this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
855 points (96.3% liked)

Technology

59735 readers
3471 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Remember when NFTs sold for millions of dollars? 95% of the digital collectibles are now probably worthless.::NFTs had a huge bull run two years ago, with billions of dollars per month in trading volume, but now most have crashed to zero, a study found.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MotoAsh 37 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No, because with art, there's still a literal piece of art.

With NFTs, it's just a shitty jpeg some tech bro photoshopped up in five minutes.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

With NFTs there aren't even any art. The NFT is a receipt for the art, not the art itself. You didn't buy the copyright for the actual art with an NFT, you bought a link to a specific copy of the art.

[–] MotoAsh 0 points 1 year ago

I mean, there are ways to tie them together, though the point still stands that NFTs add nothing to art. Copyright works fine without an overly complicated digital receipt.

[–] hark 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not even photoshopped, that would be too much effort. Nah, the most infamous NFTs are a few different elements (different mouths, eyes, accessories, etc) and then a whole bunch of permutations generated from those elements. For a technology with a supposed selling point of scarcity, you'd think they'd try to make the art special instead of procedurally-generated trash, but of course the real purposes were scams and money laundering.

[–] nbafantest 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually you're still a bit overestimating it.

Most NFT's are literally just hyperlinks, where the hyperlink could suffer link rot and stop working OR the image on the other side of the hyperlink could be changed.

[–] uid0gid0 4 points 1 year ago

And as LegalEagle had pointed out "You can't own that"

[–] MotoAsh 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yea, it's truly amazing anyone fell for those stupid things... Sooo little effort was supposed to magically generate real value!? Give me a break... It was sooo obviously just a way to get people to pool money in an unsafe way so it could be pocketed.

Who ever donated to those scams didn't deserve the money, as much as their losses are still a tragedy. Still, the scammers deserve that money even less. Bunch of idiots all around.

[–] BowtiesAreCool 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What about regular digital art?

[–] MotoAsh 8 points 1 year ago

It is art and doesn't need NFTs to give it value. People comission digital pieces all the time and don't need NFTs to get it done.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

...is not an NFT