It’s called a metaphor. We use them to illustrate things people are not familiar with with references to things they may be familiar with. I don’t really get why you won’t really engage with what I’m saying and just want to “nuh-uh” everything. I don’t own or trade in NFTs, and never have, and definitely think both they are blockchain have been overhyped, just like AI is being overhyped right now, but that does not mean that there aren’t actual, real world uses for these things that are major improvement over how things work now. The unsexy use cases for NFTs (using them for things that are currently traded or otherwise transferred digitally with manual, disconnected, and/or opaque back-ends) is likely the one that will endure, just like everything else.
The unsexy use cases for NFTs (using them for things that are currently traded or otherwise transferred digitally with manual, disconnected, and/or opaque back-ends) is likely the one that will endure, just like everything else.
Who is actually or supposedly will be in the future using them for this purpose?
Digital scarcity is in and of itself kind of a niche concept.
You are right on. The idea of artificial scarcity is a scam. I replied to someone a little higher up about the securities use case, but the short version of that is, for things like stock in a company, stocks are already scarce (there are only as many shares as the company issues - or there is only supposed to be that many). It’s the scarcity of the underlying asset, not the “digital” aspect of it, that creates value. Each share is issued by the company as a single NFT token and there are only as many NFTs as they issue shares.
The idea is that this would be the software used to run the actual transfer of shares traded on the exchanges rather than what is used today which is just closed ledger entries on books of all the participants. But the current manual process takes multiple days to settle each transaction and this would be instantaneous, and in one transparent distributed ledger.
No it isn’t. Just because both things are “decentralized” doesn’t make them the same thing.
It’s called a metaphor. We use them to illustrate things people are not familiar with with references to things they may be familiar with. I don’t really get why you won’t really engage with what I’m saying and just want to “nuh-uh” everything. I don’t own or trade in NFTs, and never have, and definitely think both they are blockchain have been overhyped, just like AI is being overhyped right now, but that does not mean that there aren’t actual, real world uses for these things that are major improvement over how things work now. The unsexy use cases for NFTs (using them for things that are currently traded or otherwise transferred digitally with manual, disconnected, and/or opaque back-ends) is likely the one that will endure, just like everything else.
Who is actually or supposedly will be in the future using them for this purpose?
Digital scarcity is in and of itself kind of a niche concept.
You are right on. The idea of artificial scarcity is a scam. I replied to someone a little higher up about the securities use case, but the short version of that is, for things like stock in a company, stocks are already scarce (there are only as many shares as the company issues - or there is only supposed to be that many). It’s the scarcity of the underlying asset, not the “digital” aspect of it, that creates value. Each share is issued by the company as a single NFT token and there are only as many NFTs as they issue shares.
Who really wants to buy shares and then trade and sell in significant numbers outside exchanges?
The idea is that this would be the software used to run the actual transfer of shares traded on the exchanges rather than what is used today which is just closed ledger entries on books of all the participants. But the current manual process takes multiple days to settle each transaction and this would be instantaneous, and in one transparent distributed ledger.
You can do that more efficiently with transparency logs instead