Non-fungible token: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 19: Line 19:


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''.
It is not out of the question that the buyer and seller are in fact the same single person perniciously trying to create an artificial market. If so, ''so what'' if the only bid is 500 bucks? ''It’s still 500 bucks.'' That’s a week’s work in some places. If this is a scam — and I have no idea and make no assertion in that direction — it is clever, so ironic it is almost artwork in itself, and, well, fraud.
In any case, bitcoin in general and NFTs in particular throw into sharp relief some fairly metaphysical questions about [[value]], [[identity]] and [[authentic|authenticity]] that the [[information revolution]] has been lobbing around for a while now and which, in most of us, haven’t generated much more that a nagging feeling that our conventional models of the world might be due an upgrade.
===Creative destruction?===
===Creative destruction?===
Let’s just work that logic through by analogy. Below, 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''.
Let’s just work that logic through by analogy. Below, 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''.
Line 30: Line 25:


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???
===Is everything as it seems?===
This might seem a preposterous question. But perhaps the buyer and seller are in fact the same single person, perniciously trying to create an artificial market. If so, ''so what'' if the only bid is 500 bucks? ''It’s still 500 bucks.'' That’s a month’s work in some places. If this ''is a'' scam — and I have no idea — it is so ironic it is almost an artwork in itself.
In any case, bitcoin in general and [[NFT]]s in particular throw into sharp relief some fairly [[metaphysical]] questions about [[value]], [[identity]] and [[authentic|authenticity]] that the [[information revolution]] has been lobbing around for a while now and which, in most of us, haven’t generated much more that a nagging feeling that our conventional models of the world might be due an upgrade.
Is it [[This time is different|different this time]]? Or are we just looking at Wylie Coyote, treading on air, momentarily defying gravity before —
Time will tell.


{{sa}}
{{sa}}