[vmception]

If you were ignoring the collectibles market before NFTs, you can ignore the collectibles market now.

The concept is not that hard, no different than purchasing a pokemon card, or more aptly a ‘rare’ skin in an online game.

Its just microtransactions that everyone can verify if you were first or not. The market willingness to pay a premium just bakes in the lack of need for appraisal or legal dispute over the collectible ownership history. It has nothing to do with actual superior rights conveyed.

[frozenwind]

Let's say I buy a collectible silver coin which is a limited edition emitted by the government or some entity. This has both value in that it's rare, and that it's made of silver and so can appreciate in value over time.

Would it be correct to think of NFTs in the same way, but adding a higher risk associated to it? (the risk of the copy leaking in the public and thus cancelling any benefit of the supposed ownership this NFT blockchain would grant - excluding the possibility of an NFT blockchain becoming some kind of worldwide enforced standard way of verifying ownership...but even then...)

[vmception]

Yes but I think you are overthinking the risk and overestimating the formation of a secondary market.

But most people overestimate these things in the collectible market.

All you get is the ease of prior price discovery and history of ownership. That’s only useful after the market has decided your edition was the valuable edition.

Copies leaking isn’t important because the history of ownership shows you were the only owner, at an earlier date. Literally solves all of the provenance and forgery issues that have plagued art world for millenium. People pay a premium for just that. Has nothing to do with comparisons to physical attributes or rare metals used. Like I said, a better analogy - for now - would be improvements to rare items in online games that people already were spending time and resources to acquire and trade. If you recall, many people weren’t willing to understand intangibles there either. Regardless, it is an extension of the same crowd and the same sentiment. Shareholders in the gaming company could pressure them to increase the supply of a rare item in a database, with NFTs that is not possible as earlier provenance can’t be modified. It assumes the market is discerning but if it already cares about a piece than it is. If it doesn’t, a secondary market would likely never form for the “investment” to begin with.

[dfxm12]

No. While both rare coins and NFTs have value as a collectable, it's different because the silver coin has at least some intrinsic value. NFTs do not.

If no one else wants your NFT, it's not worth anything. If one other person wants it, it's worth whatever it is to them. If you buy NFTs for value, you should consider it a part time job to continue the hype machine for your NFTs in the hopes of getting some sort of bidding war going for them among as many people as possible. This isn't so different from other collectible markets. This hype machine is likely the reason you know what an NFT is in the first place.

[vmception]

I like how we said the same thing but started our answers with the opposite conclusion.

[rchaud]

Collectibles are limited editions, or otherwise rare or hard to find items for hobbyists. Stamps, baseball cards, antique furniture pieces etc. It's a market because there are a community of people with that shared interest. Is there such a community around this?

CBMF is a grainy home video that doesn't feature anybody famous, or provide context to some historic event. There is no CBMF fan club. It's just a transient memory for most people, one out of numerous YT videos they've watched over the years.

[vmception]

You tried to make a distinction about collectibles that doesn’t exist. The universe has always been much broader than that.

The other responses expand on it.

It’s not our problem if there is a secondary market or not or ability to resell to anyone that cares ever.