[sfourdrinier]

I think the author is completely unaware of how things work and this piece is basically a rant on cryptos. The long version starting with saying cryptos are a scam. This sets the tone for the rest of the article.

A personal opinion vs something rooted in facts.

NFTs can be created on two primary blockchains. Ethereum and Solana. The author manifests no knowledge of those.

Solana is already proof of Stake. Ethereum is going to move to proof of Stake with Eth2.

PoS requires so much less computing power (therefore electricity) than Proof of Work. It's in fact relatively environmentally friendly.

NFTs have the potential to be a game changer. The author here sees NFTs as "Art". They're really not. Sure often NFTs are associated with Art but it's really... ownership of those pieces of Art.

But NFTs are really certificate of ownership. With smart contracts.

There is so much that can be done with NFTs. Memberships. Distributed voting. Royalties embedded in contracts so when NFTs are resold the original creator can get remunerated.

[bobsmooth]

What problem do NFTs solve that regular contracts and IP law don't? As far as I'm aware, NFT sales don't usually include the rights to the IP.

[TimJRobinson]

Automation, efficiency and composability.

They are more easily owned by groups, transferred, packaged with others, verified with software etc.

You could think of it like the shipping container revolution but for digital assets. Sure it's possible to do these things with legacy contracts but it's far less efficient and standardized.

[snypher]

More easily owned by groups?! We have well established legal processes, company structure and contract law to determine who owns what, and you're to say that NFT makes this more efficient? I don't see the parallel to shipping containers at all.

[TimJRobinson]

Did you see that group that recently came together to buy the copy of the constitution? Took 3 days to assemble thousands of people who pooled $40M to make it happen. All their individual contributions we're accounted for and tracked.

DAOs are an order of magnitude easier to assemble and manage than traditional companies. They can buy or trade NFTs by vote done many times per day in hours. And all of the internal processes and governance can be done via software.

[georgeecollins]

I don't know if NFTs solve this problem, or if there is a better solution without NFTs. But I can see a person winning buying or earning content in a game that they want to be able to authenticate. Obviously the servers of a game can authenticate that content but maybe it is possible to have content that is independently validated so that no change of ownership could prevent you from being able to claim your prize.

I don't know if that would really work and I don't know if there is a better way. But as people value digital things more and more in games I can see the idea of having a permanent version of something you achieved or bought as having an enhanced value.

I am no expert so please poke holes in this idea!

[kelseyfrog]

The problem of rug-pulling irl generally being illegal.

[627467]

How do you enforce contracts all around the world without having to hire lawyers from all jurisdictions and hope for timely legal resolution on any jurisdictions?

[maxerickson]

If I come to your house and steal some piece of art that you hold an NFT for, the NFT isn't going to get you your art back.

If I sell it, the NFT isn't going to notice that it is on display in a museum and take appropriate action.

And so on. Smart contracts are neat, but they depend on all the same mechanisms that other contracts use.

[snypher]

How is a NFT enforceable in contrast? There's no way to prove who owns what address, e-contract, etc, that doesn't just fall back onto standard established contract law.

[Wowfunhappy]

The “long version” has a very extensive explanation of why the author thinks proof of stake is useless.