Conversation

starting to wonder if "ownership" is just the wrong metaphor to describe what happens when you buy an NFT. obviously it's not the same as ownership in the traditional sense and a lot of people are correctly noticing that and being like "yo wtf". a new concept is needed
Quote Tweet
The moon but it’s an NFT. You can buy it. It exists in the sky for all to see but only one person owns it. For bragging rights. Bragging rights to the moon. Who’s in.
3
4
36
in the NFT nudes example, for me, the point is not that someone "really owns" the nude, it's that the person who is selling the nude is choosing to "point" to a specific copy of it. that pointing action is the actual value. it's sexy. people want that
Quote Tweet
so actually the NFT use case that makes the most sense to me so far is NFT nudes. insofar as the NFT architecture imposes artificial scarcity on top of infinitely copyable information, at least an NFT nude gets to be like “this is the special copy that’s just for you big boy 😘
Show this thread
1
13
"pointing" is a very different metaphor for understanding what is happening than "ownership." it decenters the "owner" of the NFT and centers the "seller"; this is a thing the seller is doing to the NFT to generate its value
1
14
Replying to
oh! I think this puzzle is deeply related to this thread you wrote "fungible" being the relevant keyword the NFT is partially about a unique relationship between buyer and seller part of what's sad is money NFT seller gets goes into big fungible pile 😕
Quote Tweet
this reminds me i wanted to tweet about the emotional dynamics of money not fully baked yet but: something funny happens imo when you organize your money into a single big anonymous pile, such that a dollar you spend can't be identified with a dollar you earned twitter.com/artpi/status/1…
Show this thread
1