Whatever people generally accept as a tradeable asset can be used as a currency. Be it a painting, a very old coin or a banana taped to a wall. Currency doesn’t have to be directly useful, it just needs to be unique and give some kind of confidence in value. Paper bills are well established with high confidence in their value, even though they are really just pieces of cotten paper with a specific print. However, NFTs are linked to crappy artwork which seems to generally lower the general confidence in sustained value.
The general idea of NFTs is fine, but the execution is a shitshow of dimensions beyond my belief.
It depends on what you’re using them for. If it’s just a URL to an image, meh. But some real assets can be hard to track without a lot of institutional infrastructure. NFTs are a possible alternative to the expensive, hard to grow financial institutions that underpin a formal economy.
Take ownership of a house. When I was buying recently, there was a myriad of companies involved in the sale, including insurance companies in case there was a lingering claim to the property. In a country where possession of any given piece of land has very poor records, transferring ownership is that much harder. But what if instead they built their system around creating NFT corresponding to a an actual specification for the land?
Care to elaborate? I can see that the result of extremely pricey meme drawings is completely stupid. But the general idea of linking property to a non-centralized system which anyone could verify against, but basically no one could cheat, sounds like a decent concept to me.
They think the value would go up. Why? Who would want to buy it from them?
Whatever people generally accept as a tradeable asset can be used as a currency. Be it a painting, a very old coin or a banana taped to a wall. Currency doesn’t have to be directly useful, it just needs to be unique and give some kind of confidence in value. Paper bills are well established with high confidence in their value, even though they are really just pieces of cotten paper with a specific print. However, NFTs are linked to crappy artwork which seems to generally lower the general confidence in sustained value.
The general idea of NFTs is fine, but the execution is a shitshow of dimensions beyond my belief.
The general idea of NFTs is completely stupid IMO.
If you don’t know anything about NFTs, they sound really stupid.
If you know a lot about NFTs, they sound really stupid.
It depends on what you’re using them for. If it’s just a URL to an image, meh. But some real assets can be hard to track without a lot of institutional infrastructure. NFTs are a possible alternative to the expensive, hard to grow financial institutions that underpin a formal economy.
Take ownership of a house. When I was buying recently, there was a myriad of companies involved in the sale, including insurance companies in case there was a lingering claim to the property. In a country where possession of any given piece of land has very poor records, transferring ownership is that much harder. But what if instead they built their system around creating NFT corresponding to a an actual specification for the land?
Care to elaborate? I can see that the result of extremely pricey meme drawings is completely stupid. But the general idea of linking property to a non-centralized system which anyone could verify against, but basically no one could cheat, sounds like a decent concept to me.