You must log in or register to comment.

Chalkarts t1_j1uqvnf wrote

No. NFTs are a scam from the ground up. There’s also the problem of electricity. When the Power goes out, NFTs go away.


hiimconel t1_j1v3nio wrote

when power goes out, you whole life will be in chaos


Chalkarts t1_j1v5dqk wrote

People who leverage their wealth on NFTs and Crypto are going to be hilarious when the grid collapses.

“But, I’m a billionaire! It’s all on this flash drive!”


Gorganov t1_j1va6a5 wrote

When the grid collapses money ceases to be useful period. We’re going back to bartering


Chalkarts t1_j1vf1b4 wrote

I know. It’s going to be a very interesting time in the worst possible way.


AadamAtomic t1_j1v6573 wrote

you are not an automated robot....when everything is automated, you think robots will verify your ID, car Registration and vehicle OBD4 Wireless scan with their camera vision?....not at all...

NFT's are not for trading, they are expendable, automated Web certificates like what the internet already has.


nickmakr OP t1_j1urnv1 wrote

Maybe but, when the power goes out, our online identity goes out. Last time I checked, I had 2 identitys 😏


lofgren777 t1_j1uri2z wrote

NFTs are not the future of any kind of ownership. They will be traded back and forth between rich investors in order to launder money and generate wealth through appreciating value, and the art will be able to stay somewhere that everybody can look at it and appreciate it. The only relationship between NFTs and art is that tasteless people with too much money will spend way too much on them in order to trick people into thinking that they have a soul.


Melodicmarc t1_j1ut9as wrote

Sounds exactly like an expensive art collector. Which actually makes perfect sense.


Themasterofcomedy209 t1_j1uy6ux wrote

Except the art collector actually has a physical work that has actual value. The only use NFTs have is to clean your dirty money, people legitimately interested in art will usually choose a physical original over a NFT that’s effectively worthless


Melodicmarc t1_j1v44gv wrote

I’d argue that in both cases (except with historical famous paintings), there is an object with no value except perceived value. The painting is just a physical form of “art” whereas the NFT is a digital form of “art”. Both cases don’t really have any value beyond the perceived artificial value.


Destructopoo t1_j1v5uod wrote

This isn't metaphysical. A piece of art has context that an NFT can't because it's literally meant to be arbitrary filler to represent a transaction. NFTs are not even the image. They're the line of code that the image represents in a digital format.

Edit: this is like asking if penny stocks are going to replace people living in houses because both are investments.


lofgren777 t1_j1v6sht wrote

I can hold a piece of art. I can look at it and be moved by it. It communicates something from the artist to me, through time and space.

The only thing an NFT can do for me is appreciate in my digital wallet.

If somebody thinks these two things are comparable they are exactly the kind of soulless philistine I was talking about in my first comment.

Yes, both only have as much value as they are perceived to have. One is a line of gibberish and code and the other is an attempt by a fellow human being to bridge the infinite gulf between minds. These are not the same thing just because neither would have value if humans stopped existing (which is true of everything anyway).


Destructopoo t1_j1v7fz7 wrote

That last part is so important. This casual nihilism is just an excuse to stop thinking about it. Nobody actually thinks nothing matters.


Melodicmarc t1_j1vet7r wrote

Okay let’s make sure we have the same understanding of what an NFT is here. My understanding is an NFT is essentially a digital signature to show ownership of a digital image? Is that correct? If that is the case, then I don’t see why physical art would hold any more value than digital art? Maybe that’s what we should be discussing.

I was not trying to downplay the value of art. There is a bunch of beauty in art. But also a lot of art is a big scam by rich people. Watch this video:


Destructopoo t1_j1vjb2t wrote

NFTs are the digital signature themselves. They are tokens and the images are a place holder. There is a line of code which an algorithm uses to generate an image and inversely, an image has a unique line of code associated with it. Ever pixel has a numerical value. Imagine I made an nft line that was a 4 by 4 grid. The format is [Blockchainsecurity][0000000011110000][gibberish] and my platform draws you a blank grid with a horizontal line 1/4 of the way up. You own the code. My website makes it a picture. An nft differs from crypto in that there's an image gimmick.

Art isn't a rich people scam. It's art. Do you think houses are a rich people scam? The proportion of houses that are commodified and exploited by the rich is far more than the proportion of art which is commodofied and exploited.


