[fab1an]

I feel that NFT pricing exuberance (or lack thereof) is distracting both critics and even fans from the core innovation here - 1. the capacity to signify a digital original and 2. to decentrally organize ownership (though it's more like possession) of these items.

The ultimate question for crypto as a whole is whether the mass market wants digital possession that transcends a single centrally managed database. Personally am convinced we'll get there, but the onboarding mustn't happen through speculation, but specific unique utility, mostly interoperability/composability.

[alasdair_]

>whether the mass market wants digital possession that transcends a single centrally managed database

Even if the market wants this, it's certainly not what is being offered. If OpenSea delists your NFT in their single centrally managed database, it may as well no longer exist.

[WFHRenaissance]

This is a problem that's actively being worked on (SudoSwap as an AMM for NFTs, Scatter.art as a competitor, et cetera).

[sharkjacobs]

"digital original" is on its face absurd

An analog original could be valuable or at least meaningful because it's impossible to create an identical copy of anything in which exists in the material world.

But there is no way to distinguish between two copies of digital data.

[nonameiguess]

The core failure seems a lot more fundamental than that to me. The only things you can "digitally" possess are digital items. But people don't care about owning blockchain entries. They want to own paintings and houses. Property rights are a legal matter, however. The only way ownership of a blockchain entry can entail ownership of a physical good is if the law says so. And, at least for now, law is centralized. Only the state can make it and only the state can enforce it. If the entity that arbitrates and decides property claims is centralized, whether or not their ledger is also centralized makes no difference.

[sithadmin]

The major distraction is that a 'digital original' is a fiction. I can ignore your blockchain and make any digital IP fungible.

[smoldesu]

Yep. Just to tack on - even if you minted a "master copy" of your digital asset on the Blockchain, it still doesn't represent anything meaningful:

- It doesn't guarantee that you are the first or exclusive owner of this digital asset

- It doesn't correlate to physical ownership

- It doesn't hold any water in a legal sense, if you want your ownership of an NFT to be ratified then you need to use the same centralized avenues as everyone else

[Tao3300]

You're one evil motherfunger!

[manholio]

> 1. the capacity to signify a digital original and 2. to decentrally organize ownership (though it's more like possession) of these items.

There is nothing novel in this. You could do it in Bitcoin too by agreeing that a certain transaction structure that includes a digital hash is a valid way to signify an original with that hash, and a spend from that address represents an ownership change.

It's simply a convention, and people don't do it because it's mostly a useless diversion from established ways to record and trade IP.

The true NFT innovation is the marketing gimmick that such a convention has any real world relevance and somehow magically makes the IP non-fungible. This enabled massive speculation on essentially worthless (and fully fungible) IP, expressed in a clunky and impractical distributed database.

[simonw]

Most regular people really, really need a working "I forgot my password" feature.

[yazaddaruvala]

I'd like to read the op ed about the first painting that ever sold for substantial money, and its eventual theft or destruction.

Setting the scene: Before there were Banks, Mayors, Kings, or Mob bosses. Some random town or village. The wealthiest farming family has bought/fought (an exchange of a different type of resource) for most of the land in the town. That family has started to employ people on their land to build more wealth. This family doesn't know what to do with their wealth. They own all of the gold and jewels the traveling sales people bring by. They have built a castle and store treasures in their vault. They hire a militia to keep the peace. They have more money coming in than they know what to do with. Even the people in the town are happy. They now have a big wall paid for by this family. The family's militia is no fun, but it really has kept the peace. Trade is going well, and the towns folk haven't had gone a winter hungry in years.

Scene 1: One day a traveling artist brings canvas with chalk based drawing. A young adult from the wealthy family, called X, have seen similar, but this one is big. Its bigger than ever and connects with them emotionally. They want it. Sadly its already been sold. The artist offers to get a second made and bring it next month. However, X has connected with it emotionally. They connect with it so much they don't just want it, they want no one else to have it. They offer the artist more money than the artist's lifetime earnings to never again make chalk on canvas again. The canvas is hung up.

Scene 2: Everyone else in the town laughs/grumbles, "they spent 10 lifetimes of our earnings on a big canvas of chalk?". "No so that the artist would never make another". "... but the artist doesn't even live here. Couldn't they just make another?"

Scene 3: 3 years later, the canvas is a big deal in town. To some, laughable. To others, luring. Many more artists brought over canvas of chalk and many wealthyish families bought them for more reasonable amounts, but the wealthy family didn't just have any old canvas of chalk, theirs was a "..." no other could be made. The others are bought and sold, but their canvas is priceless.

Scene 4 - Alt A: Its the middle of the night. A band of thieves, orphans barely in their teens, an adultish figure keeps them in order and has directed them into the castle. The jewels and gold are in the vault, its very guarded but the children don't turn right towards the basement. Everyone that has tried for the vault has been hung in the town square. They move quietly to the great room. Their orders are clear. They pull down the canvas, open the frame, roll up the canvas, and are out. (in the morning) The town bells ring. The streets are a mess of militia. The thieves are already miles away and meeting their fence.

Scene 4 - Alt B: There has been a multi year famine in town. The town is upset, angry with the family. The solution is to go to war! They do battle with the neighboring city. They just happen to win. The cost was many lives but now they have enough reserves to get through many winters. This doesn't solve the actual root cause and the fields still don't make food. The resources continue to deplete and the canvas of chalk was sold at a massive loss to some close enough but far away town's wealthy family. Mostly as a reminder / teaching tool for their children not to "waste" money like X. "It drives a town to famine".

Both versions of this story have happened through human history. They just predate documentation. Meanwhile, Art today can still be worth a lot of money.