82,891
edits
Non-fungible token: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
A unique reference to an external thing — for example, a Banksy artwork — that has been cryptographically encoded on a [[blockchain]]. The “[[NFT]]” does ''not'', in itself, confer ownership on thing it represents, but — and unlike any of the millions of other copies and images of the work online — it is a ''unique'' token of your non-actual ownership — there is no other token of non-ownership quite like it (hence, “non-[[fungible]]”) and given its unique status on the [[bollockchain]], no theoretical possibility another one that could be created. So this token somehow magically bootstraps itself to intrinsic value. | A unique reference to an external thing — for example, a Banksy artwork — that has been cryptographically encoded on a [[blockchain]]. The “[[NFT]]” does ''not'', in itself, confer ownership on thing it represents, but — and unlike any of the millions of other copies and images of the work online — it is a ''unique'' token of your non-actual ownership — there is no other token of non-ownership quite like it (hence, “non-[[fungible]]”) and given its unique status on the [[bollockchain]], no theoretical possibility another one that could be created. So this token somehow magically bootstraps itself to intrinsic value. | ||
Hence some people — clearly possessed of a devastating sense of irony — hatched the idea of taking an already subversively self-referential artwork — one that plays with the idea of its own lack of intrinsic value, being a ''print'' — print 325 of 500 created! — created by a ''graffito'' which is called “[[Morons]]”, and which directly addresses the gullibility of art buyers, and which actually has the words “I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU MORONS ACTUALLY BUY THIS SHIT” written in capital letters on it — and putting a (er, non-representational) representation of it on | Hence some people — clearly possessed of a devastating sense of irony — hatched the idea of taking an already subversively self-referential artwork — one that plays with the idea of its own lack of intrinsic value, being a ''print'' — print 325 of 500 created! — created by a ''graffito'' which is called “[[Morons]]”, and which directly addresses the gullibility of art buyers, and which actually has the words “I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU MORONS ACTUALLY BUY THIS SHIT” written in capital letters on it — and putting a (er, non-representational) representation of it on a [[blockchain]] and selling ''that''. | ||
Still, the token sellers perceived rather bricks-and-mortar-ish, old-economy sort of perceptual problem: what if potential buyers worried that the physical | Still, the token sellers perceived rather bricks-and-mortar-ish, old-economy sort of perceptual problem: what if potential buyers worried that the physical work might seem somehow more intrinsically valuable than its crypto-tokenized equivalent? Their solution: ''destroy'' the original work: | ||
{{quote|If you were to have the NFT and the physical piece, the value would be primarily in the physical piece. By removing the physical piece from existence and only having the NFT, we can ensure that the NFT, due to the smart contract ability of the blockchain, will ensure that no one can alter the piece and it is the true piece that exists in the world. By doing this, the value of the physical piece will then be moved onto the NFT.}} | {{quote|If you were to have the NFT and the physical piece, the value would be primarily in the physical piece. By removing the physical piece from existence and only having the NFT, we can ensure that the NFT, due to the smart contract ability of the blockchain, will ensure that no one can alter the piece and it is the true piece that exists in the world. By doing this, the value of the physical piece will then be moved onto the NFT.}} | ||
There are two words I want to pick out from the above: “smart”, and “morons”. One of them is apposite | There are two words I want to pick out from the above: “smart”, and “morons”. One of them is apposite to the someone — 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 ''staggering''. | ||
===Creative destruction?=== | ===Creative destruction?=== | ||