Partnered With:

Why is NFT hard to explain?

Read this article in 16 Minutes

NFT is a process, not a product.

Title: "Deep: Why is NFTS Hard to Explain?"

Original source: Crypto Valley

I keep seeing NFT proponents complain that Bitcoin holders "don't get it." As the saying goes, everyone who owns bitcoin is to NFT what people who don't have it are to Bitcoin. This debate is an endless cycle:

"How can you not see the value in digital scarcity? You're a Bitcoin player!" This phrase is always met with a retort: "NFTS is not scarce, you can copy and paste!" The endless rebuttal.

In my opinion, it is difficult for supporters to explain NFTS because NFTS is not a single concept. They are bundles of related concepts. NFTS is a cluster of entities that are superficially similar but functionally heterogeneous, in the same way that "crypto assets" or "blockchain" are semantically too decentralized to be considered a single taxonomy element.

In other words --NFT is a process, not a product. To the NFT, something is assigned a unique serial number that exists on the public chain. That's it. Beyond that, "NFT" does not convey any additional information about the purpose or nature of the content being serialized.

The problem is when proponents try to explain NFTs by appealing to specific conclusions (" NFTs are for X "or" NFTs achieve Y "). This confuses the issue because the scope of NFT is very broad and covers a large number of applications. (OpenSea's NFT Bible is a good introduction.) So when NFTs are interpreted as a single purpose, many naturally do not understand them: nor do their potential mentors in the NFT world understand them. How can you teach something you don't really know?

To isolate the different types of ownership offered by NFTs, let's consider three examples. They are distinct and have nothing in common except their mechanical properties. To lump them together is a taxonomic misconception.

Grimes

The first is one of 100 digitally signed digital works of art created by artist Grimes. When I bought this work (which I haven't yet, but I admit I was tempted to), I bought it for several reasons:

I know that I am buying a "limited edition" of a work of art and that I have perpetual rights to it.

I know that I am supporting the artist directly (if buying on the primary market) or indirectly (some market platforms pass on secondary market income to the artist, and if not, I am also influencing the market and encouraging the artist to raise the price on subsequent sales).

I knew that if I chose to resell art, I would probably resell it on the secondary market.

I knew that Grimes was using this platform, and this platform alone, to release these NFTs, and couldn't turn around and sell a second "limited edition" of these identical digital paintings.

What I bought was actually a digitized copy of a signed post-show collection, or a signed limited-edition album cover. As I joked, NFT should be understood as a signature, not art.

It's not hard to figure this out, because in the analog world, it's already familiar. The most important thing is that there is a very close causal relationship between the generation of IP and digital sequence codes. I know that Grimes has certified this particular interface as the designated broker for her digital art sales. I know that additional copies of these autographed artworks will not be sold in other digital content because she would be violating the informal social contract with her fans.

Importantly, we have a strong guarantee that Grimes will not replicate these NFTs elsewhere. What good is a limited edition NFT if an artist doesn't promise not to release on 20 NFT platforms? This is why NBA/Top Shots work: the NBA doesn't sell designated highlights/moments on other platforms. You have an exclusive guarantee.

Cent

The second example here is tokenized Twitter. Jack Dorsey has put the first-ever Twitter up for sale, which looks likely to sell to Justin Sun for $2.5 million. In this case, when you bid on someone's tweet on Cent (I actually "own" one of Neeraj's tweets), you're announcing that you're willing to buy bragging rights to that tweet on Cent. But creators have to actually accept the offer -- you can't buy a tweet without their approval. So you're actually promising to buy a signed version of Twitter on a third-party platform. That's Cent NFT. A statement of economic intent made as a token of appreciation (or later as bragging rights). See - just five sentences ago, I bragged about having Neeraj's Twitter!)

Of course, a lot of other NFT publishers are likely to come out and compete, so I can't say I have the exclusive rights to this tweet, just a toKEN version for a particular platform. In fact, I don't own anything on Twitter about the tweet itself.

