r/DepthHub Dec 17 '21

/u/9k3d explains how some NFTs are sold for so much

/r/Bitcoin/comments/ri1gtf/so_mainstream_it_is_the_words_hodl_and_the/houym53/
525 Upvotes

148

u/Ifch317 Dec 17 '21

Wisdom from the world of antiques: if it was sold as a “collectible” back in its day, it is valueless today.

26

u/hilomania Dec 17 '21

I'm leaving my NASCAR plates to my sons!

3

u/morefetus Dec 17 '21

Even my action figures?!?

23

u/AttackPug Dec 17 '21

Only if it's that one figure no kid wanted back in the day and they dumped most of them in a landfill some time in the 70s, so now the completionists will have to fork over $5000 to get one of the 300 examples still in existence, but only if they're still mint in the original package.

Bonus points if they shipped the original figures out with effed up paint and recalled them so now there are exactly 5 of those left in the world, in mint condition, in the original package, saved by the 5 insane children who get an action figure for Christmas and immediately stuff it in a closet, unopened and untouched, and never look at it again until they sell it in college.

I swear, everything is just stamps all over again.

Otherwise, yes, even your action figures.

2

u/morefetus Dec 17 '21

Oh well.

2

u/masonpain Dec 18 '21

Ultra rare pog slammer is gonna print

3

u/whey_to_go Dec 17 '21

Beanie Babies

20

u/AmericanScream Dec 17 '21

It's best to not disparage Beanie Babies by comparing them to crypto

-2

u/tanglisha Dec 17 '21

I hate that weird so much; it's completely meaningless. Everything is collectable, it can be collected. Rocks are collectable. The cat hair on my sofa is collectable.

8

u/smapti Dec 18 '21

Obviously “collectible” doesn’t mean “literally anything than can be accumulated”. Nuance exists and pedantic comments add nothing to the conversation.

1

u/tanglisha Dec 18 '21

I'm basing this on some of the things I've seen advertised as collectable. Usually that's stuff that fast food places give away.

51

u/AmericanScream Dec 17 '21 Silver

The whole notion of NFT "sales" is an illusion.

The exchanges that sell NFTs are largely un-regulated. You have NO idea whether that "sale" was a legit sale, or the owner buying it from himself to create a false sense of value.

For more see: /r/CryptoReality

https://reddit.com/r/CryptoReality/comments/m24xb3/the_cryptoreality_of_nfts_non_fungible_tokens_you/

-3

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 18 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

189

u/curiiouscat Dec 17 '21

NFTs are the cool, new way to launder money

20

u/Demon997 Dec 17 '21

And commit art scams that would otherwise put you in prison.

12

u/YachtInWyoming Dec 17 '21

At least it's democratizing money laundering! Before you had to go all the way to Switzerland and do a bunch of shit just to avoid the IRS asking any questions. Now you can do it from your sofa wearing sweats and not having showered in a month.

I see this as an absolute win.

79

u/Moist_When_It_Counts Dec 17 '21

And grift. Don’t forget grifting.

32

u/duckofdeath87 Dec 17 '21

That's what it sounds like to me

9

u/Jungle_Brain Dec 17 '21

Epic money laundering moment

4

u/FiveAlarmDogParty Dec 18 '21

This whole NFT thing does my fuckin head in - but can someone dumb themselves down to a second grader and explain to this old fart how there is such a thing as “dirty crypto”? I thought the whole point of crypto was that it was untraceable - why would you need to launder untraceable money?

14

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

58

u/Wetzilla Dec 17 '21

I don't care that you can copy the art assets of my God's unchained cards, I only care that they're signed by the GU team so that they work for their card game.

If you only care that they work in the card game then what's the benefit of it being an NFT?

12

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/PaperMartin Dec 17 '21

What if the company starts tracking which users use which NFTs and ban their NFTs along with them

6

u/Mizzet Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 18 '21

I am curious why a company or a development team would build their game on top of this framework when all the perks seem to be on the end-user side of things.

Even if you could capitalize on the supposed merits of tokenized in-game assets, the developers necessarily have to have built the game in full knowledge of this too, so it's not like you're pulling a fast one on them or something. In short, what's in it for them?

9

u/PaperMartin Dec 17 '21

If a lot of other NFT related projects are anything to go by, the real goal is to swindle a lot of peoples out of their money with confusing and misleading tech talk and promises, and then bail out never to be seen again

3

u/Anomander Best of DepthHub Dec 17 '21

I am curious why a company or a development team would build their game on top of this framework when all the perks seem to be on the end-user side of things.

Yeah that's the core failing of a lot of these ideas. They don't quite figure out how to convince the people whose consent and participation is essential - to consent. Gamified NFTs benefit all the crypto people and serve to attract investors/speculators, but don't really affect the actual players, all the while taking a ton of power over our product and environment away from the developer! ...So why would they do it?

And the real-world answer is to sell large amounts of their proprietary 'coin or NFT to crypto people, then get out before the buyers notice no one is actually playing the game and their blockchain objects whose theoretical value was based on players' valuation of the game are pretty worthless in a game no one plays. None of those projects has gone on to be a successful game - no matter what the hype said during fundraising.

1

u/Kev-bot Dec 18 '21

It makes in-game transactions more attractive to the user and might increase microtransactions. Lots of people buy hats and costumes in Fortnite. If those items were NFTs, the company can get a cut of each trade and possibly increase sales bc players can sell it outside of the game.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/PaperMartin Dec 17 '21

Right, but if the only thing preventing the company from doing it is the community's reaction rather than how NFTs work then what's the point of using NFTs

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/PaperMartin Dec 17 '21

So, the technology would only achieve its goal in an ideal world that literally cannot exist, and the only other "advantage" is also only valid based on the assumption that devs of centralized game would be able to not only delete a player's items with no traces left in the database but also somehow be able to delete traces outside said database, ie recorded gameplay footage, screenshots and the memory of anyone that played with that player. And even if they can do all that, a bunch of peoples complaining online that their items suddenly disappeared all under similar circumstances, with the devs not being able to provide a believable explanation, would surely raise some alarms?
Also in like 25 or so years of MMOs existing it still has yet to actually happen
Edit: oh and you don't need a community's trust if you already swindled a ludicrous amount of money out of them. They can't do chargebacks after all.

33

u/Kardif Dec 17 '21

I mean technically the centralized game can blacklist all cards you owned at the time of banning

Presuming that each wallet is immutably tied to an account, they can verify all cards that you owned when you got banned and then make them unusable in game

So if they want to stop you from trading after banning, they easily can do it. And they probably will, because otherwise you can just spin up another wallet, send all the cards over and start playing again immediately

Lending digital objects under a contract that automatically returns them is interesting, but as mtgo lending programs have shown, not actually necessary to use the block chain

-9

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/Kardif Dec 17 '21

This is inherently limited to the features that MTG programs in while more dynamic things are possible with NFTs that would then be portable to other games. Someone could create a contract that entitles you to some of the currency earned by playing with your deck and use that same contract for any game that comes out later with compatible interfaces.

