I read a recent definition of an NFT as a ‘receipt that cannot be counterfeit for an object you don’t own’ and the phrase is mostly accurate except that the object of the receipt – being digital and free to reproduce – is in fact an object anyone or everyone can own. What is unique is that you have the receipt and you can subsequently if you wish sell that receipt to someone who wants a receipt for a receipt….you can fill in the subsequent iterations. This is clearly ludicrous, beyond beany-babies or even Crypto-Currencies in the sense that what you own says only you have paid money for something anyone else can get for nothing. As an example a major museum has sold NFT images of some of their most famous exhibits. You certainly don’t own the exhibit or rights to the image of the exhibit you own a receipt that you paid the museum some money for the receipt for the image. Clearly what you are buying is not an object you have use for or which is in some ways demonstrably rare or difficult to reproduce but a story – a social statement.
Except that is the case of so many objects we buy. A signed book, is the same as the book in terms of literary enjoyment and the signature itself is more or less valuable according to its provenance. A civil war gun might be worth a few $100 but knowing it was owned by a famous general increases that value perhaps 10x or 100x . That ownership is established with letters or a history of transactions essentially receipts but the small lethal metal object is precisely the same. A bottle of Bollinger champagne, a Rolex watch, a MontBlanc Pen and a diamond engagement ring are all objects that are not necessarily better, rarer or more beautiful than alternatives but for which their respective makers have invested millions in marketing them as recognizable and prestigious. The famous ‘Savile Row Tailor’ boast that ‘…we don’t need a label, people who know quality will recognize it immediately…’ is a lovely idea but in the real world even if there is no garish logo there are many relatively unsubtle clues that advertised their story. One of the most amusing examples of recent years was ‘Hunter’ boots, a company that as far as I know had been making expensive but functional gardening footwear for many years almost anonymous vs alternate brands but when they became very fashionable you could see them a mile away as the they were being worn by a designer dressed 20-something women on a dry day in the city. I suspect fewer people buy well made Rolex fakes than the real thing, only the cheap knock-offs make sense as ironic statements.
Consider the extremes:
Would you buy the object of nobody knew you owned it?
Would you buy the object if everybody knew you owned it but in reality you had no way of having access to it?
And perhaps even stranger are objects where you are buying the story for yourself. I own a book written by and separately annotated by two participants in an academic debate already 30 years old. The social consequences are the ridicule of my children and the raised eyebrows of my Wife at another bizarre purchase. Before you add me to your list of fools think of the restaurants you have dined at or places you have been just because you like the idea of being the sort of person who does that sort of thing. Poverty is fundamentally a physical form of deprivation but even after that it is the loss of discretion or choice, the chance to do a small frivolous thing or start a family story because each and every purchase has to be utilitarian. So let the rich buy NFT’s and amuse yourself at their expense but remember we all aspire to do the same, rich people just get buy more ludicrous stories than the rest of us.
6moreSleeps 