Talk:Non-fungible tokens

	This Economics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Question

Is 'I don't understand what exactly I would be buying but it doesn't seem to be copyright, "the thing" or a license to use so I am not getting involved (and mining cryptocurrency seems to involve a lot of energy, which should not be wasted, anyway)' the right attitude? Anna Livia (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Towards NFTs? Sure. The reigning position on them is something akin to "I never want to interact with this, please make it not exist." Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 15:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a distinction to be made between 'this is outside my present knowledge, but I can see those who understand it get something out of it/this is an equivalent of the artwork on a postcard (you may acquire something valuable or merely something you like)' and similar and 'this is mumbo jumbo surrounded by bafflegab and "heads they win and tails you lose" stuff.'

The next phases will be 'wailing and gnashing of teeth and large losses', 'geeks and others quietly playing around with the concepts involved' and then 'this useful investment tool, derived from NFTs' - with the maximum money to be gained by investing appropriately in the early stages of the last (before everybody and their pets get involved). Anna Livia (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 22:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Probably somewhat of a spectrum between 'bafflegab' and 'outside my present knowledge/too much like hard work and potentially expensive with it (so will leave well alone)', and the various phases may well overlap.

How do NFTs as a concept compare with 'limited editions' (being scams or oversold hype) and similar? (As with other such things the money will be made by the sellers, and also by some of those who buy whatever because they actually enjoy 'the thing' - eg the postcard painted by an artist 'before they were famous' (see various TV programs with the last as title)). Anna Livia (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

With a 'limited edition' there is at least an edition underlying it. The seller might aim to deceive about how many there are in the run, but at least you get something. NFTs are less than vapour. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I am thinking of examples such as the South Sea Bubble -which went through the wailing and gnashing stage and which led to useful economic etc ideas.

What are the possible 'useful things' which could be derived from a future version of NFTs? Anna Livia (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are any potential future useful things derived from them. Fundamentally, it's just a ledger with no mechanism for correcting mistakes or undoing fraud. Every example I've seen advocates try to suggest is one or more of a) already possible without crypto, ii) impractical with or without crypto or 3) something no-one with any sense would touch with a barge-pole unless there was an trusted authority to regulate it (something impossible in such a decentralised system). Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 20:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"How do they compare with limited editions"; I'll quote what I saw on Reddit drama surrounding this once: NFTs are like beanie babies on the blockchain, so all of the hype around collectibles with no actual stuffed animal you could at least snuggle when feeling sad, and a markup that puts vintage floofy whale toys to shame.. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

To clarify - I can understand the concept of eg 'short trading' but decide it is something that is more complex/involves greater risk and acquisition of more knowledge than I wish to have; a 'screen grab of a page with the formatting shown (F12 button) and a datestamp (something drastic has happened in the Real World which will subsequently change the text and format of the page) will have some notional intrinsic value - and then there are NFTs which has no obvious means of support for its value (So. Do. Not. Touch.). Have I got sufficient understanding of the matter? Anna Livia (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The Squid Game scam was not NFT

It was simply a shitcoin (term for scam cryptocurrency). Sievert 81 (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Good catch! Scrapped the segment. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The long-term beneficiaries of NFT

The academics who can add to their publication quota by writing on the topic (and each others' 'wrong interpretations of the subject), economists, and those fiction and other writers who reference the subject in their outputs. Anna Livia (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

As always there's a relevant XKCD. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Rare Pepes are Alt-Right?

"Counterparty hosted digital trading cards from properties such as Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokémon, and later the alt-right "Rare Pepe" series..."

I actually have to question whether this is a correct statement. While I am aware the Alt-Right appropriated Pepe and such, I feel that calling the Rare Pepe joke "alt-right" is misinformed. It's been a joke for years and does not by default involve far right talking points (although obviously it can given Pepe's aforementioned appropriation). Calling Rare Pepe NFTs scams is fine by me, NFTs basically are scams, but this may be incorrect. I bothered checking both sources and while both articles bring up Pepe's far right usage, neither mention the NFT sellers doing anything like selling Nazi/blackface/etc Pepe NFTs. Going by the Rapoport's Rules part of the above header, it is problematic due to spreading misinformation (ie: that all instances of Pepe are far right, at least after 2016-2017).