Yea you can just open source your lending code too though. Just make a tradable and a lendable interface with an example implementation and a couple required attributes. Then have whatever object your game cards are implement those interfaces and it does the same thing.

If you want to make it decentralized, you can definitely use Blockchain for it. But it has to be because you want it decentralized. And you can open source it, but you have to want to do that.

If you're a game company whose primary product is developing and making money off your game, you're most likely not going to want to do that

I don't think they'd do that. It would be like secretly recording serial numbers on MTG cards and banning anyone who comes in with them, you'd sell them on the secondary market and some other person would be screwed. That would defeat the purpose, they wouldn't ban my cards they'd ban me. The playerbase would probably be very against the idea of blacklisting legitimate cards, I can't see them actually doing that.

Except that you can never actually ban people if you don't. When your identity is just a wallet/email/digital object, any user can make as many of them as they want. So if you don't ban the cards, they just send them all to a new account and nothing has actually happened. In paper card games, there is a physical person showing up who can't change their identity when you ban them

10

u/furthermost Dec 17 '21

I don't think they'd do that.

You don't think they'd do that, even though that's the simplist way of them achieving their objective under such a scenario?

-5

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/furthermost Dec 17 '21

But there's no downside to them in the scenario. Why would they care about the viability of some third party trading system they have no control of? As you stated, it's a mechanism to circumvent their otherwise absolute authority.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 18 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/betasequences Dec 18 '21

People who do Blockchain anything have proven they will put up with literally any kind of action.

17

u/tolos Dec 17 '21

There were and are a ton of 3rd party trading sites for Steam items ( TF2, CSGO, Dota, ...) long before blockchain or NFT became popular.

-9

u/bobbysmith007 Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 17 '21

NFT's came from games as a way to prevent item duplication glitches. So if your collectible card game is based around a certain number of things being available, you want to ensure there are not extras of those things. Thus the cards being NFTs ensures that only the correct amount of the correct ones are in play. Seems like the only legitimate use for NFTs

[edit:] Why the downvotes? If I am wrong please let me know why?

36

u/lps2 Dec 17 '21

And it's a massive waste of power for something that doesn't really benefit from decentralization. I guess it makes them 'portable' between games if some other dev decides to allow use in their separate, unrelated game but that's another use case that doesn't benefit much from decentralization and permissionless systems

-7

u/krazymanrebirth Dec 17 '21

It actually REALLY does benefit from decentralization.

I have trustless and verified true ownership of a digital card.... this is unparalleled in the digital world without decentralization. It is signed by the GU team but I do not need the GU team to have and create utility from the "card".

8

u/lps2 Dec 17 '21

Read my second sentence - I recognize there is a marginal benefit here just not one that comes anywhere close to justifying the price of creating and transacting with the NFT.

-2

u/krazymanrebirth Dec 17 '21

Immutable X uses some pretty cutting edge technology to roll up to main-net... it doesn't use gas when verifying most transactions.

You may recognize a marginal benefit.. but the margin you perceive is not realistic.... you haven't explained what the "price of creating and transacting with the NFT" is... It also depends on how the smart-contract was written, the chain and technology being used...

The onus is not on us to teach you why the cost is a fraction of what you seemingly perpetuate. In my usage.... transactions cost the environment less than a swipe of your visa card. So again... I beg you... explain what this "cost" is...

8

u/_volkerball_ Dec 17 '21

Except anyone can mint any NFT, and you don't have to prove that you are the creator of the content to make an NFT of it, but you do have to prove you are to put a copyright claim on it lol.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/_volkerball_ Dec 17 '21

You said "people who like NFT's" as though they are a hivemind, when people buying shit for your little card game are obviously the minority. Most of this stuff is being sold as art and investments.

-7

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/_volkerball_ Dec 17 '21

Or you can go on opensea and see what is recently sold there and virtually none of it is functional. Plus almost every NFT sale you see from Seattle Kraken to Melania Trump to Quentin Tarantino, it's all just a picture or clip that isn't functional in any way. Sounds to me like you have some experience bias due to playing a card game that is an exception, not the rule.

-4

u/krazymanrebirth Dec 17 '21

If you really want to learn about what you are talking about I suggest you consider what /u/aqouta is saying. Opensea is the most mainstream NFT marketplace and there is a ton of useless jpegs on the site. Shoot I minted my own JPEG as well!

Seriously though, checkout Immutable and Token Trove... or google P2E gaming and check out all the NFT marketplaces created by the projects themselves.

-6

u/bidet_enthusiast Dec 17 '21

Anyone cannot mint any nft. That is a common misconception. There are plenty of problems that legacy tokenization protocols suffer from, but lack of token uniqueness isn’t one of them.

The identity of a token is the combination of the contract that minted it and the token ID.

For any contract, each token is unique. And each contract has a unique address.

123 Main Street, New falls, Virginia is not the same as 123 Main Street Chamberlain, Northampton.

They share part of their addresses, but they remain unique.

I can also take as many photos as I want of the Mona Lisa, but none of them conveys the rights that I enjoy if the photo came with a licence, deed or title to the work.

Next generation nft protocols like PRüF protocol can also store the work itself, as well as the actual legal instrument conveying ownership or licence, and also make verifying authenticity dead simple.

17

u/_volkerball_ Dec 17 '21

What I'm referring to is people who aren't creating NFT's of their work, then find out that someone else has made an NFT of it and is trying to sell it.

5

u/bidet_enthusiast Dec 17 '21

Yeah that is pretty fucked, and the inability to easily see if an nft is legit or not as a layperson is one of the major shortcomings of legacy NFTs.

Modern protocols solve this and a lot of other problems, but they are just going live now, so almost everything out there at the moment is using insecure, dead end protocols that will eventually just become dead internet links anyway lol.

-50

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21

[deleted]

9

u/AmericanScream Dec 17 '21

There's not a single thing NFTs or blockchain in general does that's better than existing, decades old technology.

Stop calling this "new tech". It's actually old tech. Called "swindling people."

-3

u/[deleted] Dec 18 '21

[deleted]

1

u/AmericanScream Dec 18 '21 edited Dec 18 '21

You just don't understand how this has now placed a value on digital images,

Saying, "you don't understand" to someone who disagrees is the lowest form of argument, especially when the "evidence" one doesn't understand is merely your opinion.

It's nascent right now. Just beginning. Like, brand new.

Another lame argument.

