[iskander]

That's kinda the point. The "collector" can feel like they own it -- using an idiosyncratic new definition of ownership that you don't really have to agree with but other collectors/speculators/crypto peoplke also feel is real. The artist gets paid (kinda rare for art, much less digital art), everyone else can enjoy their artistic output. System working as designed.

[Cederfjard]

I’m curious if anyone actually feels like it’s real, or if it’s 99% speculation. I tend to think it’s the latter.

[iskander]

Some people really feel it, I know a few long-term collectors. Some people are into the VR galleries they assemble, others buy non-standard sized displays fit for specific NFTs to display in their homes. It's definitely an odd little community of rich people collecting digital art. And more broadly people feel attachment to their Twitter PFPs and feel like they can't truly use it unless they own it. It's a new social convention that's very unevenly distributed.

[Cederfjard]

But what is it really that they own? Bragging rights, that they paid for the artist to proclaim them the first (or subsequent) person to own a hash on one of multiple blockchains, that contains a link pointing to an image file of an artwork hosted on a CDN? And the artist can create infinitely more? And the image file might be taken down at any time? And while you can trace the provenance on the blockchain easily enough, linking the originating address with the actual artist needs some external evidence off blockchain that might not be around forever? And the blockchain it’s on might well lose popularity at some point and be forgotten? Etc?

I just can’t see why it’d be valuable to anyone, unless they’re just caught up in the hype and don’t think too hard about it. I can however see people taking advantage of the many, many people who feel like they missed out on, say, Bitcoin and want to get in on ”crypto”.

[iskander]

A provenance certificate which is socially interpreted as ownership. Not going to argue whether that's a good or durable interpretation of ownership, just attesting that some people really do feel it.

[Cederfjard]

I hear you. I expect the bottom to fall out of this, abruptly and fairly soon. But we’ll see.

[iskander]

I thought so too but now met enough people who believe in that interpretation and seen the virality of it; feel like it might have cultural legs. We'll see if it survives the crypto bubble popping and the monetary value of all the expensive NFTs disappearing.

[majormajor]

How can anyone possibly be considered a "long-term" collector of something so new yet?

[iskander]

It's essentially a state of intention: people buying art to appreciate having it rather than with an intention of selling. Most people in the NFT space are flippers riding bubbles, but a few actual collectors really do exist.

[esja]

Speculation and money laundering. NFTs are perfect for the latter.

[chizhik-pyzhik]

Does anyone have evidence for nfts-as-money-laundering? I keep seeing this thrown around without any actual reasoning...

[paconbork]

Really that's just an inherited property from physical art

[kibwen]

Digital art has been free of this "inheritance" for years. We don't need to impose the arbitrary constraints of physical art on digital art. It's as backwards as Blockbuster trying to ban digital video so that they can sell more DVDs. It's philosophical DRM for jpegs.

[iskander]

It's kinda the opposite of DRM though, there's a strong culture of CC0 / public domain licensing in the NFT space. The idea is that you should be able to use and remix media freely but you can preserve a kind of monetary value through which artists get paid via a novel concept of ownership.