Like the NFT isn't directly linked to the real world, it's only useful if everyone agrees to abide by it and that you own the thing (although I suppose you could say the same thing for most property ownership).
Whereas with Bitcoin, the entire thing is digital. The only thing that is non-digital is the valuing of the bitcoin itself. That takes places in each individuals mind. Thus Bitcoin (store of value) is a solid usecase of this. NFTs are dumb.
The only thing that ensures some value are transactions being made, and right now that is just a low level of illegal black markets in drugs, etc. you can't use it to purchase normal goods or services - I don't feel that justifies the current prices so it seems like a pump and dump.
In a very real sense, I've used Bitcoin to buy real things — and I really don't care at all about the fact that I had to convert to Euros first; it still was just as useful for me to store value I've produced until the time, months later, I'm ready to consume it.
There are other technologies to store wealth and we can compare them, Bitcoin is certainly not the only one. But I think failing to acknowledge this would be just as foolish as pretending it is the only means to do this.
> But why use Bitcoin for that? You could use GME shares and get the volatility without the crazy power usage, or use a stable ETF.
Because if you plot the BTCEUR, the EUR ETF of your choice, and GME *USDEUR over the last 10 years, and apply a moving average equal to your financial buffer (say 6 month), you will see one is clearly trending up: BTC
Someone who put 1% of their income or use DCA to regurlarly buy an equivalent amount of BTC, GME, any ETF will quickly find than the BTC represent 90% of their saving, meaning it grew much faster than anything else.
It's not the volatility or the greeks, but the time trend if you can afford to delay your spending!
If you spend 2/3 of your saving to acquire something that you realize is worth 9 times less than what the other 1/3 of your savings purchased, you quickly stop and reevaluate your automated purchase decisions!
At least titles are relatively harmless
If you're thinking "but it can't be that stupid" then well...
As when you think about it, what gives some rich aristocrats the right to own all the land? It's not as though God Himself came down and gave it to them (though they used to claim this with Divine Right) - they just have some piece of paper which they use to enforce their "ownership" with violence, and demand rent.
I hope at least the absurdity of NFTs might make more people see the absurdity of privately claiming the Earth's land and resources too.
Technically, the state has the "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force" and other actions, so the threat of violence to non-compliers is part of the law (and probably the largest part if you go far enough back in time to when the land claim originated).
But this is a digression, unless you're making the point that NFTs and suchlike junk are lacking even that customary legitimacy. Without it, a dollar is mere "paper fiat". With it, it's a buck.
> It's almost like a parody of private property ownership.
Yep, without backing, this is make-believe ownership. Not technically enforceable on a .jpg image, not legally enforceable because existing property rights laws take precedence.
Happy if someone with real insight in the industry can share their thoughts..