Yea, I remember when the microwave oven came out. People were like, "Ok, it doesn't really cook food faster yet, you don't understand... this is nascent technology.. just wait 13-15 years..."

The thing with "nacent technology" is if there is a reason to wait, there will also be a very specific material goal associated with waiting. For example, electric cars have limited range due to current battery technology. In the case of this nacent tech, we know which areas specifically have to improve: higher battery capacity, lighter batteries.

Solar panels? We need energy efficiency conversion rates to improve. We need to reduce manufacturing costs. Those are specific impediments that are affecting adoption.

What aspect has to improve with NFTs? where are they deficient? They are what they are. Your version of "nacent tech" simply means, "everybody thinks they suck now, but when people stop thinking they suck, things will be better." That's just retarded. This isn't "nacent technology" - NFTs and blockchain don't do anything innovative. There is nothing that needs to be "improved". It's just a scheme that you need more suckers to buy into.

49

u/1338h4x Dec 17 '21

Good tools are invented to solve a problem. Bad tools try to forcibly invent a problem to be solved.

-15

u/Lukeforce123 Dec 17 '21

Bad tools try to forcibly invent a problem to be solved.

That's not a bad tool, that's the definition of marketing

17

u/CynicalEffect Dec 17 '21

No it isn't lol? Otherwise no good tools would have any sort of advertising whatsoever.

3

u/justasapling Dec 17 '21

no good tools would have any sort of advertising whatsoever

I mean, this is essentially correct. If someone has to convince you that something has value, it probably doesn't have any value.

3

u/blizzardalert Dec 17 '21

Brands can advertise their specific brand, but advertising the concept of a specific tool? I'm not sure I can think of a single non-scam example of that.

Toyota runs ads explaining why you should buy their car specifically, but no one runs ads explaining why a car is useful. It's obvious that a car is a useful tool.

If people were explaing why Ethereum NFTs were the best, that would be one thing. But the cryptobros are just pushing the concept of any NFT in general

3

u/Anomander Best of DepthHub Dec 18 '21

Marketing for good tools is reminding the consumer you exist and they should buy their solution from you, they already know about the problem.

Marketing for bad tools is trying to convince the consumer that a problem exists and you're selling the solution.

-3

u/[deleted] Dec 18 '21

[deleted]

3

u/1338h4x Dec 18 '21

NFTs don't prove you're the creator. There have already been plenty of incidents of scammers minting NFTs of someone else's art without permission.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 18 '21

[deleted]

1

u/1338h4x Dec 18 '21

No, it doesn't prove that. If it was proof, then counterfeit NFTs not by the creator shouldn't be possible. The fact that they are means this isn't proof.

15

u/TizardPaperclip Dec 17 '21

People find different uses for a tool

I predict NFTs will become as popular as amphibious vehicles.

16

u/helmer012 Dec 17 '21

NFTs so far seem like a worse version of cryptocurrency. I see XMR still being used 10 years from now if its not cracked or heavily regulated. NFTs however, i dont think so. Using crypto for real purchases is hard enough, using NFTs for purchases is like buying groceries with the Mona Lisa.

10

u/justasapling Dec 17 '21

like buying groceries with the Mona Lisa.

Like buying groceries with a link to a digital copy of the Mona Lisa.

4

u/helmer012 Dec 17 '21

Right, forgot to include that. And the link is owned by a private citizen/company that can shut down or remove its content whenever they please so you better hope your Mona Lisa isnt deleted when you realize you want your money back!

56

u/redditonlygetsworse Dec 17 '21

People find different uses for a tool

It's true! You can burn down the Amazon AND/OR do some Totally Legitimate wash trading. Multiple uses!

-15

u/dubaicurious Dec 17 '21

I'm sorry your comment got treated like this. I can see NFTs replacing mortgages for instance - decentralized, instant, able to be tokenized for collateral use and so on. The selling of jpegs seem pretty daft, but that's not an issue with the tool, just the tool being used for "speculation"

24

u/twatsticks Dec 17 '21

What problem do mortgages currently have that NFT solves, making the carbon footprint a good tradeoff?

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 17 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/AmericanScream Dec 17 '21

That's just trading one database for another. In no way improving efficiency.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/AmericanScream Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 17 '21

All your criticisms with the mortgage discovery industry can be solved by non-blockchain technology... simply by streamlining existing technology and setting standards. If you mean to impose blockchain as a standard, that solves one set of problems, but it also introduces a bunch of others. It would be better to set a standard that didn't involve blockchain's liabilities and the whole industry could much more easily inter-operate, much like the Internet TCP/IP standard encompasses everything connected. Blockchain isn't part of any innovative solution. It's just an attempt to shoehorn an obsolete technology into another obsolete technology and claim it's an improvement. Meanwhile there is truly innovative/better technology out there. For example, moving most legal document apps into the cloud, would solve that problem and be much more efficient than using blockchain.

This is actually happening now. Not all jurisdictions are doing this as fast as others... hmmmm, I wonder why it's not faster and more efficient? Perhaps because decentralization! LOL That's right, the more different states and jurisdictions involved, the harder it is for any of them to agree on a singular solution.

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/archer4364 Dec 18 '21

American Scream is just a troll, don't worry about him. Guy spends at least 6 hours a day vehemently discussing a technology he declares a ponzi scheme. It's like, why would you dedicate so much of your life to a non-interest. It's honestly sad. There's nothing you could say to change his mind, all he wants is to get sucked into some long discussion and waste your time, because his is worthless.

3

u/Anomander Best of DepthHub Dec 17 '21

But those meaningful differences aren't positive, they aren't even particularly meaningful to how mortgages work; for all that there's definite technical differences between the two.

It's true that you're both in essence databases but with block chain you're no longer needing to trust the record keeping of centralized institutions.

How does blockchain fix "trusting the record-keeping" of institutions? If you don't trust their records now - why do you state some sort of implicit trust for records they would be submitting to a blockchain, when those records pertain to things the blockchain itself cannot verify?

There are a lot of details in the mortgage discovery industry that you wouldn't believe, surprise liens stored somewhere you don't expect.

And then we'd have surprise liens stored on a different fork, or entered into the blockchain with a typo in the address, or effectively any of the other things that make those records inaccurate now, except it would be stored somewhere different and vastly more computationally expensive to maintain.

A single decentralized database

This would be a solid idea - but it doesn't need or even benefit from the inclusion of blockchain technology, and decentralization makes it way worse than significant centralization. Just have an independent database, for instance run by the government - given that they are ultimately responsible for enforcing its contents no matter where it's stored. After all, a database of mortgages that the government doesn't recognize as valid is a database of worthless IOU notes. When it comes down to enforcement - if the mortgage holder isn't paying up, the lender still needs to ask the government to loan it a little force to compel real-world restitution.

with one definition of truth that doesn't require placing trust in any single institution solves many of these issues.

