At least in the tulip case, they actually had some minor value. You owned a pretty flower. You could also make the case for crypto money, I guess.

Any person with common sense and basic technical understanding could tell you NFTs were an incredibly dumb and useless idea from the very start. All you “own” is an entry on some ledger, which doesn’t inherently give you ownership over anything else.

▲

hodder an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Exact same argument for crypto though. It is all just supply demand. BTC has much more demand currently and likely more sustainably. Alt coins are just less popular. It is all just supply vs demand.

▲

jbverschoor 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No different than the us dollar, except for the fact that the dollar is backed by armed forces, which is paid by us dollars....

▲

vmg12 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Using your reasoning a large number of collectible items should be worthless. What really makes an NFT different from a Pokemon card, a Birkin bag, or even an original Monet? My guess is that the seller has to have some sort of authority and established reputation for these kinds of artificially scarce luxury goods to maintain value.

▲

hsartoris 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Using your reasoning

Clearly not, the point being made was that you owned a thing, e.g. a Pokemon card. To own an NFT is to, bafflingly, claim to hold a token of ownership of some asset represented by the NFT - where that representation is indicated by the NFT immutably containing, typically, a thoroughly mutable Google Drive link to a picture. The whole thing was always farcical.

Again, at least you actually own the Pokemon card at the end of the day.

▲

im3w1l an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The big issue with NFT's is that can't use them to flex on people as easily.

	▲	pants2 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think that was a big part of it, if you owned an expensive NFT and set it as your profile picture it gave you some cred with certain circles online.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

root-parent an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>> All you “own” is an entry on some ledger, which doesn’t inherently give you ownership over anything else.

No different from bitcoin...

▲

jMyles an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not really convinced that people thought there was "anything else", it's just that people thought that the entry on the ledger was going to increase in value, even from some of the stupifying initial values.

I own several NFTs that are important to me, and they're worth every penny I paid. I never had any illusions that I owned anything other than a historical footnote; I think that this sort of ownership is meaningful and important.

It's much more realistic to me than "buying a song" from one of the corporate music distributors. "Owning" a song seems to be much more of a misunderstanding of how data works in a digital world than owning an entry in a ledger.

	▲	JCTheDenthog 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>I own several NFTs that are important to me, and they're worth every penny I paid. The problem with the NFTs is that you don't actually own the art they represent and have zero copyright claim to them. In the absolute very best of cases, if you squint hard enough, you could see them as roughly equivalent to the signature of the original creator of the work of art and you're effectively buying a signed digital print of the work. In the worst and more common cases, you're buying nothing at all except a hash on a blockchain.