People keep posting images with the headline "such and such bought THIS NFT", but they didn't even buy the image, they bought a receipt for the image.

How is it “worth” any more than 0?

Really. The entire concept is so fundamentally stupid that you’d have to be even stupider to fall for it. Turns out, there are plenty of people who are.

THE lauren chen? the one that took millions from russia to influence american politics?
not to say she's wrong in this instance

Yeah, grifters spent a lot on NFTs to convince others that they were valuable and it worked. Logan made a shitload of money off NFT scams.

Flaunt it moneybags!

That thing is fugly

It's worth whatever someone else is willing to pay for it.

they're successful attempst by the ultra rich to hide their money while getting more from everyone else.

It's a shame because I think nft could find a use for high end art and photography, in the same way they offer limited prints, but it's mostly just the most boring pop art and grifting. Like the 1000s of slightly different monkey pictures. So dumb.

Back in high school my best friend was in print class. And on my birthday he printed me a massive poster of one of those ape NFT for shits and giggles. One of the ones that were worth like $20 million or something like that.

Lost him to suicide back in 2024, and I put the poster up on my wall, even though its the ugliest thing I've ever seen. He still put in effort to remake it for a poster. One day when the actual NFT is dirt cheap I'm gonna buy it, for shits and giggles. It's still $10K, but when it goes below $100 I'll find a way to get some of that crypto coins to buy it, even though it's a worthless piece of shit, it's the memories that make it worth it to me.

We really went from “deterministic decentralized zero-trust computing is the future” to “stochastic monolith computing that can’t tell the difference between data and instructions” and bet the entire economy on it

Why? How is it stupid to store a hash of something on a distributed ledger?

It wasn't stupid…for the seller.

Still less than the money he stole from scamming his (majority children) viewers.

Yes, I understand capitalism. My question stands.

$155 is still overpriced

That's the answer to the question. It's unsatisfying I know, but that's the answer.

I'm so out of it I had to look up NFT! Anyway woteva...

No matter what, the NFT is still subject to copying via the analog hole. Like the time Mozart visited the Vatican and pirated their super secret music by listening to it and then writing it down after he left.

Yeah, I just downloaded it off that screenshot for free...

Suckers...

The concept of a shared cache layer that uses cryptographic hashes to distribute copies to everyone that request them isn't stupid at all. In fact that is how CDNs work and they are extremely useful. The stupid part is paying large sums of money to "own" a specific sequence of bits on a specific ledger. The ledger can be copied and is copied, but you have zero ownership of those copies and you don't own the original work either. So what did you pay for?

The ability for a 3rd party consensus of truth against an immutable ledger. Without it, the 3rd party has to keep their own copy or federate with an original authority. The fact nft still needs consensus of truth is only somewhat problematic. Blockchain solves ownership through secrets, but a coin or nft is only worth something if someone else cares about that ownership and agrees that ledger is valid. 1 bitcoin is not 1 dogecoin for the same reason I wouldn't buy a monkey picture for a million dollars, but that same million dollar monkey picture gets you into a yacht party with someone else. Ultimately you paid for dispute resolution by a 3rd party for some kind of use of that nft. If there is no use, then you paid for nothing.

Unfortunately incorrect. It's worth the same it was in 2021, which is exactly zero.

Your comment tells us the definition of "worth". It doesn't tell us why someone is willing to pay that much for it, which is what bag-o-chips is asking about.

It doesn't matter, that's the answer. You can be unsatisfied all you want, that's the answer.

I'm pretty sure it was just money laundering

Dan Olsen has a great video on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g

I don't want to oversimplify it (its a great watch/listen. Great when cleaning the house as background audio)

But it can be simpleified to

"rich guys bought into cryto. Cryto became mainly for drugs. Silk road dead. No use for cryto. Push NFTs, where the only way to buy in is with Cryto. Normie's buy into NFTs. Cryto value goes up. Rich guys can sell at a good price.

At what price are willing to part with it. I have half a bowl of chips ready to trade it for? (Respond soon. I am still hungry)

There are some interesting pieces at the moco, (modern art museum chain) but to me it was only the ones that used the medium that were interesting.

There was one piece that I remember that took the hash of each owner it had ever had and changed the colours/metrics of the pattern over the animation. So if you bought it, you would become part of the art.

It was mostly just the "digital art section" though.

Regular pub potato chips.Too late...All eaten. (Except 3 the at fell on floor. You have to beg the bar for them.)