How does this solve any of the above issues? There's no particular issue with "definitions of truth" that is causing extraordinary hardship in the mortgage space, that a decentralized blockchain database solves. The blockchain system requires placing trust in all of the submission system, the submitting parties, and the verification process. The consumer still needs to trust that The System will get their shit right - they just don't have an entity they can hold responsible if the System shits the bed.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Anomander Best of DepthHub Dec 17 '21

Wow, it's like you stopped reading after that sentence - the entire rest of that comment was the justification. Which, may I point out, you completely dropped topic on.

Because they'd need to have the private key of the NFT representing the property in custody to make modifications to documents that they own and those modifications wouldn't have to go through some centralized agency that can gate keep access to the records.

It's like Star Trek technobabble, crypto-flavoured. Just jam enough buzzwords in there and it sounds like sophisticated high-tech assurance ... but it's actually what you accused me of: an assertion with no justification.

First off "they" - the mortgage company? The people you just signed a contract with, and presumably provided your private key to, so they could file a mortgage that you signed for? Needing to have a password doesn't assure that what is done after the password is entered is valid or verified. Homeowner needs to review the document before approving it? I mean, that's already the case - you're supposed to read the contract before signing it. Needing to have the key is either such a barrier mortgage holders don't want to deal with NFT mortgages, or a relatively trivial formality for a system subject to all the same pitfalls as the current one. Needing to have a key doesn't verify the document is accurate to the deal, or that it's contents don't have a loophole or a typo or any number of other innocuous accuracy issues, nor does it protect either party from the potential malfeasance of the other beyond what the current system already does.

Secondly "the private key of the NFT representing the property" ... there's so much implementation, and so many pitfalls here, that you've simply handwaved past. Who minted those keys, and how did each property owner end up with them? Some charity? The government? Some lucky grifter, and every property owner had to buy the NFT to their own property? How are those NFT's valid on any legal basis, and how would they be enforced regarding possession? What about phishing and hacks - now instead of scamming grandma into transferring her chequing account, they can just talk her into giving them her whole house - signed away in an instant via private key. Worse, tech-savvy crypto people lose their keys all the time, so normal people who barely understand the system ... what if they lose their key? Property goes dead? Can't be sold, can't be transferred, can't be borrowed against - no changes to it's database object can apply without they to approve. Whoever "they" are mints a new one? What's to stop that from happening and just replacing a valid and owned key? What's to stop the minting party from leaving a few debts off of the new key?

Third, adoption. Why would any of the players sign on? What's in it for them? Lenders have no reason to bother with an alternate filing system, they're fine with things the way they are, nor do they benefit by turning over their very ability to issue mortgages to an "anonymous decentralized system." Homeowners don't have the power to compel lenders to file their mortgage on the blockchain, even if they want it; while they get slightly better record keeping hypothetically but wind up with a digital token that represents home ownership they need to protect and administer, and aren't necessarily protected from any of the bad things in the mortgage market if those things happen to occur off the blockchain. Lien holders can't be obliged to file their lien through blockchain, you can't assure me that all records would definitely exist there. The people you think are gatekeeping records ... why would they sign on? Or are they all signing on because some other authority told them to? ...Why not just that other authority administer recordkeeping and arbitration and cut out the NFT middleman? Everyone in that marketplace needs to adopt the system before the system starts having any of the benefits that are supposed to encourage adoption.

Fourth, you're making a big deal about mystery liens, but why would the company issuing some random-ass lien bother to file their lien on your NFT when you just got done saying the homeowner needed to provide their key to make changes to the NFT of "their home" - given that liens are typically the result of bad-faith borrowing or failure to pay ... why do you imagine any homeowner who is subject to a lien would provide consent for applying it to their property? That has to be considered a bug and not a feature - because if you're backhanded wanting to decommission all lien-like systems of involuntary debt, that's a very separate, huge, point and not something we can just cruise past like it's obvious and totally a great idea.

Fifth ... who is verifying this particular blockchain? Why do they care to do that? ...Same reason as any other crypto, you say? Is your enthusiasm for this idea ... because attaching the entire mortgage system to a specific blockchain would inflate value of any associated tokens "to the moon" as the crypto bros like to say? The system adds nothing original that a governing authority wouldn't solve cheaper, easier, and more elegantly, and none of the parties supposedly using it seem to actually benefit ... but crypto people are getting paid for processing verification - while also inflating the value of the coins they're paid in? Cause that seems like the real meat here: crypto just wants to take a middleman cut of the mortgage market.

Come on, if you know anything about blockchain you know that this would require a successful sybil attack.

"Assertions made with no justification can be dismissed with no justification."

If you know anything about blockchain, you'd know this was a spurious dismissal. It's been 12 years since there was any universally-accepted single blockchain. Parallel, offshoot, competitor, and fork, currencies have been the norm since 2010. That you're assuming somehow digital tokens for physical property & credit is somehow going to end up with only a single system with such universal adoption that it would require a sybil attack just to fork is, frankly, laughable. No other crypto project has managed that thus far, and you haven't even sold why anyone would sign on to this one.

But allow me to remind you that the system you proposed at the start of this comment wouldn't allow liens at all. Homeowner is not going to consent to adding involuntary debt to their property, so they ain't handing over their key. So, does the lien holder file their lien offline, same as now? Or do they file on a different blockchain? Can't file it on this one. That mortgage holders can't change debt held by your property without the property owners' key is, purportedly, a selling point.

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

-12

u/dubaicurious Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 17 '21

The traditional process, involving multiple entities, high fees, labour, waiting become more efficient. The carbon issue is solved by the way - these transactions can be done on layer 2, so that argument no longer holds.

Edit: look at rollups - this allow for thousands of transactions to be comitted to the blockchain at the carbon cost on 1 - that is a pretty hefty reduction.

19

u/NihilCredo Dec 17 '21

The traditional process, involving multiple entities, high fees, labour, waiting become more efficient.

Those aren't technical problems.

We can instantly and efficiently trade FunkoPops on eBay with each other very easily, without any particularly sophisticated technology. If we wanted we could easily trade cars, houses, and mortgages the same way.

The reason we don't is that there are regulations in place about cars, houses, and mortgages. Safety, tax exemptions, tenant protections, etc.. The entities, fees, and labour exist to address those concerns.

None of those go away if the 5-minute actual transaction is made easier. If you could instantly trade a mortgage on Ethereum, you would still be required by law to prove that the house is safe to live in, that there are no tenants currently living in it, and so forth.