I will also note I did not just edit it out myself because I literally just made this account to talk about this. I have been a lurker on this wiki for years and it generally has helped shape my worldview, and would rather not come across as some idiot vandal.

RedAvenger98 (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Pepe had been appropriated by the alt-right long before NFTs appeared - it seems clear-cut to me that even if the character had not been completely tainted at that point, the particular popularity that drove the rare pepe trading was firmly rooted in alt-right-adjacent culture. I remember hearing an acquaintance at the time talking about how much money he'd made from them and thinking "Jesus, he has to know, right?". Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 22:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough. Just figure it should be brought up just in case. Either way, if StoneToss is any indication, alt-right NFTs do exist. RedAvenger98 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Context matters. The Anti-Defamation League says: "However, because so many Pepe the Frog memes are not bigoted in nature, it is important to examine use of the meme only in context. The mere fact of posting a Pepe meme does not mean that someone is racist or white supremacist. However, if the meme itself is racist or anti-Semitic in nature, or if it appears in a context containing bigoted or offensive language or symbols, then it may have been used for hateful purposes." —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 22:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Rare Pepes existed before and contrary to the alt-right appropriation of the character. They floated around in dank meme circles circa 2015-2017, and were basically harmless. You know, these were your "this is an ultra-rare diamond Pepe, repost in 10 seconds for a year of good luck" or something like that. At the time most didn't know about the appropriation, as knowledge of it hadn't quite hit mainstream net when rare Pepes were still being circulated. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 02:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

They were pretty solidly established as an alt-right shibboleth by 2017, if not earlier. They were in evidence in the attacks on Anita Sarkeesian even before the kickstarter. I guess at that point there were probably two quite narrow subcultures in parallel, although I'm not at all convinced they were all that separate. In a lot of these situations, those 'in the know' take advantage of people on the periphery to try to maintain plausible deniability. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

There wasn't any real overlap between users who spread the rare Pepes and alt-righters, as far as can be observed. Like I said, rare Pepes existed in dank meme circles which, while there has been overlap of the alt-right into dank meme circles, alt-righters were not the ones spreading them. Like you said, Pepe has had two, parallel cultures — the alt-right appropriation and the innocent dank usage. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 01:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Notability concern

@Cosmikdebris - Should we quote @David Gerard? I'm not sure on this one given he's an editor here. Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with the quote, but can we consider DG to be a relevant expert on the matter. Personally I am in favor of keeping the quote (and the question on if DG is an expert), but I feel we should probably consider that question so we don't come across like we're just promoting the ideas of a few individual editors.-- Techpriest (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that conundrum as well, but given that he's referenced in the Atlantic article also cited here, I thought it would be okay. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 16:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, an external source would do it. Thanks! -- Techpriest (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

not only am I an expert, I'm literally writing a book on 'em with Amy Castor, who is also an expert (and does the NFT beat for Artnet) - David Gerard (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

i wonder...

...if i can sell my dick pics as nfts? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If it's on the blockchain anything goes Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 15:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

out if interest, how would one go about doing that? if its a simple process (and free) it might be fun to see if i can make bank with me peen AMassiveGay (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

i mean, it cant be any worse than the surgeon seling xrays of victims of the bataclan massacre as nfts AMassiveGay (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Idk the mammoth resources required for nfts makes it seem not worth it even to screw around. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to even know why you have pictures of your penis. Epic Games (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

then you have never been on grindr AMassiveGay (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Publishing NFTs

My usual source of oddball information came up with this. One possible answer to my question above. Anna Livia (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remove the opening quote?

"It is really difficult for the average person to fully conceive of how useless NFTs are. We're primed for reason. If people are making so much noise about this technology-- if it IS technology, at all-- then surely it does SOMETHING... right? (The answer is, no. It does absolutely nothing.)" — Holden Shearer

This is admittedly spot-on about NFTs... but Holden Shearer has, at best, a somewhat questionable history. Perhaps we should find an apropos quote not linked with somebody quite so problematic? Antikythera⚙Mechanism (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

how are they questionable? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hoo boy. I didn't especially want to get into this here, because he does have a lot of defenders, and I really don't want to turn this Talk page into a detailed argument about his relative moral standing... but probably the most-visible and least-deniable data point is stanning for a sex pest who happens to be his friend, while whatabouting to shift conversations to sex pests he doesn't like. Antikythera⚙Mechanism (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)