[akhosravian]

Just to be clear: “ownership” in this context means a pinky promise from the creator to not create more NFTs of the same work.

It does not include any copyright assignment, or other aspects of ownership one might think of with physical items.

[system16]

Wouldn't that be fairly trivial to verify on the blockchain? I'd expect someone willing to spend millions would - or have someone - do some due diligence to confirm that the NFT they are buying is the first, unique NFT for this particular item.

[kortex]

I'm still a bit hazy on all this as well but I think that's the idea?

The NFT itself is basically some payload (any collection of bytes), a checksum of that payload, and some metadata. What's to stop someone from perturbing the payload by one byte and minting a second NFT? Nothing, really, other than "it's not the first". So yeah it's down to performing due diligence on the vendor and payload to make sure you aren't being snookered.

I think. I get the whole crypto aspect. I don't get the social/contract aspects.

[ashtonkem]

Yes. The issue is that the NFT isn’t actual ownership, and in the case of memes there is no actual owner who can sell it.

You can verify that the NFT is unique, probably. But it doesn’t get you anything else.

[HotHotLava]

I wonder how this compares to "limited edition" prints of classic artworks, which are also far more expensive than a "normal" print in exchange for being uniquely identifiable.