[blueski]

I want to be excited about Web3 and feel I'm missing something, given how many smart minds are. But every time someone talks about NFTs on a podcast I feel there are many questions not answered.

For example - Kevin Rose has minted 1000 NFT's for "membership" of his podcast VIP group. Users had to pay ~3 ETH (~$12k) for each one - but he hasn't yet told them what the benefits of holding will be, when they'll come, and how long they'll be offered for.

As a user, I might be prepared to pay a membership for these benefits (being able to cancel any time) - but why would I risk $12k up front, having no idea what I'm getting? What incentive does he have to offer beyond the bare minimum to sustain his reputation?

The only way it makes sense is if it's about pure price speculation. Can anyone enlighten me on how this is progress?

[NelsonMinar]

You are not missing something. There is no Web3 other than a brief mania propped up by a bunch of black market cryptocurrency interest.

[miracle2k]

Yes, that is speculation. But there is also great art being sold that you may feel good about owning.

[blueski]

In what sense would I "own" the art? Do I have more rights over it than anyone else - and if so, how are these legally enforced? What prevents the artist from minting a different type of NFT (or whatever comes next) on that same artwork?

[vmception]

When people say own, they are referring to current possession. This a colloquialism that does not distinguish the legal rights, surprising that this has to even be said but it keeps coming up exclusively in the NFT topic. Try not to overthink it?

An artist can attempt to additionally bundle explicit rights into an NFT transaction. Just like they can attempt to bundle a physically copyright assignment with a sale of physical art. But they don't, in either case, thats not how the market has formed. Its a very uncommon thing that also has nothing to do with the technology, but the technology can help it, its still not what people are doing.

"But I like physical things because theyre valuable to me because I can touch them and look at them without a computer", okay, there are multiple generations of people that don't care by now. Compare it to the digital things then.

These populations do care that their earned digital goods are arbitrary modifiable and revokable entries in a company database, and have different limits about how much money they put towards something like that, versus this format of possession.

[blueski]

Limiting ourselves to the digital world - does ownership of an NFT give me any more rights to experience or enjoy a piece of work than a non-owner? If someone else wanted to use my Bored Ape as their Twitter photo, could I stop them?

[vmception]

Yes, it does. Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC), for example, has physical clubs and events that require users to prove provenance for access. This means signing an address that is a current owner, and applies to both physical and digital access of tertiary goods and services. Signing an address proves access to that address and means they have the private key to move everything.

The "right click and save as" "screenshot" and "twitter photo" people would not have access. Even the replicants discussed in the OP here would not have access.

Additionally, many popular NFTs, like BAYC, get airdropped many things for attention, some of which have varying degrees of value, or BAYC may be the only ones available to mint another new NFT being dropped. This would be enforced at the code or smart contract level. It is common for many less valuable or otherwise uninteresting NFTs to partner up and collaborate with other NFTs to make this chain of communities. Sometimes that results in some level of value. By common, I mean over the last 5 months in the NFT space. This concept has pre-dated NFT related things, and some of my best trades have been from either receiving airdrops or claiming things that went on to have a lot of value. But I really like some of the worthless things I've claimed too.

[blueski]

> "physical clubs and events that require users to prove provenance for access"

Feels like the "access to physical events" problem was solved before NFTs.

> The "right click and save as" "screenshot" and "twitter photo" people would not have access.

But per original question - if I wanted to use any Bored Ape as my Twitter photo, is there anything stopping me?

Take your point re: additional digital goods being delivered on chain, just feels a little anemic vs the richness of everything else available for free (or behind a membership) online. If users didn't care primarily about price appreciation, not sure whether that part would be exciting.

Maybe it requires the collector gene to be enthused? If so, can these kinds of Web3 applications ever go mainstream as Web2 apps?

[miracle2k]

No, you don't have more rights than anyone else, and nothing prevents the artist from minting more NFTs of the same artwork. But this is no different than buying say a print of a fine art photograph (that print would be physical, yet only artificially limited and easily mass-produced; you may or may not care about this quality).

[blueski]

Feels a little different, in that I'd then have a fine art print to put on my wall and enjoy. In this case I have a string of characters on a hard drive. If I didn't care only about price appreciation, why would I pick the latter?

[miracle2k]

Digital things will never be able to reproduce the physical qualities of objects. Yet digital art exists and can be appreciated. And if you appreciate it enough, buy the NFT the artist has for sale.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Or just give the artist some money and not waste any resources minting a worthless NFT?

[ninepoints]

And by "owning" what's meant is a signed hash of some URL that fits in a few kilobytes at most.

[miracle2k]

What do you think is it about those few kB on the chain that you think people do own? Can't those bytes be also easily copied?

[ninepoints]

Nothing. I'm an unabashed NFT hater/skeptic if it wasn't immediately obvious