The closest way I’ve found to explain the weirdness of #NFT for art: They’re like a signed, numbered limited edition print, but the signature is not on the actual print, and not necessarily even by the artist
7
2
1
13
Except not limited, nor endorsed, nor valid in any sense other than by everyone pretending.
4
9
Somebody compared it to star naming services.
1
1
I know. I’m not convinced, as that is 100% a scam, and there are some actual artists involved in that NFT thing, which makes it only 95% comparable IMO :)
2
2
An artist being complicit in a Ponzi scheme doesn't mean it isn't a Ponzi scheme. It just means the artist is happy to fleece a greater fool. Don't confuse creativity with integrity! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greate…
1
1
Replying to @tastapod @fquednau
I find the Ponzi scheme scam arguments too shallow, and also quite boring TBH

Oct 7, 2021 · 10:55 AM UTC

2
Replying to @stilkov @fquednau
I don't understand the argument about shallow, and I can't help things that you find boring (I'm not too excited about it myself). It is an artificial construct where the last person standing finds they are holding something worthless, and everyone else along the way cashes out.
2
3
Replying to @stilkov @fquednau
If you're interested, I have a piece of paper that says you own the Eiffel Tower, that you can have for €1,000. (Actually it just says that you own the piece of paper itself, but who's counting?)
1
1