re: Remember when NFTs were all the rage, especially those stupid Ape ones?

I still want to see how the legitimate photography NFTs do.

One day artistic photos had no real value to them. The only value, outside of selling prints, was in licensing which wasn't much in the grand scheme of things.

One day NFTs came along and something that was valued in cents became worth tens of thousands of dollars. Many photographers made good money on them, some made life changing money. Part of the deal was that the artist would maintain their rights to the piece and would receive ~10% of any and all future sales of the NFT.

I asked of people a few times the earnings from future the secondary sales market. If any piece had been sold by the "collector" for a profit. I never got a straight answer.

In order for those photography NFTs to have any real value the pieces would need to increase in value and there would need to be a competitive market for them. I still don't know if that is the case.

I don't knock any photographers for riding the wave and banking money. I do fault a seemingly "house of cards" collector's market that popped up practically over night.

quote:

---

Would you say the same for art? Anything can be assigned value, but utility is far down the list of determinants.

---

You can decorate your home with it, so yes it has more utility than an ape picture on your computer does

My interpretation of an NFT is that it is a more expensive version of the “name a star” after someone for $25 and we’ll send you a certificate letting you know which star is now named after you.

quote:

---

Would you say the same for art?

---

Was waiting for this.

You are right that art doesn't necessarily have utility in the sense that he is referring to.

And art, such as paintings, are mostly subjective as to what is important and what has value.

However...

Most art is tangible. You can touch it. The artist can only make so many of them, and once he is gone, he can't make anymore.

So I understand it to a certain degree.

The NFTs are fricking retarded.

quote:

---

The NFT for this costed me 350$

---

Will Campbell finna eat

NFT = non-fungible token

It's the new swampland in the Sahara Desert.

FYI, I only buy fungible tokens. Fungibility is the way to go.

quote:

---

The artist can only make so many of them, and once he is gone, he can't make anymore.

---

But many people can replicate the art. What makes the original more valuable? I know the answer, which is why I say utility is far down the list of determinants for decadence. NFT's are dumb, but only for those who were screwed over.

quote:

---

I still don’t understand NFTs

---

Its pretty much the original version of an electronic image. NFT is non-fungible token.

If you take a picture or create a gif and post it on social media that is the original version. If people save that picture of gif and then report it, and then a bunch of people do the same, that's all copies of the picture, in this NFT world, if what you posted went viral then in theory your original version has value.

Its like if you had an original babe ruth baseball card, made a few copies of it and handed them out, then other people made copies of the copies you gave them, all of those copies have no value, the actual real card, that you own, has value.

The meme of that little girl smiling with her house burning in the background.. Someone bought the original of that picture for a lot of money.

Another example are valuable paintings. A lot of people might own copies of that painting, but the only one that is valuable is the original. People compare NFTs to valuable paintings and consider it an investment thinking it will become more valuable with time.. But of course its only as valuable as someone will pay for it.

People will spend money on the dumbest shite so I guess there is a market for it, but if there are millions of NFTs only a small percentage would actually sell so its a risky investment.

quote:

---

But many people can replicate the art.

---

They cannot, because they are not the artist.

You can't right click and save on the original Starry Night

quote:

---

How is it still worth $74,000?

---

It's "worth" that because someone is still willing to pay $74k for it (supposedly).

quote:

---

This had to be a scheme like the old FB market place adds where people would sell a pencil for $500, but the first person to buy the pencil also got a pair of LSU-Bama tickets.

---

Not the same thing at all. In your scenario, you got something "of worth" for you $500: LSU/Bama tickets.

In this scenario, you'd pay $74k for the "rights" to this gorilla picture. You don't actually own the picture, and anybody else on the internet can download and obtain a copy of the picture too. It's the dumbest thing ever, yet people went spastic about it, and some people duped others and made a fortune. Think about that for a second...in the OP, someone made $1.3 million dollars from Justin Beiber because he bought the NFT of that picture. How hilarious is that shite?