I think my comments on this thread mostly fell into the "harmless" camp but today I would be more emphatic. Haven't NFTs gone the way of Beanie Babies at this point? You'll have to take my word for it (or not) but I wrote my last sentence before finding that link, and it was my first Google result for "Beanie Babies" in quotes.dvgrn wrote: ↑September 5th, 2024, 7:45 amSome people find the idea of NFTs based on CGoL patterns to be harmless, maybe entertaining, maybe even a useful way to make interesting CGoL discoveries visible to a wider audience. Some people have wondered whether NFTs might be a way to encourage more people to put more resources into making new CGoL discoveries.
Some diehards may believe they can make money at NFTs, but most people have moved on to the next trend. There is also a new way to make NFTs, namely AI art, that has more popular appeal than CGoL patterns. A novice can use that to flood the "market", which has never been demonstrated to be a market at all. Maybe I am missing something, but I have never understood why any reasonable person believes (a) that there is demand for NFTs or that (b) supply will not exceed whatever demand there may be by orders of magnitude.
As I think I said at the time (or similar): You can make money with an old basketball shoe if Michael Jordan once wore it, and you can prove that. You might even if he just happened to sign it. If it's mass-marketed with his name as the brand (and I may be dating myself) then it becomes more important for it to function as a shoe. If I put my name on the shoe, nobody's going to care at all unless it's a good shoe. An NFT has no intrinsic value and might be propped up by artificial scarcity. At this point, though, the presumed value is so esoteric that you are probably better off selling Beanie Babies.