[thephyber]

The NFT is a pointer to content (pointed by a URL). If the underlying content at that URL changes, the assumptions about the original NFT minting / first transaction change.

Bundling a cryptographic hash with the original NFT assertion of content accurately describes the content the NFT was intended to be minted for.

Example analogy: an NFT is like a receipt for a baseball card signed by a player. If the NFT is minted when the URL to the content points to a baseball card for Player A (popular player rookie card), but someone hijacks the domain or the URL and changes the content of that URL to Player B (no-name player who only lasted half a season in the pro league), that hijacker has performed a misrepresentation/fraud. The hash doesn't prevent the content swap, but it provides assurance that the content still matches the original intent of the NFT minting.

[renewiltord]

But that makes the NFT less valuable. If the content at the url changes without the hash you still have a useful NFT. With the hash, your NFT is burned when it changes.

As a buyer I would want that one less. In the fraud case adding the hash damages only me.

[hoten]

Without a hash you just simply trust the issuer unconditionally? And you prefer this trust over a cryptographic guarantee the content, and thus the meaning, of the NFT won't change?

This whole NFT really is inscrutable.

[renewiltord]

I see what you mean. By producing the content you can verify the cryptographic hash. Okay, I misunderstood previously.

Yes, that is meaningful. What usually happens in the case is you just as well use a content-addressing system like ipfs for the URI.

Yes, you could just as well store just the hash. Very reasonable.