Melodicmarc t1_j1vmvaw wrote

So the intent of NFT's are used to show ownership of the original digital image right? Just as a signature by the original painter on a piece of art shows they created it? I think a digital signature of ownership of a digital image is a valuable. I think the scam of buying and selling NFTs like they are stocks is incredibly dumb. FYI this is where I am getting my information from:

You're correct in that art in itself isn't a scam. Art is great, and only a small portion is used as a scam by the very rich to inflate value and launder money, which that video goes into detail about. Which is why I thought NFT's was a good comparison to that. Comparing art to houses is a bad comparison, because once again houses hold actual value in materials and owning a piece of land. Value in art is based entirely off what humans perceive it to be. A painting won't get you far on a cold winter night, but a house will.


Destructopoo t1_j1y0w2w wrote

That's not the intent. It's the selling point. NFTs do not show digital ownership of art. The art is a representation of the code. You do not own the art nor do you have any rights to it with the NFT.


Fedorchik t1_j1uuqzh wrote

NFT's have no future.

Digital Art ownership is a bullshit concept.


Megaskreth t1_j1veebq wrote

Your mistake is thinking the nft technology is only applicable to art.


Fedorchik t1_j1vmuge wrote

You are free to show examples where it is actually useful.


Megaskreth t1_j21dm9p wrote

Anything that requires proof of ownership. Eventually everything of considerable value will have an NFT associated with it. Like your house will have a tokenized deed, your car a tokenized title. Tokenized stock shares, tokenized certificates of all sorts. There are already high end fashion brands like Louis Vuitton embedding NFC tags in their products that prove authenticity via Blockchain. The best adoption of technology comes when people don't even know they are using it.


Fedorchik t1_j231sk4 wrote


Current system works good enough. I has worked for thousand years and will work for a thousand more without the need to store it over internet in highly complicated form.

Proof of authenticity for a clothing or a purse is an extremely silly idea.

Also, blockchain only works when it is decentralized and evenly distributed over a very large amount of nodes supporting it. In the described case it can be either that every token producer has it's own blockchain, or that there is a large centralized system at work. And both of those simply do not have "non-fungibility" advantage that NFT's are supposed to have.


Megaskreth t1_j243ah3 wrote

It actually hasn't worked for thousands of years. Imagine if all your assets were tied to the legitimacy of your government. What would you do if your government fell or wanted to take all your assets?


Fedorchik t1_j249q6u wrote

What would you do if your assets are NFT-protected but your government takes them anyway?


Megaskreth t1_j2bm67k wrote

If they're landlocked yeah you're fucked. That's why Bitcoin is the greatest asset in human history. Fungibility matters. But the tech will be used for such things whether you like it or not. Even if not by the end user it'll be used by the institutions to save money on processing and such.


Fedorchik t1_j2d9lfu wrote

Bitcoin is already compromised - it is effectively controlled by a majority mining holder.


Zee_Aye_See_Kay t1_j1utkdj wrote

No. You own nothing with a NFT you only own the receipt. At least with physical art you have a REAL ITEM not some garbage money flip trash.


funkanimus t1_j1uwcn7 wrote

99.999999% of original art hangs on the walls of people's homes. A very small fraction of famous art by famous artists may be involved in speculative pricing and/or money laundering. 100% of NFT art is a scam based on the hope that a "greater fool" will pay more for it. Nearly all art is bought for personal enjoyment, not for an investment. Art does not need NFTs. Nothing needs NFTs. NFTs need to associate themselves with something of actual value because they have no value.


thedineshkumar t1_j1upl0l wrote

Nah, I don't think so.

NFTs are like the digital equivalent of a fad diet.

Sure, they might seem like the perfect solution right now, but they're probably not going to be around for long.


jnemesh t1_j1uu2wn wrote

Hell no. They are a get rich quick scheme that will quickly die.


NotObviouslyARobot t1_j1uu8fd wrote

No. NFTs are worthless. Copyright is how you own art because Copyrights are actually scarce resources.


GoatmontWaters t1_j1uv9w2 wrote

Ill give you an honest answer. Yes. Why? Because art is already mostly used to launder money (real life art). And NFTs can let you do that but was easier. This is why theres still billions traded each day in NFT sales despite everyone telling you they are scams. ARe they scams? I Dont know, you got some money to launder? Rich people do it and never get in trouble. So maybe you can now do it too.


Now... Non Art NFTs have a very bright future. Utility NFTs are already massively successful in small pockets and will continue to spread. I personally have made multiple thousands of profit from Utility NFTS (not the bored apes or PFP NFTs, NFTs that are stakable and serve functions.)


