Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm not saying they are a certificate of authenticity, I'm saying the value it creates is similar in concept. A certificate of authenticity has value based on the issuer of the certificate of authenticity - if the issuer is some random person it doesn't create any value because anybody can create such a thing, but if it is someone important/relevant in that field then it can be very meaningful.

In a similar way an NFT has value based on particular details about the NFT such as the author and database it is in, not just the bytes themselves. You can certainly create the same NFT with a new author, or on a new database, or etc. but it's no longer the same NFT at that point, it's a replica and can be distinguished from the original. And while an NFT published by the author of the art might be a interesting thing to own/control, the same NFT published by a random John Doe doesn't carry the same relevance. And fundamentally you still can't change the properties of the original NFT in the original database.




I don't think that certificates of authenticity work like that. A certificate of authenticity has value in as much as it certifies authenticity, not because someone important has signed it. That would be an autograph.


> A certificate of authenticity has value in as much as it certifies authenticity, not because someone important has signed it.

I think you missed the point, someone has issued the certificate and it only matters if you value that person's or entity's opinion. If you don't then it's just a meaningless piece of paper.

For example, PSA grades playing cards. A rare card that is graded highly by PSA will generally make it much more valuable than an ungraded version of the same card. However, if someone send me a card in the mail and I grade it a 10 and send it back, that means nothing because nobody cares about my opinion on cards.

Similarity, if PSA were to issue NFTs, they would have value specifically because it was PSA who authored the NFTs. I could take the exact same data and author an NFT myself, but nobody would care because they specifically want the one that was created by PSA, and that is something that is verifiable and that I cannot duplicate. They don't want it for any real tangible reason, they want it so they can say "I own an NFT from PSA".


Of course, because a certificate is a statement about some fact. Therefore a certificate is useful as a certificate to the extent that the issuer can be trusted about the statement that is being made. But that doesn't apply to NFTs because the issuer of an NFT is not making any statement. An NFT is more like a blank piece of paper that has been rubber stamped by somebody.


> An NFT is more like a blank piece of paper that has been rubber stamped by somebody.

Well it has something written on it, but yes pretty much. If the "somebody" is someone you care about though, then that can make it more than just a piece of paper, in the same way that if you care about the issuer of a certificate then it is more than just a piece of paper. I get the distinction you're trying to make, and I don't think it really matters, but perhaps it was a bad example and autographs would have been a better one.

To be clear, I don't own NFTs, I get the idea but they don't appeal to me. But I also don't own any expensive art either for the same reason, so to each his own. I do own a bunch of trading cards, and I'm sure plenty of people would just view them as pieces of paper. Point being, people value plenty of silly things, NFTs are just one of them.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: