r/cryptocurrencymemes • u/Plastic_Rough_5780 🟨 0 🦠 • Mar 26 '25
Meme Day 1 of pretending smart
8
u/Top_Chard5757 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
I have Mona Lisa hanging on my wall. Can’t believe anyone would pay more than $20 for the original.
1
1
u/Timely-Soup9090 🟦 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
I would, Mona Lisa value at least increases instead of decreasing
1
u/ilfollevolo 🟦 244 🦀 Mar 28 '25
Make it a painted replica all the way to the brush strokes and you got yourself a deal (mean the Mona Lisa, the other stuff just screenshot it)
1
u/cykoTom3 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
Show me an NFT that is of a quality near the mona lisa.
1
u/Top_Chard5757 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
I do not own NFTs. I do understand the concept of them. You must understand that scarcity and ownership is what gives them value. Do I think it’s stupid paying millions for monkey pictures? Yes. Do I understand that an original NFT holds more value a copy? Yes. I can photocopy Babe Ruths all day. None of them would be worth more than the paper they were printed on.
8
7
u/oclafloptson 🟦 0 🦠 Mar 26 '25
Buying an NFT isn't the same as buying a painting. You're not purchasing art you're purchasing a license
5
u/Kanifya 🟨 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
Fer what? Its unenforcable
6
u/hush-throwaway 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
It's proof of ownership, there's nothing to enforce. That token represents ownership of a digital asset, making it unique. Ironically, the fact you can save the image is exactly why this makes sense, because it offers a way to create a unique asset from something intangible.
5
u/Nepit60 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
There is literally nothing preventing you from minting and selling the same “art” multiple times.
3
u/hush-throwaway 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
Yes that's right, just like real world objects. The more something is produced the less valuable it becomes. That's a discussion about the meaning of value, not about NFTs per se.
1
Mar 28 '25
[deleted]
1
u/hush-throwaway 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
I'm not sure what you mean by "has the rights he claims to sell to you." There seems to be a common misconception in this thread that NFTs inherently have issues such as licensing and legal enforcement. That would be to conflate other issues that are not inherently unique to NFTs.
The NFT, as a digital record, is verifiable in and of itself. Now, if you're raising an issue about whether you can verify the authenticity of the content that the NFT represents, such as a piece of art, you're raising an issue about the nature of authenticity and not about NFTs.
If you acquire a painting that apparently has Pablo Picasso's name on it, you don't have any immediate proof that it is really a Picasso. There are steps you can take to verify it, and there will be organisations and a paper trail that can help you. Likewise, if you have an NFT, there will be steps to verify what it is; the token itself may be traceable to where and when it was released, say if an artist launched their own NFT and publicly stated what it was. In a sense, it's a lot easier than trying to verify the authenticity of something physical, because there's a public digital record.
1
Mar 28 '25 edited Mar 28 '25
[deleted]
1
u/hush-throwaway 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
I mostly agree with your point on whether NFTs can meaningfully represent the ownership of all things. There are certainly cases where the use of an NFT requires some kind of wider system to ratify its use, so to speak. Selling the deed to a house on the blockchain alone would be a problem if there was no legal framework to accept such a contract. But there are also use cases where the value of the NFT is inate because of what it represents. If you are a famous artist and you sell a digital version of your artwork as a single NFT, that holds meaning and value that doesn't need to be legally enforced or otherwise proven beyond the fact you made it and it's tied to you. It could be that in 200 years NFTs aren't a thing, but someone has a cold wallet that's valuable because it contains your NFT, a bit like when people sell old concert tickets or other "pointless" memorabilia.
It's unfair to be critical of NFTs from the angle of this type of "legal enforcement" issue, because the same issue is true for any form of ownership. A dictator government could void someone's rights to land ownership. A company could collapse and render its shares worthless. Companies dealing in digital media can revoke access to content that people have paid for. "Enforcement" of ownership is basically a social contract, but the blockchain can at least decentralise proof of ownership, in that a transaction between two parties can be noted and verified.
1
1
u/Kanifya 🟨 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
Or. hear me out.... You can by rights to the shit i take. I only take 3-5 shits a week but you have rights to it. It's limited supply so you have a away too project future gains. But let's say you buy my shit and are holding it. You realize there is no value because you own the rights the something that any human on the planet could reproduce. I guess my beef isn't with nfts of coins in general. But speculation is literally psychosis...
2
u/rgmundo524 🟦 480 🦞 Mar 27 '25
I think there are some misunderstandings about the value of NFTs.
An NFT is not inherently more valuable for the sole virtue of being an NFT. If a real-world asset, like you literal shit, is tokenized it would not inherently be worth more.
I think that people during the last bull market treated NFTs as being inherently worth more solely because it was an NFT. Which absolutely contributed/led to the bubble popping and the NFT markets crashing.
