LogFAQs > #961481271

Forceful_Dragon posted...

"less cool" is subjective, and the prevailing sentiment could change over time. There are also ways of presenting digital assets that are more dynamic than the static image that paper cards are limited to.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'impersonally chucking money at somebody". If you buy a pack of NFT highlights you pay for the pack but then you get to open the pack yourself to find out what you got. I could use some clarification on that point.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Autographed NFTs already exist. They are typically 1 of 1s where the athlete/celebrity will sign like an iPad or something 30 different times to make 30 distinctly different signatures for the purpose of those signatures being incorporated in unique NFTs.

It's subjective, but my point is that most (almost all?) people believe this. Like, digital games have been around for a while, and while it could be the case that people are beginning to value physical collections less, they're not valuing their digital collections proportionally more; they're just the convenient means to play the game, not so much a source of sentimentality. There's something irreplaceable about something physical, moreso about a physical collectable, and I can't see that changing anytime soon.

What I meant by it being impersonal is that, especially with the current incarnation, there's nothing really special to them besides the esoteric certificate of "authenticity". Whatever the media, they're created as a product first, then made into an NFT to inflate the price grossly (which is particularly egregious when it exists already and it's being made into one well after the fact). It's the difference between commissioning artwork or buying a print you found that you like. Of course, this *can* be improved on, like digital signatures, but even that, from my perspective, is kind of tacky. Like an auto-pen signature, though this might just be my own biases.
Forceful_Dragon posted...

There are scummy corners of the NFT space, and they should absolutely be called out as such. Projects get the rug pulled out from under them on a dishearteningly regular basis. That's why I wanted put an emphasis on being cautious and doing research before investing in one project or another.

I don't see how that makes the space as a whole inherently scummy. People make forgeries of Pokemon cards, those illegitimate happenings don't automatically taint the legitimate side of the experience.

I'm not saying you can't or even necessarily shouldn't mention the potential, that doing so legitimizes what we have now, just it seems like even the potential optimal implementation is such a minor (or even lateral) improvement over what we can already do that... why bother? It's kind of begging the question, sure, but I guess I'd rather have this tech, and the potential improvements as far as I can see them, lost than run the risk of their current form carrying on longer.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Anyone can catch a Charizard in a Pokemon game. How many people can say they have one of only a few hundred Charizards, and they are all subtly different so no one else has their exact Charizard?

That is the distinction. And admittedly that might not be important to everyone, but that doesn't make it less valid for the people who do enjoy that verifiable uniqueness.

NFTs don't make anything unique. They just veritably tell you that it's unique... or at least uniquely owned. Pokemon could just add DLC for unique Pokemon that adds a little flag to them that says you have the only copy, or, if you insecure about how easy it is to hack Pokemon, they could add a little list on their website or what the fuck ever. NFT is just the implementation of the system.

and everybody already has a unique spinda