[purple_ferret]

> you have to recognize that the author's only counterargument against NFTs is that they're bad for the "rest of us

No, I think he makes a valid point that they're intentionally misleading and a scheme to sucker someone out of money.

Let's look at Jack Dorsey's 'minted' first tweet.[0]

This is in no way gives to exclusivity to 'owning' this tweet. It literally is just 'owning' the rights to 'Valuable's' NFT of this tweet (if they even are committing, legally, to never create another NFT of it). There are no limit of companies that can do exactly what they are doing and 'selling' this tweet in the same way, nor is Jack Dorsey committing never to accept those 'sales'.

To me, it seems like an outright scam that anybody but Twitter is trying to do this.

[0]https://v.cent.co/tweet/20

[exporectomy]

Same for art though. You don't own a copyright. You own only the bragging right as well as the useless physical canvas and paint. All artful beauty it has can be copied much more cheaply than the original painting's price.