[dvt]

> CryptoKitties are a quite bad reference example to argue against NFTs - because they have been and still are highly successful and valuable

Their volume for the past 24 hours has consisted of 73 trades[1]. In what world is that successful?

> [...] trading for thousands (some tens of tbousands) of dollars.

This is extremely misleading, no one's putting in 10 grand from their paycheck to buy a kitty; it's all in-ecosystem crypto "money" that's being sloshed around.

[1] https://nonfungible.com/market/history/cryptokitties?filter=...

[chrisco255]

You're misunderstanding how kitties work. They are bred, they were created as a game, not as a limited run collection, and so there's an infinite supply of Kitties. Although some, like early generation Kitties from December 2017 can go for high amounts, even today, they aren't expected to accrue value.

Some trading cards are extremely rare and valuable. Most are not. Vast majority of kitties fit in this category.

[DennisP]

Unlike NFTs, money is fungible. If they weren't "sloshing around" that crypto money they could easily sell it on Coinbase, withdraw the $10K, and buy something else.

[rspeele]

True, but if I've got a lot of ETH, is there anything stopping me from buying/minting a cheap NFT and then wash trading it between wallets I own for seemingly large sums of money -- all of which is actually staying within my possession, minus gas fees?

Unless there is some strong KYC on opensea that prevents this (I honestly don't know, having never used the platform), it seems almost inevitable. There's not really an objective way to value most of this stuff, so buyers are going to look at the price history to guesstimate what they might be able to resell an NFT for. But how much of that price history is bogus wash trades?