[capableweb]

You can prove that you own it (the NFT, not something else), which could be used for authentication systems. You could rent/lend it out, could also be used for subscriptions or whatever. Or you could sell it.

Basically, imagine a certificate you have on your computer, except it's publicly known, then imagine use cases based on that.

[ceejayoz]

> Basically, imagine a certificate you have on your computer, except it's publicly known, then imagine use cases based on that.

We have that?

https://pgp.mit.edu/

https://github.com/ceejayoz.keys

[lolinder]

Yeah, there's another top level thread that helped me understand that a bit better: not all NFTs are art NFTs.

Which is to say that I think the problem is less that NFTs are inherently worthless and more that the crypto community desperately needs to reclaim the brand from the speculators, if there's even anyone else left.

For all the cool applications that there might be for blockchain, the only ones that seem to gain traction are the ones that involve highly speculative investment machines. NFTs have been no different, and it's this tendency that makes many people very uncomfortable with anything involving crypto.

[dpark]

You have to realize that this is not a defense in NFTs as they are being discussed.

The discussion is art NFTs being worthless (or not). Coming in and saying “yeah, but not all NFTs are about art” it’s not helpful. If you think that art NFTs are stupid but the underlying tech has promise, then say that. Don’t defend “NFTs” because that looks like you’re defending the value of the current ones actually being discussed.

Engaging in a semantic argument just muddies the whole issue and looks like you’re defending something you are not.