Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2muchcoffeeman | Hacker News Reader

A Picasso actually has cultural and historical significance. And we probably had to think about it hard after the work was done. And collections even of the super rich are not necessarily random pieces. They may have hired a curator.

An NFT can be some shitty gif hardly worth mentioning let alone displaying.

View on HN

Its pretty arguable that cryptopunks have cultural and historical significance already. Even if you dont share that sentiment

I agree, they are profoundly historically significant, they are the prototype for the ERC-721 token standard, and are event cited in the whitepaper proposal.

Because I don’t know any unpopular art periods, I’ll swap to music.

NFTs could be boy bands. It was fun and a few things came out of it, but largely most people don’t know or care who was in Take That and we moved on.

Unlike Mozart or the Beatles which manage to have relevance beyond their times and lives.

NFTs will always be a thing, but current popularity or references in white papers doesn’t mean much in a broader context.

NFTs are a platform. I don't think this analogy applies.

NFTs are standards for digital ownership. If you think digital ownership will not stand the test of time, I don't know what to say. It's a critical technology for the future of the web and metaverse.

I'm sure that within the NFT ecosystem, some trends will fade with time. Maybe it's animal profile pics, or AI generated art collections or maybe it's autobattler gaming that falls out of favor, but as long as humans like gaming, music, art, and entertainment, I suspect NFTs will thrive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com