[breadbreadbread]

Fashion houses burning clothes to maintain image and Dabeers creating a diamond cartel are not good. Im not saying that artifical scarcity doesnt exist, im saying that its bad and we shouldnt build economies around it.

For digital art vs physical art, there is a clear difference between "there will only ever be one mona lisa" and "I am not going to press cntrl-c cntrl-v on this image license"

[plokiju]

I’m all for artificial scarcity. Collectors are going to find rare things to collect. It would be better if they didn’t, but I think it’s probably a part of human nature to some degree.

Personally, id be ecstatic if collectors decide they can get their fix collecting rare jpegs and Pokémon cards instead of “truly scare” ivory, furs, or blood diamonds.

What’s the harm? What am I missing?

[debaserab2]

If the only type of scarcity is artificial scarcity does it hold its value the way something that has true scarcity does?

[breadbreadbread]

To me, TCGs are defensible because they are Games in which you are knowingly consenting to a system in which collection is a part of the experience. The manufacturers give a standard MSRP for cards during their printing period. Aftermarket cards are priced based on the utility given within a game system and that feeds into a collectors valuation. This is, I think, an acceptable outlet for the humanistic urge to collect things. I do think its exploitative but at least the messaging is clear and fair.

I take issue with systems which exploit gambling urges for profit. NFT's claim to be the future of DRM for independent artists, but they are exploited into becoming pump-and-dump schemes and wildly speculative markets. They use language used to defend artistic IP but ultimately function as a game with arbitrary rules.