| >Wear & Tear is a good point, along with the inconvenience of selling physical goods, and the burden of having too many physical goods. These aren't inconveniences and burdens, it's part of our reality and we're wired to handle these things. We don't consider objects we value as burdens, for as long as their perceived value is considered "high", they're not burden/trash. You can't forget that we use physical goods to help us define and signal who we are. And some of that stuff works because of the properties of physical goods: wear & tear have stories attached to them. A scratched leather backpack has tales of backpacking traveling, just like a collection of MTG cards. This isn't a property of digital assets. They are barren. Trying to enforce artificial scarcity in a medium that tends to propagate and proliferate whatever it touches is going backwards once again, like enforcing something like copyrighted digital material in the world of torrents. Second hand digital goods makes no sense, it would be an artificial construct for the sake of itself. We're at the point of making up problems to shove NFT as a solution for it - just like what we're seeing with art and collectibles, they're tending to be automated and mediocre. When it comes to content, Scarcity and Internet shouldn't be in the same sentence. Now, can weapons in games start to acquire long term wear & tear, to be more personalized to each player. Sure! Does it need to be an NFT? No. |
The way I see it, Second-hand digital goods only doesn't make sense if you view it in the spirit of something digital being 2nd hand. It's re-selling. Which I believe can make sense.
I think that, despite the ability to acquire digital goods through piracy there is still a digital market, there is scope for a reseller market. Unless we're dismantling the idea of digital ownership at all.
NFT's are in a hype right now, but does that mean they solve no problems?