LogFAQs > #961493888

NFUN posted...

The key flaw with these specific services is that they don't have to be NFTs.

Except being NFTs allows them to be digital products that can be sold. Without the authenticity it ceases to be something that people would pay for. And then in that scenario it would not exist because nobody is going to pay the artist/designer to create a product that doesn't have a market.

Now this varies from sector to sector.

Collectible NFTs: Far fewer people would pay for these or assign value to them if there was no proof of ownership. If TopShot released a new set and gave 1 of every highlight to everyone with an account then who would pay for them?

Digital Artwork NFTs: Anyone can already replicate the artwork itself, but having official ownership of some kind gives an artist something to sell to people who want to be an owner of the digital art and support the artist.

Video Game NFTs: These are different and don't necessarily need to be on the blockchain because (as we've discussed) people will pay for advantage and assets in game regardless. But if you take a game like hearthstone and make your cards NFTs then you give yourself an ownership of your collection that goes beyond the company itself whose game it is. And sure, Blizzard to turn around one day and say "we're turning off the hearthstone servers so it doesn't matter if you have those assets in your wallet because the game doesn't exist anymore" then someone else could make a different game that adds functionality to those same assets you already possess.

So video game assets don't have to be NFTs, we can agree on that. But other kinds of NFTs would simply not exist as products without the authentication of the blockchain to legitimize them. And even in the case of VG NFTs, what does it harm? (And don't say the environment because I'm getting tired of fielding that one)