Post #4041662

2026-07-23 17:08 UTC

There's one teensy lil problem with that: the NFT gambler (are there any NFT or #blockchain gamblers on the #fediverse? hey there, folks, you've all been swindled!) has bought into the premise that NFTs are somehow atomic, i.e. indivisible packets of artwork which have had the miraculous property of blockchain marketability stamped into them. This of course is outrageously false. NFTs contain nothing of value. The blockchain token itself might as well be a slip of paper with a serial number on it. The artwork exists only as a frangible link to something elsewhere. Copying that artwork separately for one's private archives instantly destroys the illusion that the NFTs are in fact atomic. (cont'd)

Replies (1)

@mxchara@seattle.pink 2026-07-23 17:12

If there were a genuine emotional attachment to the art itself that would not matter. But the only real emotion involved is avarice: the picture isn't valuable to the NFT gambler, only the perception that it's been stamped with the nonexistent 'intrinsic value' purportedly conferred by #blockchain mechanics. And so the weird NFT fanboy in the Dan Olson video instantly undercuts his own argument. He's trying to pitch his audience on the idea that they should buy multiple copies of an NFT because of "emotional attachment" (presumably to the artwork) but then he immediately tells his audience the real reason for buying: selling. The only point of buying an NFT is to sell it at enormous profit. (cont'd)

Open ##4042171