LogFAQs > #961492840

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Again I'd direct you to Candy Digital. Their MLB Icon NFTs are digital assets created specifically to be used as NFTs. They released 25,000 packs with 3 NFTs per pack of five varying rarities. They combined video clips and graphics and sound effects to create a pretty slick looking NFT and the high rarities were more detailed with additional features. That is miles beyond the Topps approach of "take the picture of our baseball card and make an NFT of the same static image that we print on the cards".

Candy also did a run of "Suite Futures - Football" NFTs last year where they selected 22 up and coming college football players and did a release of NFTs for them. These NFTs were not as elaborate as the MLB ones described above, but were still more than just a static image. Now that college football players are allowed to monetize from and benefit from their likeness, this was a positive thing for those 22 players.

The key flaw with these specific services is that they don't have to be NFTs. The reason that it's so common to do NFTs of images and such (other than it's easy) is that it actually makes some kind of difference; when anybody can just right-click and get the same image, the only thing that makes it special is that you have the certificate saying it's yours (which is garbage but it's in principle something). Like with your videogame examples, the service could just... sell them normally and sell them uniquely. The verification that it's unique comes from it being on your account and nobody else's.

NFTs are a weird middle ground between "set and forget" and active maintenance. If the service dies completely, your hash or whatever dies too, and if the service is actually built up and offers something complex, it doesn't need to be an NFT.

The blockchain certifying that it's unique is only valuable when copies will proliferate, and only provides value when you actually verify that it's special.