[Kiro]

You see that it was minted by Wallet X, which the artist has confirmed is theirs. The image it's pointing to is irrelevant. You're buying a unique digital signature.

Is it inherently valuable? No, but it's scarce. There's only one such entry on the blockchain and it can only be owned by one wallet at a time.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

But anyone can create infinite ledgers and create their own entries on those ledgers all day. Snowflakes are unique too, but that doesn't mean any of them are particularly valuable.

[Kiro]

What matters is who issued it. If you buy an NFT of a Tyler Hobbs painting it's valuable because it was minted by Tyler Hobbs. That one is on one ledger only and even if he himself starts putting it on multiple ledgers it would devalue itself naturally.

It's all a social construct.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Sure, if you're going to argue from a position of economic nihilism that the only value anything is determined by what some idiot is willing to pay for it, then you can call that NFT valuable. That isn't much of a discussion though is it? Since I could also call Beanie Babies and tulip bulbs valuable. If I give my friend $100 for a red paperclip and he gives me $100 for a green paperclip could say those paperclips were worth $100.

[Kiro]

I'm not saying anything about the intrinsic value here, only that the blockchain indeed provides a way to make something digitally actually scarce. Is it valuable in itself? Definitely not.

[miracle2k]

Right. You just ask the artist. And if you don't care who the artist is, then you can always buy the replica.

[Kiro]

Yes, and I think a lot of people don't understand what they're buying and are just blinded by the hype. However, what gives say an NFT of one of Tyler Hobbs generative art paintings value is the fact that it was issued by Tyler Hobbs as part of his Fidenza collection. A random person uploading the same painting wouldn't be worth much if anything, unless the person buying it was tricked into thinking it was part of the original collection.