Non-fungible token: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
There are two words I want to pick out from the above: “smart”, and “morons”. One of them is apposite to the someone — also anonymous — who bought it, and you don’t even know for sure that ''that'' dude<ref>if it isn’t a sock-puppet for the original seller, of cour — WAAAAAAITAMINNUTE.</ref> isn’t the gimp in all of this because — who can say? — some even ''stupider'' person might buy it for ''more''.<ref>At the time of writing said buyer ''does'' seem to be the gimp: it bought for 228.69, and the offers that have flooded in to date have been in the range of 0.001 - 2 ether coins (that is $500 more than it is worth, but it puts it in some perspective.</ref> That is someone-call-Alanis-Morrissette-grade ''staggering''. | There are two words I want to pick out from the above: “smart”, and “morons”. One of them is apposite to the someone — also anonymous — who bought it, and you don’t even know for sure that ''that'' dude<ref>if it isn’t a sock-puppet for the original seller, of cour — WAAAAAAITAMINNUTE.</ref> isn’t the gimp in all of this because — who can say? — some even ''stupider'' person might buy it for ''more''.<ref>At the time of writing said buyer ''does'' seem to be the gimp: it bought for 228.69, and the offers that have flooded in to date have been in the range of 0.001 - 2 ether coins (that is $500 more than it is worth, but it puts it in some perspective.</ref> That is someone-call-Alanis-Morrissette-grade ''staggering''. | ||
===Creative destruction?=== | ===Creative destruction?=== | ||
[[File:Madonna and Token.png| | [[File:Madonna and Token.png|350px|thumb|right|''Madonna and Token'' ([[Büchstein]], 2021)]]Let’s just work that logic through by analogy. To the right we have two images. One is ''La Gioconda''. The other is a picture I just drew of it. I accidentally put my coffee mug down on it but I think that makes it look a bit more authentic. Now, ''both'' of these are unique representations: one is hanging in the Louvre, as we all know, the other is on the 20 April page from my desk diary from last year. Wikipedia estimates the 2019 value<ref>Extrapolated from a 1962 valuation of USD100m: ''a suspiciously round number'' if you ask me, but still.</ref> of the ''Mona Lisa'' as USD 850 million. If we take that valuation as fair, I don’t think is is stretching things to say that the ''combined'' value of the ''real'' Leonardo original and my “unique token” of it — to be clear, that is the ''real'' thing, in my last year’s desk diary, not the feeble photographic facsimile you see below — is more or less ''exactly USD 850 million''. | ||
With me so far? Now for the krazy alchemical step: let’s say we ''burn'' the Mona Lisa. Obliterate it. We may need Robert Langdon to help with that, I grant you, but let’s just say. What is the value of my token now? EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION BUCKAROONIES AM I RIGHT??? | With me so far? Now for the krazy alchemical step: let’s say we ''burn'' the Mona Lisa. Obliterate it. We may need Robert Langdon to help with that, I grant you, but let’s just say. What is the value of my token now? EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION BUCKAROONIES AM I RIGHT??? |