Themasterofcomedy209 t1_j1uzikp wrote

This is an extremely cynical way of looking at art. The money laundering happens at the very very top between people in a connected web. The vast majority of art is just random pieces sold for like 100 bucks tops, created by artists trying to get by. It’s used to decorate a location, or to send a message.


PublicFurryAccount t1_j1ux7ae wrote

It really isn't mostly used to launder money.


Pspreviewer100 t1_j1uy380 wrote

You're right. It's also used as a front for trafficking.


PublicFurryAccount t1_j1v2nh6 wrote

The art market is basically concept art, commercial illustration, and furries. Everything else is a sideshow except in dollar terms.


Insane_Artist t1_j1v7d05 wrote

Private ownership is not determined by a piece of paper or computer code. It's determined by who has the physical might to enforce contracts through police or military. People are so capitalist-pilled that they think private property is magical. Unless the government gets involved and decides to start arresting people who screenshot NFTs, they will always be worthless. But the moment that happens, NFTs will still be worthless as the entire point of NFTs is to create an independent system of private ownership without state or government intervention. It doesn't matter if you have proof of a legitimate claim to ownership on something. Your claim is only as legitimate as your ability to stop others from stealing from you.


gibecrake t1_j1uownf wrote

No one can answer this will certainty since that's essentially predicting the future.

With that being said, there are some benefits the blockchain could bring to art ownership and even copywrite laws. While NFTs have the potential to revolutionize the way that digital art is bought and sold, it's still too early to say whether they will become the dominant way of owning and trading art in the future. There are a number of challenges and issues that still need to be addressed, including concerns about the environmental impact of blockchain technology and the lack of legal protections for NFT owners.


IM_INSIDE_YOUR_HOUSE t1_j1v1ae1 wrote

NFTs, in their current iteration, are just a digital pyramid scheme that relies on someone always being dumber than you to make money. The dumbest ones involved will be left holding the bag of a completely worthless asset.


TheJocktopus t1_j1v1kzd wrote

Nobody can predict the future. Anybody who tells you they can is just trying to get you to give them money.

With that being said, it seems unlikely (but not impossible) to me that NFTs will be the standard means of tracking digital ownership. The only real use case that I can see for NFTs would be tracking digital art in a metaverse-esque space, but realistically that type of space would be owned and operated by corporations. Corporations prefer to control things themselves, using blockchain technologies would limit the amount of control that they have over the space's economy, so I doubt they would use NFTs.

Other than that, I couldn't really imagine any situation where I would need to use a decentralized system in order to prove that I own a copy of a digital art piece other than bragging rights, but that seems like something only the very wealthy would engage in.


TDaltonC t1_j1v2d16 wrote

ERC721/1155 (NFTs) is a smart contact technical specification. Asking about that might be the wrong question. Is the further of art ownership attribution digital? Yes. Is the future of digital ownership record keeping blockchain based? Yes.


jujubee2522 t1_j1v5y6b wrote

This is the part of the discussion I didn't understand. I think the blockchain will play a huge role in digital ownership in the years and decades to come, but not necessarily NFTs.


TDaltonC t1_j1v6p11 wrote

The public discourse on this is all very confused, so you’re not alone.


icest0 t1_j1v636g wrote

>Is the future of digital ownership record keeping blockchain based? Yes

lol no.


TDaltonC t1_j1v7vpe wrote

If you were designing a public ownership registry from scratch today, what technology would you use for settlement and clearance if not blockchain? You a fan of graphite on tree pulp?


icest0 t1_j1vaw3y wrote

What is this, a system design interviews?

I'm not sure what I would use for it to be optimal, but I definitely wouldn't use blockchain simply because it wouldn't be practically at all.

Says a person made a mistake while they're inputting the data to the blockchain. How are you going to change it? it's inevitable that someone will made a mistake, which is why in database design, we generally has a way for people to reverse, remove or changes it in some way.


>You a fan of graphite on tree pulp?

I'm a fan of practicality, which is something that blockchain lacks.

What about you? how are you going to incorporate blockchain into the process and make it actually usable?


