My mind goes from: "This is insanity." to "Why didn't I think of this?"
Whereas, with the Grumpy Cat NFT, someone, somewhere, can exhibit some bits that shows they "own"(?) this particular image of Grumpy Cat, which is reproduced millions of times across the internet. Does the NFT even convey the legal rights to the image? Can you send DMCA takedowns based on owning the NFT for an image? What even makes the NFT non-fungible?
In fact, if anyone wants it, I'll happily sell you the NFT https://robinmessage.com/nft/GrumpyCat for $100,000 and I'll promise:
- to probably never issue that NFT to anyone else;
- and that, in some ineffable way, it represents the original Grumpy Cat.
I'm also curious about this. Does the buyer now legally own the image itself, as well as the NFT?
Ethereum is still a huge utterly insane risk because of Vitalik himself. I wouldn’t purchase anything of value as a store of value because of the creator.
Value seen or not.
Simplified you can think of an NFT being the following tuple: (NFT contract address, public address).
Uniqueness of this tuple is guarenteed by the EVM and liveness of this information is guaranteed by the Ethereum blockchain.
A lot of the NFTs value derives from the popularity of the individual that holds the private address corresponding to the public key that created the NFT contract.
This is the implicit way it represents the original Grumpy Cat and is not something you can duplicate seeing as you're not Tabatha Bundesen.
I doubt most people know what they're getting. I doubt they know what is actually stored on the blockchain (that the image itself isn't for instance) or how to find what is.
at the very least with a Rembrandt painting you can be reasonably sure that it's still worth something in a few years because 1. it actually constitutes a significant contribution to art and human culture, 2. it's been recognised as such for a few hundred years
What exactly is the chance that a digitally signed picture of a grumpy looking cat is something anyone cares about in another decade. A Pokemon trading card is high culture by comparison
* doesn't represent a significant contribution to internet culture
* will be still recognised as a meme in a few hundred years
I can't say which memes will survive but I wouldn't rule it out either.
Using this reasoning you can easily see why Jack Dorsey's NFT sold for so much more.
I learned somewhere that certain people that pass a certain "threshold" are not only fooled^H^H^H^H^H^Hconvinced by Nigerian prince scams, but utterly convinced that they are true.
I'm now wondering if there's a variant of this occurring on the other side of the equation, where people that fit within a certain threshold of "not being scammed" fit within this threshold so strongly it's impossible for them to break out of it and look at "how to actually scam ethically" from outside the box (where said box would say "hang on a minute, that sentence right there is an oxymoron")
Hey, I made $5 off the Mona Lisa, though!