Buyers of Bored Ape NFTs sue after digital apes turn out to be bad investment - eviltoast
  • Square Singer@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, if you are waiting for a company that loses money through second-hand sales to implement an NFT scheme to facilitate second-hand sales… That could take a while.

    This post of yours is one that I completely agree with.

    That’s a fundamental issue with NFTs though. Every instance of a fitting use case already has a non-NFT way to accomplish the same in the way the people in charge want to keep it.

    Why would e.g. Steam want you to be able to trade games without Steam being involved/getting a cut? They can just ask you go buy from them.

    Why would a state want to hand over control over the land registry to some cryptobro?

    Why would the whole financial side of the art industry want to hand over control to a block chain and make themselves redundant?

    Also, revertability of mistakes is a core feature of any reasonable transaction system. A system without that is worthless.

    Sorry, this turned into a rant.

    • Selmafudd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can see ticket sales being issued via nft. They could set a maximum the ticket can be resold for, thus hindering scalpers and the original seller can also get a stake in the resale of the ticket. Beyond that I have never seen another decent use.

      • Square Singer@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        But again, why do that if you can also bind tickets to names and use that to make yourself the only possible place where people can sell their tickets on, with a substantial fee (like Ticketmaster does)?

        They have no incentive to let people freely sell tickets when thy can also force themselves in as mandatory man in the middle.

        • Selmafudd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You remove the burden of verifying the names and storing the personal data and you don’t need to handle the resale inhouse. Other than that yeah it’s pretty much the same thing

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah and rent-seeking is the only real big business left in town besides personalized advertising.

          No way a rent-seeking opportunity this great isn’t going to be gobbled up by the existing players and instead given up for free so that they can use new, poorly performing, expensive technology instead.

      • natanael@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t cap resale prices with technological limits because payment can be split between multiple channels before the seller transfers ownership.

        • Selmafudd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, that’s why I only said hinders not stops. I mean I personally wouldn’t send two payments where one of the transactions is one sided because you just open yourself to bring scammed but I’m sure some people would

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I could see that being a use case if it weren’t for how much the underlying technology sucks ass. Blockchains spend too much time doing their silly little trust-less security nonsense dance to be able to perform at the scale needed by systems that will sell…say…Taylor Swift concert tickets.