|
|
|
|
|
by aboodman
1905 days ago
|
|
> Once Jack has been shown to be willing to oversell himself just to make a quick buck, it will immediately devalue everything associated with him, including the original NFT. You're buying into the quality/credibility/longevity of the creator here, and once it's shown he's a shill there's not much reason to value any of his original "work" highly. To be clear I don't personally see any value at all in an NFT that doesn't have legal IP rights attached. I think we agree that far. However: > it will immediately devalue everything associated with him, including the original NFT It might. Kind of hard to theorize as to what the result would be. The reason I'm hesitant to jump to that conclusion is because of the timestampy nature of blockchains. It's not as if the market is suddenly flooded with forgeries and nobody can tell what's real. It's baked into the blockchain which one was first. In fact you might argue it would not be possible (economically) for Jack to do this in the first place since nobody would buy the second instance. |
|
If the value of a signed copy is mostly performative, then NFTs alone maybe should not have value (because nobody can really see that you own one). If the value of a signed copy is personal, then maybe it does.
I don't personally see any value in owning an NFT, but it's not cut and dry to me that nobody else will or should.