Re:Metakovan, the mystery Beeple art buyer, and his NFT/DeFi...
by notahacker on Sunday March 14, 2021 @08:21PM
(#26461081)
When you buy land you gain a right to physically use (or charge others to physically use) the land you didn't previously have. Exceptions include the Brooklyn Bridge scam, where you actually gain no control over the use of the land whatsoever, no matter how verifiably unique the vendor promises the token they're giving you as proof is, and the people selling certificates with parts of the moon and your name on it. A token which grants you legal control of distribution of a piece of digital art so you can charge others to look at or listen to it might be like a real land deed, but a token giving you a nominal association with something already in the public domain is much more like the latter examples.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Metakovan, the mystery Beeple art buyer, and his NFT/DeFi...
by nerdponx on Sunday March 14, 2021 @08:34PM
(#26461187)
Of course, but I don't understand the issue here. Everyone involved knows that, and buyers don't care. What's the problem?
Re:Metakovan, the mystery Beeple art buyer, and his NFT/DeFi...
by Grustaf on Monday March 15, 2021 @03:47AM
(#26463458)
The problem is that supposedly knowledgeable people hype the concept as something new and clever, they claim it solves a real problem.
I don’t feel sorry at all for the clown that paid 69 mill for the url to a jpg, I just think the hype is stupid. Not that we can be sure the buyer was real and distinct from the seller.