Here the connection between the creator and the NFT is much looser. The creators may not know their tweets are for sale. When the creators accept the deal, they give the buyer a slight nod. But again, the buyer has exclusive bragging rights to the tweet on Cent's platform, not anywhere else. It's as much a bet on the tweets themselves as it is on Cent.

Cultural relics

Finally, we have a class of NFT. You can describe as "you're welcome to the art of block chain fraud". There are a lot of reports, has a person, by means of malicious or not listed on the NFT website content, either directly from another artist, either some derivatives by the content of the intellectual property rights guarantee. This is fraud in the arts of Rarible report; this is Giphy complained about this kind of practice; there is a charge, said Wu Tang Clan NFT another artist's art. These cases are relatively to the point, The platforms themselves have tried to regulate this.

But there are additional gray areas that raise questions about NFT's IP relevance. In these cases, creators monetize memories or other content that is actually in the public domain. Who is "Pepe, the Frog" of "creator"? In theory, is matt - Mr. But those endless mixing and derivatives? NFT memories or other cultural significance of the content will be reduced to a discussion about who owns the culture, of course, the answer is, everyone is also no one. How to have the right to monetize memories? Is the initiator, or adapter? Or is it spread?

Another problem with purchasing NFTs that aren't directly tied to a particular creator is that you don't have an exclusive guarantee. I recently saw an NFT image of myself being filtered. If I bought it, I wouldn't have to "Nic tweets into general filter" have any exclusive requirements. The concept artist here also is not very important, because the output is the content in accordance with the process of the algorithm of simple. It is this kind of NFTs make people difficult to read, it is also a sense: they put forward the ownership of the extremely difficult problem. NFTs strong definition is the purpose of who owns what, but if you do not agree on the ownership of the first, then put the content in a "strong property" it's no meaning in the packaging.

This is about intellectual property

By comparison, we can clarify the key differences between NFTs. I think the difference between the NFT subclasses depends on how closely the intellectual property is integrated. At one end of the spectrum, I have a strong guarantee that I will receive an autograph of the original artwork directly from the creator. I have an extremely strong connection between the creator, her original IP, and the digital product I now meaningfully own. In the middle, we had a more diffuse connection: I had the unique bragging rights of someone else's tweet, and they were acknowledging it by getting a reward. But I don't actually own their IP, and certainly don't own the tweets themselves, and all I got from the creators was a curt nod of "yes, I accepted a fee in exchange for ownership of these" bragging rights."

At the vaguest, I have a suspiciously scarce claim to a memory or cultural artifact that may be presented in a unique way but whose creator doesn't even have a sense of ownership. Products are mostly derivative -- it is still artistic in the sense that most art is derivative, but it is definitely not the original and exclusive work of an individual. By monetising it, they may be infringing copyright. I might still get pleasure from owning it, but beyond entertainment value, I'm far from sure what I have.

Finally, in the truly wacky world of proceduratively generated NFTs like Cryptopunks, I have very little idea what I buy. I'm not exactly rewarding the artist, because the artist is an algorithm. Most likely, I bet that recently wealthy Ethereum enthusiasts will see NFTs as a status totem that marks membership in an exclusive club (those who had the foresight to buy the first NFTs on Ethereum, or could afford to buy them once they became popular). The best argument I can make here is that these are actually a form of resellable social signaling, like a digital Hermes Birkin bag. The actual content of the NFT is largely irrelevant.

So in the debate over the NFTS, I think people are talking to each other about the past. Skeptics argue that the "hollowest" NFTs-- those with the loosest or non-existent IP/token connections -- and test ownership in this case. Proponents of what they call the "most complete" NFTS -- the one with tight ties and issuer exclusivity -- point to the advantages of this distribution model. And they were both right! Because NFTS is not a single category of things, NFT is a packaging medium.

I'm not telling you that the NFT process is a gift from God. I'm not saying they're doomed or bound to collapse. The concept of a serialized, public chain-resident, inherently financial tool is clearly a useful wrapper, and it's definitely here to stay. What I want to say is that NFTS is a loose group of concepts rather than a concept. To me, the most plausible NFTS subcategories include: a) a strong link between intellectual property and digital references; And b) a guarantee of exclusivity. The rest are hard to make sense of.