[ohgodplsno]

>they never degrade on the blockchain

That's entirely wrong. None of the NFTs are stored on the blockchain, merely a bit of JSON that contains a link to your image. If you're lucky, it's hosted on IPFS (and it'll disappear whenever everyone stops seeding it). Otherwise, it's just a link to your image host of choice, and the author is free to replace it with the image of a dick in three months, deleting all your resale value.

>their authenticity is cryptographically verifiable

No, it authenticates the seller. I can sell you an NFT of a Botticelli, that doesn't make me Botticelli or a member of his estate. Since every one on the market doesn't care for copyright, it doesn't matter.

>they are easily transferred online

So is the JPEG that I just right clicked

The collectible theory is a load of crap. NFTs are for laundering money and finding suckers.

[ahelwer]

> No, it authenticates the seller

Reminds me of that tweet about how programmers are like compilers that read things until they find the first concept they disagree with, then post it like an error message. Read the directly-following parenthetical.

[ohgodplsno]

Now now, I'm a smart compiler: I read an entire paragraph of bullshit before calling it out, with detailed error messages.

[NoGravitas]

I mean, the collectible theory can be right, and NFTs can still be for laundering money and finding suckers. I can see how they could function as the equivalent of the signature on a signed and numbered print. But no one is paying thousands of dollars for ugly monke or lion picrew pfps based on the art.