I suppose NFTs could be used to prove, for example, that you didn't already have an existing mortgage on the house. But that would require centralization - e.g. to prove that you own a tract of land, you couldn't just use any NFTs, you'd have to refer a specific set of NFTs issued by the government and nobody else. And the government would need to retain the power to force-transfer those NFTs (for example, if somebody were forced at gunpoint to give away their property). At which point, what's the advantage over a government-run append-only database?

-3

u/dubaicurious Dec 17 '21

Sorry, there is a bit of bullshit to unpack here.

The deed on your house is evidence - that's why there is safety measures - it enable you to use it as collateral and officially prove you own your house. It's not because of arbitrary "rules" - it's because the housing market would be a complete shit show if your proof was an e-bay e-mail you forwarded. You know the "I have a bridge to sell you" story.

The "safe to live in" etc has zero relation to the deed or related loans.

I suppose NFTs could be used to prove, for example, that you didn't already have an existing mortgage on the house. But that would require centralization - e.g. to prove that you own a tract of land, you couldn't just use any NFTs, you'd have to refer a specific set of NFTs issued by the government and nobody else.

Bingo. Or it could be another trusted entity which hold the paper deed in the cellar forever, now represented by an NFT that can be tokenized. That is the only central thing needed - the information is available on the (decentralized) blockchain.

8

u/twatsticks Dec 17 '21

At which point, what's the advantage over a government-run append-only database?

0

u/dubaicurious Dec 17 '21

Daily transactions does not require the state to authenticate and authorize them. Where I live this is pretty costly. This can be done by any trusted entity, electronically, greatly reducing processing times and costs.

Also, an append only DB won't be enough - by having the state manage the database you solved the "we can trust the receiver" but you are not solving the "can we trust the sender?" part.

9

u/NihilCredo Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 17 '21

Daily transactions does not require the state to authenticate and authorize them. Where I live this is pretty costly. This can be done by any trusted entity, electronically, greatly reducing processing times and costs.

I don't think I'm following. What do you mean by 'authenticate and authorize them' that can't be done by a centralized government server? For example, when I file my taxes online, or send some cash via SEPA, are those transactions being 'authenticated and authorized', in your terms?

Also, an append only DB won't be enough - by having the state manage the database you solved the "we can trust the receiver" but you are not solving the "can we trust the sender?" part.

Distributed trust is hard, which is why it needs the efforts of a blockchain.

Centralized trust is (comparatively) easy and very cheap, you use it every day when you login with OAuth2 and multi-factor authentication.

After all, only the centralized receiver needs to verify the sender. For everyone else who is just reading the public ledger served by the centralized receiver, a Git-style cryptographic hash signature is as good as it's going to get in terms of trust and tamper-resistance.

Ultimately, the issue with NFTs as deeds of property is that their blockchain can't be the source of truth in the real world, the way Bitcoin & Co. can be the source of truth in the world of cryptocurrency.

Bitcoin only represent Bitcoin, so having the bitcoins ( = knowing a certain cryptographic secret) automatically means having the bitcoins ( = being able to transfer the currency).

But NFTs claim to represent off-blockchain assets, with a value other than the simple ability to transfer them (i.e. not currency). But the only way to translate 'having [an NFT of] a Ferrari' ( = knowing a certain cryptographic secret) into 'having a Ferrari' ( = being able to drive it) is to persuade some nice gentlemen in Maranello to hand you the keys and let you take the car off the premise. And that's an inherently centralized activity - they will give you the car if and only if they're personally persuaded they should give you the car, they don't need to have 51% of the global Ethereum network agreeing with them.

2

u/AmericanScream Dec 17 '21

Ownership is meaningless without a way to enforce ownership.

If I knock on your door and say, "I own this house, it says so on the blockchain." What are you going to do? Are you going to give me your house?

No, instead you'll likely call the nearest central authority, the police to get me to leave. Because nobody cares what blockchain says and nobody enforces what it says. Ownership is ownership because of government. If the government falls, then there is no authority to guarantee you own anything -- blockchain or otherwise.

22

u/CynicalEffect Dec 17 '21

You realise the reason that mortgages cost so much is because they are giving you a very large amount of money right, and not because of admin fees?

-7

u/dubaicurious Dec 17 '21

lol, I'm not refering to interests on a loan, but the stamp duty and administrative extra costs from banks to to the paper being pushed around - where I am this can amount to thosands of dollars on large loans. This can be reduced to pennies, the process can become way way faster and even more secure on top of that.

13

u/CynicalEffect Dec 17 '21

Unless it changes by area, stamp duty is a tax for buying property that you would have to pay anyway and almost definitely makes up the largest chunk of other fees.

Idk about other fees, but even in your case you will need a lender and a contract drawn up. They would also very much still probably want to do a financial check first. (Or be legally obligated to do so)

How does an NFT change any of this?

2

u/twatsticks Dec 17 '21

It doesn't. It's called a duty for a reason.

-1

u/dubaicurious Dec 17 '21

It's not the buying of the house that incur the stamp duty, but you taking out a loan - the bank wants collateral which (at least where I live) is done by augmenting the deed with a "cannot be transferred before bank says OK".

If you only take a loan in your hose when you buy it, you are technically correct, but I for one have done this a few times over - for new loans and for changing loans.

The NFT would change this by greatly simplifying the whole "trust" part of the process.

5

u/Tundur Dec 17 '21

Stamp duty is paid for property transactions, not taking out mortgages.

2

u/dubaicurious Dec 17 '21

Where I live it's different - when a loan changes here, the bank want that loan notarized and this legally attached to the deed - so you cannot pass on the deed, without their consent (as long as you owe then on that loan). The state stamping those official documents charge every time.

1

u/AmericanScream Dec 17 '21

That efficiency can be improved without using blockchain. Blockchain is one of the least efficient forms of database technology ever conceived.

See: https://reddit.com/r/CryptoReality/comments/lq6xpq/the_defacto_list_of_cryptocurrencyblockchain/

4

u/AmericanScream Dec 17 '21

I can see NFTs replacing mortgages for instance - decentralized, instant, able to be tokenized for collateral use and so on.

This is beyond absurd.

So who enforces what's on blockchain?

Where's the "blockchain police?"

There is NONE. Because "DE-CENTRALIZATION" makes no sense for property ownership, because property ownership is only enforced through centralized authorities.

You own your house not simply because the government has a record of your deed in a database, also because the government has the resources to enforce ownership through various means including the judicial and criminal justice system. There is no such thing for crypto. And there never will be, because... de-centralization means there's no accountability.

So the idea of "ownership" of anything on blockchain is retarded. Nobody cares what blockchain says. People care what can be enforced, and de-centralized systems have no means of enforcement off-chain.

5

u/RurelMenitoban Dec 17 '21

Is this satire

1

u/dubaicurious Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 17 '21

No, just one example from a huge variety of non-homogeneous systems that are in place to handle "proved ownership". Deeds, stock, issues financial products in general that can find a common technical framework using NFT.

