NFT vending machine appears in London NFTs are dead. And stupid. Don't just take our word for it – Bill Gates, widely considered a pretty smart guy, described them as "100 percent based on greater fool theory" and analyst Forrester recently said "most consumers aren't interested in NFT stunts." Clearly the crypto-bros behind the NFT.London conference didn't get …
Nod!
I read "possible investors are put off getting involved by various unnecessary and complicated barriers" and thought "...such as the absurdity of the idea?"
Similarly "We bet there's a queue forming outside the vending machine right now": "...and I've got a position in it I can sell you".
I just can't wait for the chance to stand round in the foyer of a travel lodge and pay double the normal asking price for a picture of a bored ape which will be worthless tomorrow....
Of course, the stroke of genius is that I don't have to worry about losing my money when my picture of a bored ape gets stuck in the mechanism, because it was never mine anyway. That way, there's no need to shoulder barge the machine to get the goods I paid for.
double the normal asking price for a picture of a bored ape which will be worthless tomorrow
Not even a picture; it's a link to a file that contains a picture of a bored ape -- like these but with Blockchain™. You won't own the picture or the file, so you don't have to wait until tomorrow for it to be worthless.
> But what if I faked digital scarcity? A database with limited spaces, each identified by a unique number.
Not a good equivalence, because the "database" effectively has infinite spaces - there's no technical limitation there. The "scarcity" comes entirely from the NFT creator making a pinky-swear not to create more database entries in future!
> You don't own the poster, you don't own the image on the poster, you can't reproduce the image, or sell copies, or claim any other type of ownership.
While I'm sure this is true of the majority, this is not necessarily true as a generalisation. The most famous of NFTs - the Bored Apes - explicitly came with the copyright - or at least the legal right to reproduce, use, sublicense, etc. that work. That was the whole reason for the hullabaloo about whatsisface who is/was planning on making a TV show featuring his Bored Ape character, whose NFT subsequently got stolen and later recovered (at significant cost).
Which is to say that, in theory, NFT ownership can have value, but only if some legal rights are associated with that ownership, and only if those rights can be enforced using real-world courts and laws.
So,you replaced a contract that would legally assign those rights to you , with a combination of a contract and an NFT , where the rights are assigned to the NFT, not you. Assuming the courts would recognized such a contract, and with the risk that someone might steal your NFT by getting your private key and legally you wouldn't have a leg to stand on? (If you could argue the NFT was stolen and therefor the rights still belonged to you then the NFT is legally worthless). Not a huge benefit, and the step where the rights are assigned to the NFT is no more secure/guaranteed than any other contract. e.g. Want to buy this NFT of the Golden Gate Bridge?
Which is to say that, in theory, NFT ownership can have value, but only if some legal rights are associated with that ownership, and only if those rights can be enforced using real-world courts and laws.
Essentially, an NFT can have value only if it is functionally the same as buying an actual, physical image and its associated rights. So why not just do that?
Oh, right; that wouldn't have blockchain. Duh. Never mind.
…which once upon a time was a serious news agency has (or had, until very recently) a particular penchant for hyping NFT. Probably because all they do nowadays is print whatever press releases they are handed by anyone who is half media savvy.
The problem is that then sensible people come and ask you about this NFT thing and when you explain it to them they just don't believe you, because "Reuters says otherwise".
A reflection of the world we live in, I suppose.
I read somewhere some 30 years ago of a guy who sold envelopes on the street for (let's say) £5 each. On the front was the statement "how make a million without effort". Inside was a card bearing the text "do to lots of other people what I've just done to you".
“I read somewhere”
I read somewhere that people who read something somewhere are attempting to give some grounding to their fiction.
But in fact a small ad stating “How to make a fortune…send xx money to P.O.Box xx….” and by return people received a piece of paper saying “place an ad like mine…”.
"I read somewhere that people who read something somewhere are attempting to give some grounding to their fiction"
Actually it was reported in a highly authoritative book, but I'm prevented by rights issues from identifying its authorship without obtaining prior permission (which would take too long as interest in these forum postings typically lasts about 24 hours).
My wife fell for this when we were really badly off financially about 30 years ago. She answered an ad in the local paper for 'make money at home addressing envelopes' which were quite common ads at the time. She sent them £20 which was a lot for us at the time and received back instructions to post similar adverts to the one she answered.
>> make money at home
similar here : wife send off for a package of bits of cardboard to "fold and assemble" then post back for them to "sell" and make some money, except the end product was something I would not even consider giving away. Was clear that the people sending the stuff out were the ones making the money.
Eventually managed to persuade her it was really was a scam, in her defence she hated being dependent on me for money at the time (never an issue for me) and just wanted a bit of independence
The premise of all MLMs.
I had a friend who got into Arbonne. She invited us over and gave us the whole spiel (all a bunch of male nerds, so I don't know why she thought it would get anywhere). None of us said anything. It is one of my life-long regrets that I didn't overcome my politeness and point out what a scam it was (especially right in front of her handler, that would have been great). That said, her boyfriend really should have stepped up to the plate on that one.
You can scribble a quick note on the card, put it in the envelope, stamp and address it (may have to use the back for the address, but there is no law against that) then pop it into a pillarbox.
That is *far* too much useful functionality for this to be considered a Real NFT! What a swiz!
The recent London NFT event was a shambles, they charged a fortune for a ticket (not just a place in the queue ;) ), hardly anyone attended and the show itself had more speakers than attendees. These are not the people to represent this new technology. Vending machines for NFTs are a bit of a joke in the community.
Bill Gates has also famously made mistakes with his technology crystal ball and if he has only had a cursory glance at what some NFT projects are doing and innovating, he may change his mind. I'm not telling anyone here to go and buy an expensive monkey jpeg, sorry a place in the queue to look at one. (Also an incorrect analogy in this instance.) But you might want to research what else is happening in the space.
While I acknowledge that this is not super strong (the art market is also in many ways a similar scam), there is one difference which I think is important. Sometimes, somebody buys an expensive painting not JUST as an investment vehicle, but also because they want to show it off to their rich friends (or even rarer, because they actually like it or appreciate its historical significance). That works a lot better when you get a physical thing over which you can claim exclusivity.
So while 99% of the time these things are bought as expensive gambling, there is some actual market value outside of the painting's use as an investment vehicle. That means the art market has at least some semblance of an economic foundation, which the NFT market does not.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
