Chain and therefore centralised. I haven’t found any single-asset liquidity pools like this on ETH DEXs though)
But staking yield is ... 111% APR
which I can compound manually for a tiny fee
Compared to my normal bank “high interest savings account” 2.94% interest p/a
What you're saying is that the original Mona Lisa is non-fungible (therefore valuable) because all subsequent replications of the Mona Lisa lack "historicity", right?
That's a good point yeah. I was arguing that Mona Lisa is non-fungible without realising it.
Well genuine NFTs minted by their respective artists are non-fungible because they are tokenised with a unique hash by the artist themselves, establishing another sort of historicity like you said. Ownership of an artwork on a public blockchain might be even better because authenticity very easy to verify.
I guess this gets to the heart of my confusion in that, to me, the non-fungible tokens might be non-fungible (when paired with who owns them and recorded on some blockchain), but what is sold is fungible. You can make as many exact copies of a digital image as you want. What you are buying, in a very real sense, is the NFT itself, the hash of something. I'm not sure if this otherwise gives you any special rights over the thing that was hashed? For example, an artist could even sell multiple NFTs of the same thing? Even the same hash? So the notion of ownership here feels very different to what we would traditionally think ownership to mean. I guess I don't get what the owner gets from this beyond the potential for speculative value (or becoming a patron).
Re: Cryptocurrency
Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:23 pm
by djm
I have found this thread really helpful and informative - thanks Utisz
My gut feeling on bitcoin has always been not for me, I am inherently distrustful of any financial instrument and this one also is out my comfort zone. However as A pointed out to me today I don't trust governments either, and all my money is already in forms I inherently misslike.
Anyways she just got a book about Bitcoin by the economist / comedian Dominic Frisby so I am going to read that and reevaluate. I like Frisby and will be interested in his take.
Meanwhile my own government is mooting a 'Britcoin' which is a different sort of thing altogether. I am very suspicious of governments moving towards e-currency, not interested in having my funds witched off ta very much.
Equally I don't want become like my great grandmother, stuffing a mattress with out of date banknotes as did't trust banks post depression.
What do you lot make of Coinbase as a platform for buying crypto?
