Another NFT sold for huge $$$ ' A column of New York Times

[Gyfts]

NFT's are even more speculative than any crypto or stock because you are taking the subjective value of art and throwing into the equation. A street artist sold this piece for 64k - https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/nft-zuckerberg-fnnch-street-art-sf-16053999.php Maybe I am old fashion, but I am not seeing the artistic ability here...

NFT's obviously transcends art, like this 3 million dollar Jack Dorsey tweet https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22344937/jack-dorsey-nft-sold-first-tweet-ethereum-cryptocurrency-twitter

[arallmuus]

Yeah. No exclusivity, no transfereable digital rights, except to the NFT itself.

It's highly stupid, and reminds me exactly of what the high-class luxury art world is all about. People paying a lot of money for things they don't understand.

Keir Finlow-Bates pointed out on a podcast yesterday and I roughly paraphrase: You're buying a finger pointing to the moon.

You can change who owns the finger, but if the moon changes or disappears or moves, the finger is still pointing to that same spot.

Finally found someone with the same thought and I'd say this hype is pretty stupid.

I know this is crazy, NFT is booming and people are spending a lot of money for just a digital art or collectibles where they can easily pay the best graphic artist in town, for at least a thousand dollar and not a million dollar. The hype of NFT is still here, rich people will continue to spend their money for sure.

All those rich brats are buying things that has literally the same value even before those arts are being put into NFT. There is no purpose or anything about purchasing those NFT instead of just flexing to the whole world that you are rich and sooner or later this hype will die.

Not sure if this can be tokenized though, Im not totally following all this NFT shit. Its totally absurd

We can tokenize our entire world, we will see more ideas in the future.
I think this New York Times journalist was inspired by Jack selling his first tweet as an NFT.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/22/jack-dorsey-sells-his-first-tweet-ever-as-an-nft-for-over-2point9-million.html

Right, in the end everyone would tokenized almost everything that is 'unique' and sell it to some rich guy that has tons of money to spend. Perhaps we will see Mr Beast selling his first ever youtube video in form of NFT? that would be hilarious if that happens

Not sure if it can be tokenized though, Im not totally following this whole NFT shit because its too absurd to be honest. No offense to anyone that supports it

[Silberman]

Someone summed it nicely with 'When money is worthless, things that are worthless take its place' It's hard to judge this as different things have different meanings to people, and besides NFTs I can find a bunch of other things that are sold for astronomical prices that leave me baffled (a Lambo for example ), but we have to acknowledge that people like to spend their money, not just stockpile it and that what we considered to be a huge amount of money, for someone else it is not. People have always and will continue to spend their money on things that to others seem worthless.

In all fairness to Lambos at least in their case you can see that it is a superior car than what you can buy normally, so people understand the high value they command, however I agree that we are entering weird times, NFTs are selling like no tomorrow and most of the time I am scratching my head about why its value is so high, but if two or more persons want to have it then a bidding war will begin in which the one that has the deepest pockets will win.

[Kittygalore]

NFT's are even more speculative than any crypto or stock because you are taking the subjective value of art and throwing into the equation. A street artist sold this piece for 64k - https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/nft-zuckerberg-fnnch-street-art-sf-16053999.php Maybe I am old fashion, but I am not seeing the artistic ability here...

NFT's obviously transcends art, like this 3 million dollar Jack Dorsey tweet https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22344937/jack-dorsey-nft-sold-first-tweet-ethereum-cryptocurrency-twitter

The reason that you don't see value because you don't have the money to buy that piece of art, I mean you already said that it is subjective which means that for some people that piece of art that you don't see any artistic ability has a value to them, NFT is a collective though which means that if it is considered a collectible then it is considered an NFT.

[ven7net]

Indeed, NFTs are now tempting many to start tokenizing their stuff. This example shows that NFT is a new trend that is likely to make crypto adoption even faster and make it easier and faster to create your own crypto and smart contracts. All this contributes to the development of the crypto industry as a whole, which means that for the NFT crypto community this is an excellent opportunity to earn money.

[FanEagle]

NFT's are even more speculative than any crypto or stock because you are taking the subjective value of art and throwing into the equation. A street artist sold this piece for 64k - https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/nft-zuckerberg-fnnch-street-art-sf-16053999.php Maybe I am old fashion, but I am not seeing the artistic ability here...