TDaltonC t1_j1vfkgs wrote

That is exactly the kind of usability problem that is totally real, but also very manageable. It’s not trivial, but it’s on everyone list of things that will get better as the technology matures. People had the same kind of objections to computers and the internet. (I can’t believe I need to belabor this point in a sub about tech trends)

As for what I’m personally doing about this, I’m the cofounder of a company using blockchain to track beneficial ownership of climate assets. So I think that the arguments in favor of blockchain are very convincing.


icest0 t1_j1vi4xs wrote

>It’s not trivial, but it’s on everyone list of things that will get better as the technology matures.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

The point the of the blockchain is ALL data that's stored on blockchain should not be changes/delete/reverse, it should only be added on top. it will never getter better as it would contradict the core concept.

>People had the same kind of objections to computers and the internet. (I can’t believe I need to belabor this point in a sub about tech trends)

We don't. And the concept of blockchain exist for 3 decades now but nobody uses it. beside cryptocurrency.


>As for what I’m personally doing about this, I’m the cofounder of a company using blockchain to track beneficial ownership of climate assets. So I think that the arguments in favor of blockchain are very convincing.

The best you can do to explain how you're going to use it is to say "using blockchain" that's all? And my guy, you honestly think I won't see your BS if you say you are a cofounder at X company? lol I'm not 5 years old.


jujubee2522 t1_j1v5oqj wrote

I'd love to hear input, so if anyone else has perspective, please reply.

Based on my EXTREMELY limited understanding of NFTs, here's what I think is going to happen. The special thing about NFTs is that they're exchanged on the blockchain, which means there is always a point of origin and a chain of exchanges/purchase that is tracible yet secure. I think once our online VR environment grows and matures and becomes more accessible and higher quality, the "random generated monkey jpgs" will be in the past. NFTs don't have to be images at all. I believe eventually there will be VR collectors and augmented reality collectors that have artworks that have been created in and meant to be enjoyed in a digital environments. CAD artists can design "digital sculptures" or other created environments that would be impossible to create in the real world that can be enjoyed in these digital environments. Selling these creations as NFTs on the blockchain means that even if it's sold from one person to another, the creator can see who it's been sold to and even collect a portion of the secondary sale due to the traceability on the blockchain. And because these creations are digital, they can make copies available, almost like a limited release, in the same way artists create prints of their work. There are those that believe NFTs will put the power back in creator's hands. If someone take a photo and edits it, and then posts online, anyone can take a screenshot of the photo which will look identical (maybe not the same quality as the original) and that image is now a completely different file from the original. It's only recently with Google reverse image search and the like that creators have been able to find people stealing their work and take action, while working with NFTs keep the true original in the hands of who it's meant to be.

Eventually AI will probably play a role in these digital creations as well. 3D artists will be able to work with AI and provide prompts derivative from other pieces the artist has created or from information that's been fed to the AI, making a collaborative work that can change based on who the work is created for.

I think NFTs are in their infancy, and that as a whole there will be a lot of changes in the decades to come about how society views them and uses them. Back in the day, when the Dada art movement began to break down the ideas of "what is art?", I think with the progression of digital spaces, we're now asking "what is real?". It used to be that only physical things that we can touch and hold were considered real, but now the internet and our digital lives are becoming part of reality, and this will become harder to discern between as more and more people gain access to VR spaces.


SchemataObscura t1_j1v6gd0 wrote

Not the future of art, like replacing art but possibly a niche in digital spaces.

NFTs as a technology may find uses behind the scenes, as a part of development stacks to identify unique objects but not as the selling point. Eventually they will operate in the background and no one will know (or care) that NFTs are involved.


Rhawk187 t1_j1v7ji6 wrote

As a mechanism to replace Certificates of Authenticity? Maybe.


DeejayPleazure t1_j1v9zo5 wrote

NFT's are like a pyramid scheme. The only people who make money are the artists and mint that can actually fool you into buying them.


IndigoFenix t1_j1vfb9t wrote

NFTs are basically the digital equivalent of owning expensive physical original art pieces. The real value of an art piece is being able to admire it, yet wealthy patrons have always paid enormous sums of money for the privilege of owning "authentic originals", and nobody really cared because talented artists deserve to be paid by someone and who else is going to do it? Now digital artists can do the same.

I don't think NFTs would be as controversial as they are if they didn't have the misfortune of appearing at the same time AI art took off, creating a sudden surge in mediocre art that could be exploited with FOMO mentality. Those fugly apes are pretty much a symbol of all the worst aspects of NFTs, and because NFTs never really got a chance to show their positive side before they were turned into a pyramid scheme they wound up despised.

The technology won't be stained forever though - once people finally figure out how to handle AI art I expect they will become normalized and be a source of income for good digital artists. But it may take a while for them to shake off that stigma.


anreies-pretorius t1_j1utm97 wrote

I don't think so, especially after Boed Ape and bored ape ii (Trump cards). I think NFTs would work well as event tickets.

