> Why do so many here seem to be so proud of their lack of understanding of the value of NFTs?

We have codified our lack of understanding into a digital token and attached it to an entry in a crypto ledger such that no one else can claim ownership of said lack until we transfer it to them. Thus we have created something not just prideworthy but also scarce and valuable.

I like your comment. Basically it reads to me as "hype is real and has value".

It may not have any material objective truth or spiritual meaning but it has a perceptive effect on the world.

I appreciate the honesty but shudder a little at the implications. But I suppose it's one of the ways the world works. It's what we think has value that matters, that makes matter.

Well that's economy 101 - something has value if someone will pay for it. In that sense, an entry to a ponzi scheme is also valuable - many people do pay to enter ponzi schemes.

But looking at more concrete ways of value: technical merit, anesthetics, practical uses... It's falling short. So people call it for what it is - all hype, nothing else .

At least with crypto coins you can actually send it to people in a decentralized manner - that's valuable! Too bad it's slow, expensive and bad for the environment.

> If you have an NFT, you get to do things others cannot.

That's the definition of property, yes, but with many real NFTs, aside from transferring the NFT, there’s not much you get the exclusive right to do.

> At the very least, holding an NFT gives you the ability to transfer it to someone else and make them the holder.

And with many concrete NFTs, that's also the very most they give you.

> Do NFTs signal legal ownership? I imagine we're going to find out that it probably depends.

As if it were a mystery how legal ownership was determined. It's very clear that:

(1) It is possible to construct and use NFTs in a way where they would be at least compelling evidence of legal ownership of certain rights, and

(2) Most NFTs in existence don't even begin to try to do this.

> I can make a picture of the Mona Lisa too, but no one will respect that picture as the real Mona Lisa.

Yes, and you can make an NFT that points to a URL that points to a low-effort drawing of an ape, and outside of a small cult no one will equate the NFT with the original artwork (or, for that matter, care much about the original artwork.)

Nothing you're saying disagrees with the posted Twitter thread. Without the IRL arcade prize counter agreeing to turn ownership of a token into a tangible privilege the NFT is worthless. And if you already have the prize counter then you don't really need the NFT since you have a central trusted authority. You could maybe argue that using an NFT is easier than minting your own system for arcade coins but binding goods to and transferring them between "accounts" (which you have to have already to access your goods) has worked for decades. The auction house in WoW, and the Steam marketplace has been doing digital marketplaces long enough to prove it works just fine.

> Why do so many here seem to be so proud of their lack of understanding of the value of NFTs?

I think most people are proud of their very concrete understanding of the value of NFTs -- which is zero to anyone not trying to make money on them.

> Anyone can confirm that you did in fact transfer it and made the other person the holder.

Are you saying if you wanted to sell me Hacker News, there would be a record that dan_mctree sold HN to criddell? I always thought it was just from one mostly anonymous wallet to another mostly anonymous wallet.

I think it's because at their core they're built around garbage, much like the packaged and repackaged derivatives that had A+ rating but at the bottom of the pile were a bunch of garbage investments that did a lot to help with the market crash in 2008. We would just like to warn people to not spend more on them than they can afford to pitch in the fireplace and burn.