[mclbdn]

Once, I've heard this pro-NFT argument: It's like if you would own the original of Mona Lisa. There are millions of copies, but you are the only one that actually owns the original.

That said, I still cannot wrap my head around owning some "art" in the digital world.

[JohnHaugeland]

> Once, I've heard this pro-NFT argument: It's like if you would own the original of Mona Lisa.

Except it isn't. That's just something someone says to get you to open your wallet.

At the end of the day, you don't actually own the thing being named.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

The only reasonable argument I've heard for this NFT nonsense actually goes something like this: Let's say there's an indie game developer who doesn't believe in DRM, and they sell you a game. What have you actually bought, given that you could have copied that game from anywhere? Why did you buy it?

Answering these questions, then answering them for NFTs almost makes it all makes sense. I say almost because, of course, they don't need a fucking blockchain to do any of this.

[dragonwriter]

> Once, I've heard this pro-NFT argument: It's like if you would own the original of Mona Lisa.

It's more like if you would own a certificate (very likely of dubious provenance itself) saying that you owned the original of the Mona Lisa, which certificate also listed the address at which the actual original is stored, in case anyone wanted to see what you “owned”.

But that makes a less-enticing pro-NFT argument.