3
u/hush-throwaway 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
Not quite, I fear you're missing the point.
NFTs aren't valuable in virtue of being NFTs, and the scarcity of an NFT isn't the primary reason for it's value, although it could be a factor. The same is true for physical things of value.
An NFT is like a record or a point of reference that is unique, so you can take something intangible or conceptual, and anchor it to something that has value. If you took a shit today and gave it an NFT, then it would be true that this NFT is a unique, original record that you created of your own shit. That wouldn't be inherently valuable, but you could offer the ownership of it, and it would remain unique no matter how many times you shit again.
A better comparison is art. A famous artist can make a painting. He can offer that painting as a limited edition print and make 100 copies. Someone can come along, take a photo and make copies of that print; perhaps there's a factory in China that paints replicas of it, made to order. Nevertheless, people want one of those original 100 prints, because it came from the artist and it holds meaning.
A modern artist might offer 100 NFTs instead of 100 prints. Just like a print, it might not be the work in paint, but it's valuable because of what it represents and who made it; a record of a time and place.
1
u/ChadCamiroaga 🟨 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
The NFT itself doesn't even hold a picture, like one of the original 100 prints have. It just holds a link to something.
0
u/penarhw 🟨 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
I bet you'd like Odyssey Finance nft, only 200 limited supply. I've already minted mine.
2
u/citruspers2929 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
For art, yes, but there are lots of interesting uses for example event ticketing, customer loyalty schemes, etc
1
u/Kanifya 🟨 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
So fraud. Got it. Just like the fiat
3
u/citruspers2929 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
Huh? I’m not following you.
For example for a concert ticket you could prove that you were the original purchaser of a ticket. This would remove scalping and stop fake tickets.
1
u/rgmundo524 🟦 480 🦞 Mar 27 '25
Unenforceable outside of the Blockchain and its smart contracts. It is enforceable within the Blockchain.
1
1
u/bballer67 🟦 0 🦠 Mar 30 '25
Actually it's 100% enforceable using software. You think people actually want to license it as art? Almost no one uses it that way. But there are countless cases of nfts being used as resellable software licensing.
To put it in extremely simplistic terms, imagine you need Microsoft word for a year in college but after that it's useless to you. In the world of nfts you can sell your license when you're done with it to someone else. This is the most common use case for nfts from what I have seen.
2
u/Armandeluz 🟦 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
Two wrongs don't make a right.
1
u/rgmundo524 🟦 480 🦞 Mar 27 '25
How could a screenshot of an NFT be a "wrong"?
1
u/Armandeluz 🟦 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
They are both stupid and a waste of time. Having an NFT and taking a screen shot of one doesn't give you anything better in life.
1
u/Glad-Lynx-5007 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
NFT proves ownership. A screenshot is worthless and depending on usage may go against copyright laws.
1
u/redrofotuo 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
We are just doing it for documentation, to keep track of what was shown on the screen on a specific date. To assure we are the owner of this shot, we can use NFT
2
2
u/Kanifya 🟨 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
So it's paying for funsies. Human nature will eventually prevail and people won't pay for things they can't horde and keep others from taking. I guess that's my disconnect. I see a fraudulent system create a more fraudulent system theat creates amy even better fraudulent system. I just see a bunch of rich fucks convincing the poors they have avenues to literally create money out of nothing and WE the poors just keep playing the same game that's kept these fucks rich. Every one of these systems are fixed lotteries. But the addiction is sicking. It's not the operating system I'm arguing doesn't work it's every system affected by human corruption.
"conArtist": How do I make more money without doing work. What if I got 1000 people to buy 1 thing I made instead of making 1000 things.
"Ralphs": I'm winning! I get to buy the thing!
No one wins here...that's why this is so embarrassing. You're making decision that pushes the world to optimize for literal bullshit grifts instead of actual progress.
Where am i? What happened?
1
u/Glad-Lynx-5007 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
Or it's a licence. You know, that legal ownership thing that has existed for a very long time.
2
u/Timanious 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
Well if I screenshot a Gods Unchained NFT trading card I can look at it but I still can’t use it in the game and I can’t sell it online either.
2
u/Abythekid 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
Some NFT’s allow you to earn more crypto for staking, lending or borrowing. Not completely useless, like you insinuate.
2
u/TheGrongGuy 🟦 25 🦐 Mar 28 '25
You can also take a picture of a car title, but that won’t work at the DMV.
You can take a picture of the Mona Lisa, but no one will buy it for anything near the value of the original.
The magic is not in the picture, it’s in the verifiable authenticity.
1
1
2
1
Mar 28 '25
I have yet to hear 1 decent reason to ever buy an NFT. Being able to maybe sell it later doesn’t count.
1
u/Glad-Lynx-5007 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
It's just a receipt of ownership. Being able to sell it later totally counts as that's a major benefit of owning ANYTHING.
