[brightball]

Because any explanation of what an NFT is makes clear that it’s completely worthless in virtually every context. People are promoting NFTs by buying and selling them for high amounts to associates to create the fake appearance of value.

There’s no value to any of them. It’s literally just an attempt to sell bits that aren’t unique or are easily reproduced.

Imagine if Taylor Swift sold a limited number of mp3 NFTs of a new song of hers. The song would immediately be copied leaving the purchased NFT’s as completely useless.

There’s no legal binding with them for any physical assets, so the entire thing is essentially a Ponzi scheme.

[strict9]

>Imagine if Taylor Swift sold a limited number of mp3 NFTs of a new song of hers.

Several artists have created "limited" or 1/1 NFTs, with full knowledge that whatever media contained therein could be easily digitally replicated. It's not about legality or tangible qualities, it's a pure digital ownership model.

The most recent example is David Lynch and Interpol: https://twitter.com/DAVID_LYNCH/status/1453013551241744394

Whoever wins this auction isn't paying money for an actual object (the film), it's buying the digitally-provable representation of the film that exists in their wallet, that they got (almost) directly from David Lynch.

[jjulius]

What's the difference between that, and offering a piece of music for purchase one time on Bandcamp?

That would be a digitally-provable representation of the music in their Bandcamp profile, and they would get it almost directly from the artist.

Edit: Hell, just for fun, how's that different from EBay?

[dropnerd]

if bandcamp goes out of business, your proof that you bought from the artist disappears when the aws rds database turns off

if you mint an nft, so long as there is some business querying the ethereum blockchain, you can prove your purchase

[brightball]

Everything in that explanation only reinforces the worthlessness IMO.

Caveat emptor