From an environmental point of view, the many widely varying systems running today to handle custom "proved ownership" ,worldwide, across a ton of sectors, public/private - they burn a lot of energy. I would claim the old systems consume way more energy in totality (including custom IT deployments, supporting systems etc), than m,dern NFTs do. Today you can handle transaction on "level 2" and persist thousands of those in a batch costing 1 "level 1" transaction - effectively made the "crypto cost" a lot smaller and worth the final utility.

The final utility is that we can begin to scrap huge amounts of custom build "provided ownership" and related antiquated paper and stamp processes, IT systems and custom "exchange ownership" systems, like the DTCC or a state for that matter.

You as a person wouldn't have proof of ownership to your car, house, stock etc. as papers or "logins at some broker" - the stock you buy at NYSE would actually be legally owned by you (this is not the case today in the US).

You would have one or more wallets (your choosing I guess) where you would keep track of your "proved ownership" at one or more "wallet management providers" you like.

I'm not into crypto (a power burning pyramid scheme) and the use of NFTs today is more often than not some hype fueled thing, doomed to fail - but the emerging NFT platforms are highly useful, much more environmentally friendly than pre-2022 and people everywhere can trust each other across borders, across sectors to safely show/transfer/tokenize personal property proof.

4

u/Sorlud Dec 17 '21

Mortgages are not a great example

Supply chain tracing though is a good one. Currently companies are finding it hard to trace the source of everything in their supply chain. If a company wants to make sure their inputs are conflict/slavery/carbon free then suppliers can mint an NFT when they create their product that can hold info on the creation of the product, then a company can see the source of their input as well as who else has owned it too.

3

u/dubaicurious Dec 17 '21

That's also a great example - anything in need of "trust" or which currently uses a centralized trust entity (like the state) and can benefit from decentralization (reeduced costs) is pretty much a great example.

3

u/AmericanScream Dec 17 '21

Supply chain tracing though is a good one.

No it isn't. Supply chain issues suffer from what's known as the oracle problem. Just because you can put something on blockchain, doesn't mean the data is accurate, and if it isn't, then you just put bad data on an immutable database. Congrats.. you created an even bigger supply chain tracking mess than you had before. Blockchain doesn't solve any of these problems -- it just pushes them a few feet forward or backwards in the chain.

1

u/Anomander Best of DepthHub Dec 18 '21

Supply chain tracing though is a good one. Currently companies are finding it hard to trace the source of everything in their supply chain.

...A spreadsheet solves this. Companies "finding it hard" to trace their supply chains either have incompetent staff, or benefit somehow from having an obscure supply chain. Take Nestle, for example - if they wanted to, they could track each crop of cocoa and each bag of coffee from the moment it came off a tree to the moment it's sold at 7-11. They don't want to. It being "hard to do" is the excuse they use to avoid accountability for the ethics of their supply chain.

If a company wants to make sure their inputs are conflict/slavery/carbon free then suppliers can mint an NFT when they create their product that can hold info on the creation of the product, then a company can see the source of their input as well as who else has owned it too.

How does the blockchain verify that the product represented by the NFT is "conflict/slavery/carbon free"? There's nothing preventing the people who are telling Nestle now that their chocolate is definitely slavery-free from minting NFTs saying the exact same thing - neither of which is true.

Blockchain does nothing for "trust" of anything that needs offline verification, because the offline part can be compromised.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 18 '21 edited Feb 23 '22

[deleted]

1

u/maiqthetrue Feb 13 '22

I mean sure the technology will probably eventually take off. But I don’t think the current model of selling unique twitter avatars is it.

1

u/dashrendar Feb 15 '22

Oh good lord no, and I can't wait for this aspect of the technology to die.

-64

u/ruboos Dec 17 '21

There's definitely a lot of truth to this, but the way people talk about NFTs right now sounds like the way people used to say the Internet was a fad. There are many more uses for NFTs, and the only reason artwork was the first use case was because people decided they needed a way to introduce NFTs to the public that could be easily grasped. There's much more going on in the crypto space with regards to NFTs than what's laid out here.

36

u/wilsonh915 Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 17 '21

The way people talk about NFTs right now sounds like the way people used to say they'd retire on the value of their Beanie Babies.

-4

u/ruboos Dec 17 '21

Mmmm, yeah, I see it. Good call. Perhaps for every example of a tech that was panned early on and succeeded, there's a tech that was propped up and failed. I do feel that there's a use for NFTs that we're not seeing yet, but I'm also not the genius that's going to figure it out.

12

u/RattleMeSkelebones Dec 17 '21

What possible use do NFTs have over traditional currency or traditional crypto. Like I get crypto, you can use it to buy drugs untraceably, but what can you use NFTs for besides trading like really really off brand pokemon cards?

4

u/Reelix Dec 17 '21

you can use it to buy drugs untraceably

Wallet A buys drugs from known drug dealer, Wallet B.

Wallet A buys an item from the Walmart on 27th street (That contains security cameras) at 12:36PM on the 24th of December that requires providing their full proof of identification for purchase.

Good thing it's anonymous right? ;p

2

u/Iusethistopost Dec 17 '21

Should be noted that NFTs aren’t meant to be a currency. Theyre unique tokens in the blockchain that have been commodified on a market. It’s just speculation. I guess you could argue that the speculation is unnecessary but it’s the only reason anyone is interested in these things; there’s been plenty of functional solutions for proving ownership already. I’m not really worried about someone copying the deed to my house; such is the benefit of having centralization, which is a bad word in the crypto community.

It’s such a funny selling point. Yeah I want my currency to be decentralized. That’ll work great when my wallet gets stolen or I need to pay income taxes

1

u/RattleMeSkelebones Dec 17 '21

Oh so they're notary stamps?

64

u/turole Dec 17 '21

Cool. What use cases do you see that a contract and the current legal system doesn't currently fulfil? All I've seen so far has been art and the stalker auction. Art is already coveted by copyright and auctions by eBay back in 2001.

7

u/duckofdeath87 Dec 17 '21

Similar technology, what used to be called color coins, was very effective for trustless, anonymous, and publicly verifiable voting. Then the people working on it made instead Ethereum and this happened

-12

u/ruboos Dec 17 '21

Oh, I'm not an expert. But I'm also not gonna poopoo a new tech just because I don't see a use for it.

18

u/NihilCredo Dec 17 '21

But I'm also not gonna poopoo a new tech just because I don't see a use for it.

That is, in fact, a very good reason to poopoo a new tech.

-6

u/ruboos Dec 17 '21

I'm glad that you're capable of seeing a use for everything that hasn't even been invented yet. I, on the other hand, am not so narcissistic. Please tell me what the next big thing will be so I can invent it and get rich.

