These folks are strongly pro-bitcoin, but even they can’t figure out why anyone would want to “own” a reference to a part interest in a Warhol painting.
If we understood those three ancient words, we’d be harder to fool.
= = = = = START REHASH:
Thinking of NFT in terms of the three ancient words in previous item:
Buying an NFT for an existing work doesn’t give you extra privilege of usus beyond what you already have. If the work is public, like the Parthenon or the Bronx or a picture of a pipe-smoking monkey, you can already see or visit or download the item.
Buying an NFT doesn’t give you fructus at all. Only the owner of the physical object or the owner of the copyright can sell the copies or fruits.
Buying an NFT doesn’t give you any abusus of the original. If you have an NFT for the Bronx, you can’t remodel Yankee Stadium or steal non-pipe-smoking monkeys from the Bronx Zoo and train them to smoke pipes.
What do you get? You get a personal nickname that nobody else owns. You get the privilege of calling the Bronx 58437683476867854646837589347658375834957834758347 instead of the Bronx. Your nickname is unique. Nobody else is allowed to call the Bronx 58437683476867854646837589347658375834957834758347, and you can …. well, you can’t actually assert this ownership because you don’t have a copyright or a trademark on 58437683476867854646837589347658375834957834758347 as a synonym for the Bronx.
= = = = = END REHASH.
Fussy footnote: I specified non-pipe-smoking monkeys because it’s clear that monkeys enjoy cigarettes. Enjoying a pipe would take some training.
Polistra's Mill 