Trump nfts


Ninja-Sneaky t1_j1uqotq wrote

The way I'm seeing it, it is the "digital translation" of what's in the physical world: there will be identical copies of an image/piece akin to physical reproductions, fakes and prints of real world works and there will be the single NFT akin to the original artwork in real world.

Lol at people downvoting a PREDICTION MADE IN r/FUTUROLOGY, not like it's gonna change what could happen


icest0 t1_j1v874c wrote

>Lol at people downvoting a PREDICTION

I downvote because your comment just demonstrated that you have no idea how any of this works.


Ninja-Sneaky t1_j1v94n9 wrote

And you do 100%?


icest0 t1_j1vb7tb wrote

judging based on your comment. I 100% know more than you on this topic.


Ninja-Sneaky t1_j1vejwf wrote

Well go on, start elucidating in detail :))


icest0 t1_j1viwoc wrote

> fakes and prints of real world works and there will be the single NFT akin to the original artwork in real world.

NFT is a URI pointing to a data location. How are you going to bind it to the physical object using NFT?


Ninja-Sneaky t1_j1vkt36 wrote

Oh i see the misconception, maybe i worded it wrongly, but my op doesn't imply binding a real object to an NFT, rather NFTs will digitally follow the dynamics of what happens today in the real world with originals, reproductions and copies


icest0 t1_j1vlym9 wrote

I don't think I misunderstood anything. How are you going to make NFT "digitally follow" (bind) the real-world original object.

since you use the word "original" there need to be a link between the two, otherwise you can't verify that it's the original. How are you going to do it with NFT, that's the question.


Ninja-Sneaky t1_j1vng4g wrote

Oh boy, there's NO MENTION of a link with any real object. The NFT itself with anything inside it (e.g. an artwork image) holds the value that anybody wants to give it, legit or not.

You took the wrong conclusions from my post, you can't even follow my concept, maybe you should be a little polite and humble and ask for a clarification to people rather than being arrogant.


icest0 t1_j1vo9zr wrote

>The NFT itself with anything inside it (e.g. an artwork image)

Misconception: NFT itself a URI pointing to data location (a link). NFT itself doesn't store artwork because it would be stupidly heavy on the blockchain.

>You took the wrong conclusions from my post, you can't even follow my concept, maybe you should be a little polite and humble and ask for a clarification to people rather being arrogant.

Yeah, I get it now. You thought I took the wrong conclusion, but you see, I can't follow your concept of NFT because you yourself don't even know about the topic you're talking about.


Ninja-Sneaky t1_j1vp7nh wrote

Ok, so follow me here: beyond any technicalities, that thing in which they trade some NFT of a logo or ape or any shit. I'm talking about that one.

You may stomp your feet at technicalities or legitimacy, manipulations et al, but it's being done for quite some time now regardless.

Like, you see my reddit avatar? It's some NFT minted by reddit, I didn't even ask for it


icest0 t1_j1vqahv wrote

oh, you meant digital ownership using NFT? Like being able to say you own the original digital item? with a recipe that as proof that you own the original item?

but that's dumb too, and I don't think I want to go on about that topic lmao


Ninja-Sneaky t1_j1vqssj wrote

Bro in my OP I'm just describing what i see is going to happen, doesn't mean that I agree to it. I'm not trading NFTs but I see people is gonna do it more and more in the future, the same as today I can hang a print of a real portrait while collectors trade the originals.


icest0 t1_j1vseuy wrote

>but I see people is gonna do it more and more in the future

FYI, the bubble already popped. Their value also drop like 90% and NFT trading volume is trending down as time goes on.

Reddit avatar (NFT) is pretty dead too


Ninja-Sneaky t1_j1vtagh wrote

Yea I know all of that, and I am not affected if it went in either direction. You know in the real world there exist 200$ paintings, it's not only about those world famous artists. If today I see steam cards, I can see a future with NFT stuff worth 10 bucks to a million


nickmakr OP t1_j1uraoq wrote

3d printing is a good example of the opposite as you said. Maybe the physical world will try to reproduct the digital content, but, will that give them (the physical production) the originality?


Ninja-Sneaky t1_j1us0pw wrote

It's really down to what is the usage and what each single person wants and needs, for example I am fine with the print of the 'Lunch on top of skyscraper', someone else will want to find and collect the original photo. Stuff like that