NFT's obviously transcends art, like this 3 million dollar Jack Dorsey tweet https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22344937/jack-dorsey-nft-sold-first-tweet-ethereum-cryptocurrency-twitter

Think about it this way, let's say that art worths money right? We all know mona lisa is something we can't even put a price tag over it, there are things that people cannot even sell, it's incredible and it is definitely way more than what we can afford. However we know how they were made, we know painting is painting, scripture is scripture, whatever art we are talking about it is whatever it is and there is nothing shocking about how it was done and what it was used to get done, it's just there and yes it is talent that brought painting into mona lisa, I can use painting as well but can't create that, but I can use it anyway.

NFT is different, it's a new thing, so people are paying extra insane amount of money to it because it is a brand new thing, it's not old school like other arts, it's something that never existed before today, so there is a rush. It's not going to go on like this, but it is early days so people are a bit excited about it.

[Twentyonepaylots]

As of now NFT is being taken by many as the progenitor of the Digital Renaissance, and they may just be right. Knowing how in such a short span of time it had already became a multi-billion dollar enterprise/technology. Everytime I hear about news about how great NFTs are and its proper milestones, I just get so pumped up and excited about what we should expect in the near future.

Indeed, NFTs are now tempting many to start tokenizing their stuff. This example shows that NFT is a new trend that is likely to make crypto adoption even faster and make it easier and faster to create your own crypto and smart contracts. All this contributes to the development of the crypto industry as a whole, which means that for the NFT crypto community this is an excellent opportunity to earn money.

The best thing about NFT is that it has the ability to not just be a simple stepping stone for global cryptocurrency adoption, it can be implemented to other things, and that alone sets NFT apart from other preexisting technologies offering to help cryptocurrency adoption

[Silberman]

NFT's are even more speculative than any crypto or stock because you are taking the subjective value of art and throwing into the equation. A street artist sold this piece for 64k - https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/nft-zuckerberg-fnnch-street-art-sf-16053999.php Maybe I am old fashion, but I am not seeing the artistic ability here...

NFT's obviously transcends art, like this 3 million dollar Jack Dorsey tweet https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22344937/jack-dorsey-nft-sold-first-tweet-ethereum-cryptocurrency-twitter

The reason that you don't see value because you don't have the money to buy that piece of art, I mean you already said that it is subjective which means that for some people that piece of art that you don't see any artistic ability has a value to them, NFT is a collective though which means that if it is considered a collectible then it is considered an NFT.

This has nothing to do with the money that you have in your wallet there are many people that are incredibly rich that will never pay anything for those NFTs, it is not as if we are talking about some of the works of the greatest artists in the history of the world, even if you think that what is being sold here has value I cannot help but think that they are overpaying for it, but at the end of the day is their money and they can do whatever they want, however if someone is expecting this to be some kind of long term investment in a similar way in which traditional art has been treated I think they are going to be negatively surprised.

[casperBGD]

it does seem to much to pay 350 ETH for the NFT column, and I bet that Kevin did not expect this amount when come up with an idea, but there are obviously people with a large amounts of ETH that are willing to pay for NFT's, hoping that all will worth more in a few months/years/decades
and some will worth much more than today, but it is a matter of question will that be for all, or just some that will remain popular in the future

this NFT is first column NFT, and it is worth, but 350 ETH does seem to much

[Luffygroove]

For some people, it's probably ridiculous, but I see NFTs as one of the new ways and media to appreciate artists or art itself. A new way to appreciate one unique thing that unreplaceable and has an intrinsic value. This kind of thing doesn't have the same value for each people. It's just the same way with the physical one, you can never judge people's sense of art and sentimental side since it's actually really personal. NFT's just the sign that the world has changed, anything physical will go digital at any time.

[RazerCrypto25]

I really can't understand why there are NFTs that are being sold at very high amounts of money. I mean I get what NFTs are trying to do and I support it but the way they have been doing it concerns me. I'd love to see musicians or artists minting their work and maybe cartoons or manga as well. I have seen this Korean NFT website and it made me think that it's possible for NFTs to be more useful than being just purely moneymakers.

[Capo3300]

NFTS  are gonna be the way people do business. It’s more effective and safe.