I'll agree that the analogy wasn't perfect though - I added an edit for another analogy (still as imperfect as it may be).
* Live there
* Remodel it
* Landscape it
* Rent it out
* Etc.
What, beyond selling it, can I do with my new NFT? What does it even mean to own it, if my right to copy is no greater or less than anyone else's?
Basically, imagine a certificate you have on your computer, except it's publicly known, then imagine use cases based on that.
We have that?
Which is to say that I think the problem is less that NFTs are inherently worthless and more that the crypto community desperately needs to reclaim the brand from the speculators, if there's even anyone else left.
For all the cool applications that there might be for blockchain, the only ones that seem to gain traction are the ones that involve highly speculative investment machines. NFTs have been no different, and it's this tendency that makes many people very uncomfortable with anything involving crypto.
The discussion is art NFTs being worthless (or not). Coming in and saying “yeah, but not all NFTs are about art” it’s not helpful. If you think that art NFTs are stupid but the underlying tech has promise, then say that. Don’t defend “NFTs” because that looks like you’re defending the value of the current ones actually being discussed.
Engaging in a semantic argument just muddies the whole issue and looks like you’re defending something you are not.
They are the opposite of a title to a house.
The most important function of the 'Title To the House' is that you own the house.
That's the whole point of the title.
An NFT is a homeless person selling you a 'certificate' that gives you 'ownership' of the 'Brooklyn Bridge'.
NFTs are like a title to a house that you wrote with a crayon.
There is no legal grounds for ownership, its just bunch of people claiming they own something and some other saying they agree.
You can convince whole china + india that you are king of england, but goodluck with actually sitting on the english throne.
A house drawn with a crayon can be considered an artwork or may have sentimental value.
You also have clear ownership of that artwork that you can defend in court.
You will also not loose "ownership" the moment the business that certifies it goes out of business or looses their database to ransomware.
If you own an NFT, you get no practical real world benefits.
The debate reminds me of when Napster looked, to many, like it would end the sales of pre-recorded music, since music can be copied identically for free. Obviously such predictions turned out to be wrong.
I think they would have turned out to be right if there was no such thing as copyright law. But there is. People were prosecuted, and over time the prosecutions made a difference. They helped it make sense to invest money in creating well-designed, easy-to-use streaming services. And in the end, for most people, it was more convenient and risk-free to get music from such services than to pirate it. It was worth the cost.
Over time, if people spend real money on NFTs, the legal system will evolve to better protect people's purchases. For now, if two people claim to be the creator of a given artwork which is the subject of an NFT, and create two NFTs, only one of them will have the actual copyright. That should provide a basis for legal action.
As I said, I'm not sure cross-game NFTs will ever get past the hype stage. But I have been to a museum where truly beautiful NFT art was on display. I haven't bought any art in many years but I can certainly imagine that my next art purchase could be that kind of NFT. By purchasing it, I am helping the creator in "1000 True Fans"[1] manner, and I am, in the creator's view, which is the only one with any legitimacy when it comes to digital art, the "owner". (Even if I am the second or third purchaser of an NFT, the fact that the original purchaser knew he could sell it to someone like me is part of why he purchased it, so I have helped create the environment where that original purchase could happen.)
While it's true that people can make copies that are identical, people can also make copies of the Mona Lisa that can't be distinguished by anyone but specialists. To the normal person, they would appear to be identical. It isn't what they look like that matters. It's the legitimacy: which is the legitimate Leonardo Da Vinci? It's the one he personally made (and/or was made in his studio by other people under his direction). It has nothing to do with how it looks to the average person.
To one degree or another, these issues of legitimacy and helping the artist will have an affect and give value to NFTs of real art.
I'd also be willing to bet that there will be a long-term market for "collectibles" for the same reason there is for baseball cards. If someone were to make an identical copy of an original Mickey Mantle baseball card, it would have no value. Only the original does, and only because the purchasers believes it is the original, and therefore legitimate, card. The mechanism for NFT legitimacy is different, but there is no reason to assume that that mechanism will not create persistent value over time. It is unclear now how much value it will create. But it would be wrong to just dismiss it at this early stage.
[1] https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/; see also https://future.a16z.com/1000-true-fans-try-100/
Most NFTs are like a title to a house. Like a title to a house, you can: 1. Prove you own it; 2. Sell it to someone.
Unlike the title to a house: 1. The party certifying your ownership is not the government, but the consensus rules of a blockchain; 2. The thing you own is not physical, but digital in nature; 3. Your ownership does not prevent anyone from copying the file itself for their own uses.
Regarding your point that the object you own might not be consistent: because of the cost relative of storing data on a blockchain, the actual digital thing you own isn't usually stored on the blockchain, but a hash of that file (e.g. [1]). Unless hashing is broken, this is cryptographic proof that the object does remain consistent.
[1] https://github.com/larvalabs/cryptopunks/blob/master/contrac...
Edit: perhaps the notion of an entry ticket to a concert would have been a better analogy than a title to a house.