[rory]

It does seem really stupid, but I don't see how it's substantively different than (also stupid-seeming) physical collectibles like baseball cards or Bearbricks. The supply of the "special" versions of those two collectibles is also constrained in a totally artificial manner.

[stephen_g]

At least you actually own a real object in that case. Not a token with a link to a JPEG that may disappear from wherever it’s hosted eventually...

[danaris]

At least if you have a really rare baseball card,

a) You have the physical card. It is in your possession, and the only way for you to lose it is for something physical to happen to it.

b) You can look at and enjoy the card in its physicality. You can show it to others, and the only reason that is the case is that it is physically in your possession.

Contrast that with NFTs, where all you "own" is the idea of owning a thing. If the thing your particular NFT says you own is a digital image, anyone can still see that image, and it can be deleted from the internet without your permission or any warning. You lose the exclusivity that's the main draw of owning something rare and special, and you don't have any practical control over the thing either.

[rory]

I guess, but if the point is interacting with the physical card, why are "counterfeit" cards worthless? Can't you interact with them in the exact same way as the "real" baseball card the counterfeit is copying? It seems like the value is all in the idea of owning one instance of a limited run.

[Hamuko]

>why are "counterfeit" cards worthless?

They're not worthless, they're worth less. I could easily hang up a counterfeit Mona Lisa on my wall and get a kick out of it. And if I stop getting a kick out of it, I can put it on Craigslist for $100 afterwards.

Of course, there's absolutely no history behind the painting as it wasn't painted by the renaissance man. No one would pay to see it because it would be about as significant as a JPEG of the Mona Lisa. However, that doesn't mean that it's worthless. Even that JPEG can make for a good phone wallpaper.

[rory]

Right, but in the case we're talking about (baseball cards), the counterfeit is worth WAY less. I'd guess it's worth about as much as a JPEG of it sized to be a phone wallpaper. Maybe a dollar.

[koffiezet]

One of the problems is that by definition, digital assets can be replicated at a virtual zero-cost. There is no "original" copy to be owned, since a digital asset that is uploaded is already a copy of a copy of a copy of some bits. If it happens to be an image or movie, and you open it in your browser, you're already looking at a copy. A baseball card that was produced in the 60's cannot be reproduced atom-for-atom. And there is an original mona lisa. Sure you can have a copy or picture of the mona lisa on your wall, but that will remain just that: a copy. But in the digital world, EVERYTHING is a copy. So what exactly is it that you own with an NFT?

Ownership is based on the ability to have something tangible of a limited supply, but as I established before, digital assets can be freely copied. What are you trying to do? Artificially limiting this? Trying to push through a completely new idea of 'ownership'?

The only thing owning an NFT gives you is bragging rights of a perceived ownership. But if I say "I don't recognize this NFT proving anything", copy your asset, reproduce it and sell it somehow, you can't stop me. You claim to own some bits and claim to be able to prove that, but I can just ignore that completely, since there is zero legal grounds for this.

This is why it is absolutely moronic in my mind to have an 'ownership' idea on digital assets. It's already bad enough in online games to have in-game assets, which is in a walled-garden, under control of the company making the game, so yeah, there they can do this, it adds some perceived value. But to actively introduce this concept in an open digital world sounds absolutely crazy, counter-productive and conceptually against everything my ideal version of the internet would be: open and free as in beer.

[flycaliguy]

What if in the future we have virtual reality merging more into our lives. In that world it would be different, having the real deal asset would be valuable.

[koffiezet]

Only of someone artificially limits the "supply" and the use.

[NohatCoder]

The climate impact of baseball cards is significantly lower.

It turns out that when you take stupid and scale it up massively, it becomes even more stupid.

[lottin]

The difference is that when you buy a collectible you get a collectible. When you buy an NFT you get a meaningless number.

[arebop]

You can teleport it around the world and you can prove its authenticity mathematically. But it lacks the romance of tangible artifacts.