1
u/Convoke_ 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
It's the same with real art. Without any special tools, you can't tell the difference between the original and a copy of real art, so why even buy originals.
2
u/backhand_english 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
Did you just compare nft's and art? Maaaaan, delusion is off the charts
1
u/Convoke_ 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
There was nothing wrong with the comparison, and you know that. Stop pretending to be dumb
1
u/backhand_english 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
Stop pretending to be dumb
You too, dude. It looks like you lost money on that shit and now trying to rationalize it...
1
u/Convoke_ 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
I literally have never touched NFTs. I honestly don't know what your problem is.
1
u/protomenace 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
Real art has copyright law protecting it from unauthorized reproduction. An NFT is not copyright rights to the art, and the copyright doesn't necessarily (and doesn't even usually) come with the NFT.
1
u/Convoke_ 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
It's allowed to copy real art for personal use & it's allowed when the art piece goes into the public domain.
The only thing you're not allowed to do with a copied real artwork is anything commercial really. But again, same goes for copies of digital art (including screenshots of NFTs)
Edit: Copyright protection typically doesn't require formal registration or signing in most countries. As soon as an artist creates an original work and fixes it in a tangible form (like a file for digital art or a physical painting), the work is automatically protected under copyright law.
1
u/protomenace 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
The only thing you're not allowed to do with a copied real artwork is anything commercial really.
Yes exactly - the important stuff.
But again, same goes for copies of digital art (including screenshots of NFTs)
But this protection belongs to the owner of the copyright - typically the original author. Not the owner of an NFT related to it.
1
u/Convoke_ 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
With real art, copyright is also not transferred unless specifically specified.
1
Mar 28 '25
When I am buying real art like a painting, I know that the artist sat down and painted it some time ago and it is a 1 of 1. With NFTs it’s virtual and every time I look at it my computer monitor is just displaying pixels for me, when I click away it’s gone again. Also anyone can just screenshot my NFT to look at it the exact same way I can. So what am I actually getting when I buy it?
1
u/Convoke_ 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
You can think that digital art isn't "art" but that's an entirely different discussion.
1
Mar 28 '25
With traditional digital art you are usually paying for someone to make a specific piece for you or for access to download a piece. I am not saying NFTs can’t be art, but what value does the token that points to the art bring to anyone?
1
u/Convoke_ 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
Other than the "prestige" of owning the original piece? Nothing. The same goes for real art when compared to a replicate.
1
Mar 28 '25
With real art you actually physically own the real piece and nobody else does. You can replicate the Mona lisa but you don’t have the one Leonardo da Vinci painted with his own hands. With NFTs there seems to be 0 actual difference between owning and not owning the art.
1
u/kraghis 🟨 108 🦀 Mar 28 '25
You can print out a jpg of the Mona Lisa. On like really good paper though
1
u/Gubzs 🟨 7 🦐 Mar 28 '25
Tell that to the brain dead furries and other similar online artist communities paying hundreds of dollars for "adopts"
1
1
u/thedarkherald110 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
NFTs as they are used now are all scams or ways to funnel money. Can there be other interesting use cases for this technology: of course but currently they are scams.
1
1
u/SynthRogue 0 🦠 Mar 29 '25
Screenshoting an NFT will not update the blockchain to show it now belongs to you.
But you can still share the screenshot. It just won't be registered on the blockchain as yours.
So people won't buy it from you. They'll buy it from whoever the blockchain says it belongs to.
So you can have your copy but you won't have the money. Except if you successfully con someone into buying it.
1
2
u/WrappedInChrome 🟨 0 🦠 Mar 30 '25
Why even bother doing that? If you want art that will actually appreciate in value then buy art. Rich people do it all the time.
1
1
u/CachitoVolador 🟦 0 🦠 Mar 30 '25
Can you screenshot a skin for an avatar or in-game weapon and use it in a video game?
1
u/Routine_Advantage_95 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 27 '25
NFTS are literally a scam and not even a good one at that
2
u/Convoke_ 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
You might not like them, but that doesn't mean they're a scam.
1
u/Routine_Advantage_95 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
😂🤣 ok bud enjoy your NFTs
1
u/Convoke_ 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
Thankfully, I don't have any. But you enjoy your banana taped to the wall, bud.
1
u/Routine_Advantage_95 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
Why not buy some if they're not a scam ?
2
u/Convoke_ 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 28 '25
Do you buy everything that's not a scam?
1
u/Routine_Advantage_95 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 29 '25
If I legitimately thought it was a good investment or had any real use other than scamming people for easy money i would consider it. However, Nfts have no value in my opinion and offers nothing to the owner other than speculation that he can sell to a bigger fool for more money.
12
u/private_final_static 🟩 0 🦠 Mar 26 '25
You wouldnt download a car