[coralreef]

Lebron James rookie cards were always a scam.

[whateveracct]

Less of a scam than NFTs though

[bravetraveler]

Yea, you actually get the card. Not a pointer to it

[coralreef]

So you pay money for cardboard with ink on it, and it’s worth thousands? Sounds sus

[bravetraveler]

No, but I'd be more amenable to the price for the verifiable cardboard than infinitely numbered unauthoritative pointers

[coralreef]

You realize it’s not the pointer to a jpg that makes an NFT valuable, it’s the provability of the artist that published it?

[bravetraveler]

I recognize the distinction, but I don't believe it makes it particularly valuable.

The concepts are so abstract I have a hard time even discussing it. I'm not a collector or market person at all.

I'd be hard to convince buying anything of this sort of novelty. No judgement against those who do, I just grew up poor and protect my disposable income like a dragon.

The 'pointer' tells me the thing I reportedly own exists as a part of the chain, it doesn't certify any particular uniqueness or rarity, for example.

As long as it's affordable to mint, could I not could lob a personal attack and 'devalue' an NFT by cloning it? I suspect given the amount of speculation around these, it may even prove profitable for some time.

[whateveracct]

That's like calling an Andy Warhol a piece of paper with acrylic on it. Provenance is a thing.

[coralreef]

And cryptographic proofs are not a form of provenance?

[whateveracct]

A physical object with provenance is of significantly more historical significance.

A minted basketball card is actually even more anti-fragile than crypto. The crypto network may flop and cease to exist or be relevant. A card is a true artifact of sports history.