[danuker]

But I believe everything should be valued this way, including:

- stocks and real estate: people use "objective" metrics like discounting cash flow. But the time preference for discounting cash is subjective.

- precious metals and commodities: there are "objective" stock-to-flow metrics, but they all assume people will still desire precious metals, commodities, and the resulting products. This desire is subjective.

[zepto]

Everything is valued this way. All purchases are based on what people think the thing is worth.

Discounted cash flows, etc, are all ways people use to come to their ‘subjective’ conclusions.

It ends up being circular though - yes, human judgement is ultimately part of the equation, but that judgment end up being based on a prediction of future value, and often we can use understanding of markets or the intrinsic value of commodities to industrial processes to assess this.

Many people are arguing that the value of NFTs is in fact not based on an intrinsic value to future processes, and is purely a subjective bubble.

Arguing that all valuations have a component of human judgement and that people may just continue to like NFTs is not a counterargument.

A counterargument would be to explain how that will continue to be valuable independent of the subjective component.

Generally people seem to dodge this, and instead just say ‘everything is subjective’, i.e. the postmodern view.

[danuker]

And therefore... nothing has intrinsic value?

[zepto]

Only you and other NFT advocates seem to be drawing that conclusion.

[danuker]

I am not an NFT advocate.[1] But I do own Bitcoin, and I subscribe to the subjective theory of value.[2]

> It ends up being circular though - yes, human judgement is ultimately part of the equation

Well, I am glad you admit humans are who ultimately set prices on markets.

> but that judgment end up being based on a prediction of future value, and often we can use understanding of markets or the intrinsic value of commodities to industrial processes to assess this.

I interpret this as a more informed subjective value, but this discussion did not quite convince me there exists an intrinsic value.

The fact that you need X kg of flour to create Y kg of bread might be useful in knowing when the market prices for flour and bread are "consistent" - you call this "intrinsic value of commodities to industrial processes" - but I am of the opinion that demand prevails: the relative demand for bread and flour is what sets their relative price, and it can vary for reasons completely different from the industrial processes considered for an "intrinsic value".

Nevertheless, I thank you for going in circles with me, I feel like I have learned something, and I hope I expressed my own ideas clearly enough.

I will not follow this discussion for long; but if you feel like continuing, my e-mail is on my website which is on my profile. [3]

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29663787

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

[3] - https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=danuker

[zepto]

> and it can vary for reasons completely different from the industrial processes considered for an "intrinsic value".

Nobody disputes that bubbles and sentiment exist.

What is in dispute is the idea that they are the only things that determines value.

It’s ok that you are not convinced. Once you go down the postmodern rabbithole of believing that everthing is subjective, there is no way out through dialog.