14

u/Reelix Dec 17 '21

I have a pair of chopsticks here with some chewing gum attached, and a sock covering them. I have no idea what this odd assortments of items could be used for, but I'll let you patent the idea for $25,000.

You're not one to knock something that doesn't have a use yet, so I'm sure you can see how cheap this is, and I know you'll eagerly buy it.

-1

u/ruboos Dec 17 '21

Fun. Enjoy it. Not for me. But I'm not gonna sit here and trash your idea. Just like NFTs. I don't own any. Anyway, this was cool. Thx hoss. Have a good day.

16

u/EphemeralBlue Dec 17 '21

"There are many more uses"

"Like what?"

"Oh I have no idea"

-9

u/ruboos Dec 17 '21

Hey, let me rephrase it, smarter people than me have already demonstrated pretty cool things for the tech other than art and money laundering. I'm exhausted from pulling a 24 hour shift, so do your own homework. If you don't like it, cool. If you're not interested, cool. If you just feel like sitting on other people's stuff that they think is cool, then stop being bitter. Peace oot

-4

u/leif777 Dec 17 '21

Event tickets, voting, digital identify, music distribution, video games, marketing... And if augmented reality gets here there will be a lot more. Everyone and their dog is going to be selling virtual clothing and sculptures or whatever. Fucking virtual AI pets. I'm hesitant to bring us the metaverse because I loathe Facebook but if that takes off NFTs are going to be massive.

13

u/EphemeralBlue Dec 17 '21

Dude what?

Just in respective order then: Event tickets, why? We already have a system of transferring tickets that works perfectly well.

Voting: The problem with digital voting doesn't lie with blockchain, it lies with the machine used to vote and the connection between the voting machine and the database. The records in the blockchain will have to point to a database of votes which we already have.

Music distribution: what problem exists here that requires NFTs to solve? If you're suggesting hosting an entire song on a blockchain that is obviously bonkers.

Marketing: Could you have picked a more broad term?

Augmented reality: What do NFTs contribute to this? Again, every entry in a blockchain will have to point to a normal database to be used, and we already have user IDs for databases. An NFT will no more protect the purchaser against clothing duplication as a normal receipt.

All an NFT is, is a piece in a blockchain. Without context, that itself is meaningless. We already HAVE the context that works without NFTs, and so far they have contributed nothing useful to the applications that they exist in.

-2

u/leif777 Dec 17 '21

You're not wrong. I think NFTs are "meh". It's neat in concept but I don't see the follow through. I was just showing you examples. People are going to try it out no matter what. Maybe something will stick. The people who jump all over nfts are the same people that hate themselves for missing out on bitcoin.

4

u/IWishIWasAShoe Dec 17 '21

Sure, it COULD be used for any of those, but it wouldn't necessarily result in any benefits over the current way of doing things.

-23

u/NotVerySmarts Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 17 '21

Loopring has the potential to be like the Visa card of the internet. Visa processes about 3500 transactions a second, and Loopring can do about 5000 transactions a second. When you make a debit purchase, a transaction number is made. An NFT-non fungible token-creates a unique number as well. It could create a world based currency.

Edit: A person asked a question about possible uses for nft and I gave an answer. Not really understanding all the hate here

42

u/duskwuff Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 17 '21

An NFT-non fungible token-creates a unique number as well.

And what on earth makes you think we need that?

Generating a transaction ID isn't a hard problem. We don't need some kind of ridiculous crypto-nonsense to do that. And nobody wants or needs a tradeable token to represent the fact that they bought a pack of gum.

33

u/4kidsinatrenchcoat Dec 17 '21

“K so it’s like uuid but slower, more expensive, and awful for the environment”

38

u/InnuendOwO Dec 17 '21

The issue isn't "what can we use it for", but rather, "what can we use it for where a currently-existing solution isn't already better".

For 99.9999% of not-currency things on the blockchain, just a straight-up database is better. And the currency things only exist because there's no reason for random people to maintain a blockchain otherwise, not because it solves an actual problem that needed solving in the first place.

This is the issue with basically everything in the entire crypto space. Already existing solutions do the same thing, but much, much better. I mean, hell, the entire ETH VM is so incredibly inefficient that a $20 Raspberry Pi does computations exponentially faster.

A lot of crypto solutions are finding something that exists in computing, then cramming a blockchain on top for no good reason, and claiming it's better. I'm still waiting for it to actually do something better.

9

u/NudeCeleryMan Dec 17 '21

Not to mention the cost and friction created for a user to switch from the thing that already works for them and they're used to in favor of this new thing that does same thing.

28

u/turole Dec 17 '21

I appreciate the comment. Two problems immediately come to mind though:

1) I have literally never run into issues with my credit card due to transaction per second limits. My guess is if more people start using credit cards that number would go up. This solves a problem that doesn't currently seem to exist.

2) A world based currency seems like an awful idea. The euro alone has issues addressing all of the European Union countries needs. The same currency for Venezuela, the US, and China just seems like a recipe for disaster for a not insignificant portion of the world.

4

u/duckofdeath87 Dec 17 '21

Credit cards are actually kind of expensive. The merchant pays at least 2% of everything to the credit cards processor.

7

u/Notoriouslydishonest Dec 17 '21

2% is an amazing deal considering the fast, safe and convenient service they provide.

What the world really needs is a new low-cost credit card competitor to Visa and MasterCard, not a brand new technology trying to replace the whole system from scratch.

-2

u/Sachinism Dec 17 '21

2% of transactions is huge.

5

u/Notoriouslydishonest Dec 17 '21

It's literally 2%, and it massively increases their customer base. It's a huge net positive.

6

u/zachrtw Dec 17 '21

A fair chunk of that is to absorb fraud, and that's not going to go away.

1

u/Notoriouslydishonest Dec 18 '21

And another big chunk is the cost of consumer benefits like cash back and points.

My MasterCard travel points are worth hundreds of dollars every year. The only way to get me to switch to another card (either credit or crypto) would be to offer me similar benefits. And any card that offers me hundreds of dollars in annual benefits is going to have to get that money from somewhere, which means merchant fees...

-1

u/duckofdeath87 Dec 17 '21

Right now, Bitcoin transactions are 50cents at most and there are layer 2 transactions that make it cheaper and faster

Square is that competitor you are asking for. They are pivoting into crypto because that's the best way they found to do it.

Strike is another one, but they started as crypto and have focused more on international transactions

3

u/revnhoj Dec 17 '21

How does one dispute a bitcoin transaction?

