I’ll add that whilst I’ve provided a somewhat technical definition, as to the logical reason someone would pay that amount of money: no idea whatsoever.

I guess they’re hoping that these things retain and even increase in value. At some point in history we decided that ink on canvas could be immensely valuable based on scarcity (arguable also they’re nice to look at, unlike an NFT), and I’m guessing they hope the same for NFTs. I guess memes are highly recognizable works of art to some?

“as to the logical reason someone would pay that amount of money: no idea whatsoever.“

One possible motivation: they see themselves in a position to benefit from NFT trading "becoming a thing". Either because they already own stock, or they expect themselves to become extraordinarily successful in speculation, or they consider themselves future creators, or they own/run a market where they will be traded. No matter which it was, they'd have a very real interest in bootstrapping the market into existence.

Pass around ownership in an effectively zero sum series of transactions with exponentially growing price, get media attention, stop being zero sum as soon as the first outsider steps in.

The logical reason is: To pump prices because you are running a scam.

https://twitter.com/FoldableHuman/status/1387956657171271681

By this logic, pretty much every asset you can buy with money is a scam. I'd rather say NFTs and money are social constructs.

By what logic is that? I do not see any logic anywhere here that would imply any such thing.

Just to be clear: “ownership” in this context means a pinky promise from the creator to not create more NFTs of the same work.

It does not include any copyright assignment, or other aspects of ownership one might think of with physical items.

Wouldn't that be fairly trivial to verify on the blockchain? I'd expect someone willing to spend millions would - or have someone - do some due diligence to confirm that the NFT they are buying is the first, unique NFT for this particular item.

I'm still a bit hazy on all this as well but I think that's the idea?

The NFT itself is basically some payload (any collection of bytes), a checksum of that payload, and some metadata. What's to stop someone from perturbing the payload by one byte and minting a second NFT? Nothing, really, other than "it's not the first". So yeah it's down to performing due diligence on the vendor and payload to make sure you aren't being snookered.

I think. I get the whole crypto aspect. I don't get the social/contract aspects.

Yes. The issue is that the NFT isn’t actual ownership, and in the case of memes there is no actual owner who can sell it.

You can verify that the NFT is unique, probably. But it doesn’t get you anything else.

I wonder how this compares to "limited edition" prints of classic artworks, which are also far more expensive than a "normal" print in exchange for being uniquely identifiable.

"fungible; it can be copied at near zero cost."

That's not what "fungible" means. The "non-fungibility" of NFTs means that each one is a unique token, it doesn't have an "exchange rate".

Fungible means "able to replace or be replaced by another identical item; mutually interchangeable," it doesn't have any meaning about the price of making a copy/reproduction/another instance.

An ordinary quarter is "fungible", if you're paying me a quarter for a piece of candy, it doesn't matter to each of us which quarter you use, they are all interchangeable. (and that doesn't mean either of us can make a copy of a quarter for free!) An ounce of gold is fungible. A bushel of the same kind of and age of wheat is fungible if you're a commodities trader.

Every bitcoin is worth the same as every other bitcoin, at any given time they have an exchange rate with other currency. That's what "fungible" means. An NFT is just a unique token on it's own, and is not worth the same as any another NFT.

(I don't actually think the market in NFT's makes any sense, not trying to explain it as something sane, just the word "fungible").

Bitcoin is technically non-fungible because the transaction history of a coin is public information (I imagine if someone got ahold of Satoshi's coins they would be worth more than regular Bitcoins -- even just in terms of sentimental value). But for most practical purposes it is basically fungible.

Sure, good clarification. And fungibility can definitely be contextual, depending on context and requirements. Fungibility is really always about "enough people think it's fungible for their purposes and have agreed to treat it as fungible, so it is."

You’re right, I got my wires somewhat crossed there; I was trying to describe fungible as a lack of inherent uniqueness. That was a poor example.

So, if I understand correctly, it's just an evolution of the cryptocurrency itself? In the sense that instead of having a token you have an unique token? And going back to the currency analogy it just means you have a banknote with an autograph?

Worse than that: you have an autographed photo of a banknote.

When you phrase it like that, it reminds me of the explanation of CDOs from The Big Short:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUM59Eh6vTw

And it's equally disturbing...

That sounds like people burning money. I have this vision of a large bonfire on a tranquil beach with people having soft casual conversations where that fire is burning large stacks of large denomination cash purely for aesthetics.