What are your thoughts on the new tokenizing trend?

So i’ve been seeing tokenizing starting to take off and quite frankly I’m slightly lost on it.

It seems the concept is if you have one of these non-fungible tokens it proves ownership. Who’s to say this is valid? seems like a very very bizarre concept, like a digital title…

Are these going to also be treated like currency similar to Bitcoin? or will they behave more like just a title proving ownership? Kind of scratching my head on this one

I don’t understand it either.
From what I’ve read it is only confirmation that you “own” the artwork.

Articles point to physical art like paintings or sculptures, but frankly if you own any physical art it scratches you esthetic itches. This digital ownership does nothing for the psyche IMHO.

Might be I’m just too poor to understand.
/s

1 Like

Mah, it is never going to be something I can do anything with out about so I really don’t care. Traditional Art that is revered and praised and then passes hands for millions in general I have never seen the point of.

For those that like these things and can afford to get into it, it must do something for them. I don’t get it.

They will both be a proof of ownership title and traded for value, or maybe people will realise that a compilation of memes copy pasted together is actually worthless.

One things for sure, digital stuff has a nasty habit of breaking down and being lost/corrupted forever, not that physical ones don’t too but they seem better hardened against it in different ways that more apply to art.

Unlike physical art which just is, I suspect a lot of these will end up like old smartphones, in a drawer and forgotten about. They might oddly be worth a lot again in the future as a novelty from a weird time in history.

And there is still some mumbling about the feasibility of these in regards to the electricity they consume and the carbon impact of the calculation required to prove you own the proof of ownership. Maybe they will become untouchable and forever marred by the impact they have on the world and no one will want to be associated with them.

Is this not basically applying a version of “Blockchain” to ensure ownership/provenance? Doesn’t apply too much to us in the forum here, except the sword collecting niecze guy.
But it should add value to those who have valuables (eventually, if adopted) but might reduce fraud/ forgery, so best brush off the oils and pigments, and put horse-hair to canvas before it’s too late to cash in on the art copying business…

1 Like

Maybe this is actually a new concept for copyright, something that could be proved mathematically everywhere.

It just uses memes but imagine doing copyright proof via blockchain?

I believe that is exactly what it is doing, the thing being sold and “owned” is the memes.

The blockchain prove the ownership of said meme, that the truly baffling part, though there are also a lot of actual made for purpose art pieces being made for it.

1 Like

Hedge funds, banks, large corporations own lots of high end auction art as a form of investment. It usually hangs at the CEOs office or board room. It’s a hassle when you don’t have the right space for it - hence tokens. It allows you to pay extra to a museum to hold your art for you, and protect your investment, but dealing with artsy museums is a hassle too. Just trade tokens instead.

I can’t believe I did not make the relation sooner. This sums how I feel perfectly.

How can we put this? Imagine beanie babies were screenshots that needed their own power plant

And this is for simply a single ETH transaction. This is for an act which takes a fraction of a second from the point of view of the person engaging in the act. A single click of a mouse sets off a chain reaction and sends a signal to mining farms around the world [11, 12], which go on to have a footprint of 35 kWh for an ‘average’ transaction (details in Part 2), with emissions of close to 20 KgCO2 for that single mouse click ³, due to the underlying PoW algorithm. (Whereas for example, an average email is estimated to have a footprint of a few grams of CO2 [33], and watching one hour of Netflix is estimated at around 36 grams CO2 [22]. An ETH transaction is thousands times more costly than other internet activities that individuals typically engage in).

Absolutely disgusting.

3 Likes

We are meant to be heading towards a more efficient energy consumption future, but with all this crypto stuff happening, its the absolute opposite and is going to WIPE the planet fast!

4 Likes
  1. Wait for Elon to colonize and assess control over Mars
  2. Outlaw blockchain on Mars
  3. Move to Mars
  4. ???
  5. Profit

6. Get into war with Earth

1 Like

Do you think Mars is a more habitable planet then Earth? lmao

There are treaties in place that prevent that. As in: SpaceX is US based, as such, US law applies to them in space.

1 Like

This right here is proof that activism is now a placebo.

1 Like

Time for Musk to buy an island. Too many dumb laws to apply.

He has already made some noise to the effect of, If I get there first I make the rules, nuts to your treaties so that will be interesting.

1 Like

I wonder if I can turn a photocopy of my ass into an nft.

There’s literally thousands of them in the wild, but this one is yours.


NFTs are peak postmodernism.

2 Likes

I hope someone does literal beanie babies as one, just for the self referencing and as an erie spectre of fads futures returning with all the speed and accuracy of a boomerang failing to be caught as it smacks you up side the head. The look of delight as you pulled off a perfect throw turning to horror as you miss the catch.

A private colony could vote independence, just need to bribe a couple small earth countries to recognise them, and the UN would probably follow suit.

[Edit:Snip!]

1 Like

If audio was for sale next, lets say good quality or good enough quality audio (whatever that is for you), will you buy them through NFTs as a means to own copyrighted music/audio?