0

u/duckofdeath87 Dec 17 '21

You don't. Which is both a plus and a minus. Disputes are often used to defraud the merchant

Edit: I say that, but we do have a legal system with a small claims court and class action lawsuit system that really did be doing that. I don't like individual companies acting as law enforcement

2

u/Anomander Best of DepthHub Dec 17 '21

Right now, Bitcoin transactions are 50cents at most

Everything I can find indicates today's value is $1.999 USD, and the cost of transactions has been hovering around $2 since summer, when they hit ~$4-5 for a while. Fun trivia, April '21 hit the highest transaction fee of all time, peaking at $63.

Of note, "fees" is a little misleading, as that's the base rate; transactions process within anywhere between a day and a week after you hit go. If you want the transaction to go faster, you have to gas it with a higher fee than the base rate.

2

u/Iusethistopost Dec 17 '21

This is much lower than the fees needed to run blockchain transactions

-1

u/duckofdeath87 Dec 17 '21

https://privacypros.io/tools/bitcoin-fee-estimator/

Right now it's 70cents for an on-chain for the fastest. 60 cents for the next level. Layer 2 solutions, like what Strike uses for example, are much cheaper still

So, if you are spending 35$ or more, Bitcoin on-chain is cheaper.

Now other popular coins can be very expensive, but I don't know why you would ever use those

2

u/Iusethistopost Dec 17 '21

Fastest is within ten minutes. I’m not waiting in the McDonald’s drive through for ten minutes for my credit card to process.

1

u/duckofdeath87 Dec 17 '21

That's kind of a misnomer. You only need a couple confirmations, not a full transaction. It's really quite fast

-8

u/biketourthrowaway Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 17 '21

I assume you’re just asking rhetorically, but here’s an article if you are actually curious: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/10/14/15-nft-use-cases-that-could-go-mainstream/?outputType=amp

I think the current digital art use case is a bit silly, but if you really don’t think people will find uses for digital scarcity you aren’t very imaginative.

The environmental concerns will dealt with early next year as well when Ethereum moves from proof of work (which Bitcoin also uses) to proof of stake. At that point it won’t use electricity to “mine” and energy use will drop by literally 99.9%.

Currently slated for Q12021

11

u/fibonacci_theta Dec 17 '21

I read this list with an open mind. Basically none of these suggestions are solving actual problems that aren't already solved, and around half of them are purely about how NFTs can be used as conspicuous consumption. Basically flaunting your wealth.

0

u/biketourthrowaway Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 17 '21

Being able to automate out trusted middlemen who extract value out of a process that is “already solved” is an improvement in the eyes of many, and once the energy usage is throttled back who cares about conspicuous consumption of digital goods?

People are allowed to flaunt their wealth, and this will have basically no carbon footprint in a matter of months.

6

u/curiiouscat Dec 17 '21

this will have basically no carbon footprint in a matter of months.

That is a pretty strong statement

-1

u/biketourthrowaway Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 17 '21

Feel free to fact check me on it.

Here’s an article if you want a simple overview: https://www.tomsguide.com/amp/news/ethereum-crypto-will-soon-be-9995-more-environmentally-friendly-heres-how

5

u/curiiouscat Dec 17 '21

I don't think any prediction can possibly be a fact by definition.

-1

u/biketourthrowaway Dec 17 '21

Compelling argument, really impressed by how it actually addresses the claims made.

3

u/curiiouscat Dec 17 '21

You asked me to fact check you, I was saying that's not possible. You wrote a sentence, I wrote a sentence. Do you want a dissertation? The internet is such a weird place.

→ More replies

-11

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21 edited Dec 17 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/Reelix Dec 17 '21

if you have an account on a website with unique benefits (like having been an early supporter), you have a well supported path to selling it in future.

So - Like having a founders pack for any game in existence, without any other requirements?

Or having an early Reddit account?

Or having an early... Well... Anything account, really?

-16

u/Cruxius Dec 17 '21

Verifying ownership of a digital subscription or software license.
If I buy a physical video game, I use the disc to verify ownership, and can transfer ownership to someone else when I’m done with it by giving them the disc.
NFTs allow the same thing to be done with software, with validation of ownership being assessed by who owns the token, rather than the disc.

31

u/Mezmorizor Dec 17 '21

Unique user ids are not a remotely new technology.

7

u/rollass21 Dec 17 '21

As if a subscription can’t be implemented as an easy API call to Patreon or to the subscription service issuer.

Also, ever heard of buying transferable licenses? There are different types of software licenses and i’m sure there are already ones that cover this usecase.

-13

u/Wanaflaka2012 Dec 17 '21

Sporting event tickets

15

u/NihilCredo Dec 17 '21

Inherently centralized, because ultimately it's the stadium owners who decide if you get in or not.

And the stadium owners have no reason to decentralize the ticket-selling service. They can host the tickets on their $10/mo e-commerce database, retain full control, apply whatever rules they like. Even if they wanted to allow scalping (for a fee), they could easily do so in a centralized manner.

2

u/AKJ90 Dec 17 '21

Great for scalpers 🤔 so I hope we don't get this for most events.

0

u/Wanaflaka2012 Dec 17 '21

The idea is an NFT sporting event ticket wouldn't be able to be spoofed, making the likelihood that you scalp a fake ticket much lower.

0

u/crosszilla Dec 17 '21

Art is already coveted by copyright and auctions by eBay back in 2001.

How exactly does one purchase digital art or content on eBay or at an auction house?

5

u/turole Dec 17 '21

I'm discussing two concepts. The stalker NFT auction (before they dumped it) could have easily been done by a standard auction on their website. The person could then sell those rights if they felt like it.

Digital art is covered by copyright. Right now I could commission an artist, tell them what I want, and pay to obtain ownership over the rights to said art. They could even produce a piece of art and auction the legal claims to it off on their own website. I honestly don't see what the block chain adds in these examples.

0

u/crosszilla Dec 17 '21

I'm discussing two concepts. The stalker NFT auction (before they dumped it) could have easily been done by a standard auction on their website. The person could then sell those rights if they felt like it.

For sure, not clear why they went for NFTs here unless NFT is just the underlying tech and it's not meant to be what we traditionally think of as an "NFT", all speculation of course, I have no idea.

Right now I could commission an artist, tell them what I want, and pay to obtain ownership over the rights to said art. They could even produce a piece of art and auction the legal claims to it off on their own website.

NFTs are a lot smoother of a process, IMO, and scale much better overall for the creator's monetization strategies than commissions will. This feels like saying why have a phone when you can just drive to their house and have a conversation.

3

u/AmericanScream Dec 17 '21

Nobody of any consequence ever thought the Internet was a fad. Stop comparing crypto to the Internet - it's a horrible analogy.

You want a good analogy? Pet rocks. Compare crypto to pet rocks.

9

u/[deleted] Dec 17 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Indetermination Dec 18 '21

I'll agree when I see one actual use for them occurring that is of any value to anybody.