let's discuss NFT's brehs

[highwhey]

Ryan Wyatt
@Fwiz
·
Aug 21
I'm bullish on NFT's.

I believe play-to-earn is the next major gaming model, as well as an open market for in-game digital items; most in-game assets are illiquid, which is insane to me. All of this will change long-term through blockchain and NFT's. It's self-evident.

excellent point. every triple A game nowadays has in game purchases (skins, DLC, etc). long gone are the days of paying a fixed price for a game. you pay for the base game and all the expansion packs, premium weapons, premium maps that are released after initial launch are all aditional costs to the base price of the game. except as the tweet states, they are "illiquid"...and this is where NFTs come to play:



i legit thought NFTs would be a fad bc i am not as open minded to this blockchain thing...and now i see its potential.

but the question is, what coin do you ride if you are high on NFT's potential? i don't fully understand NFT's to be honest. are they propiertary to each coin/blockchain? I.E, will any NFT market running on ERC20 be inter-compatible with any ethereum based coin?

[Shogon]

I haven't looked super closely at this but the short term gains are insane if you know when to get out. There have been a substantial number of pump and dumps surrounding NFTs, arguably as much if not more than cryptos as a whole, which is shocking because the overwhelming vast majority of cryptos are pump and dump scams.

And at the risk of sounding like a boomer, I'm not quite sure I understand the appeal of owning a digital piece of art. Sure, you can claim "ownership" over certain pieces of media and while technically nobody else can own it and be recognized as owning the digital 'original', digital art/media can be pirated like crazy and replicated and duplicated as such that it's kind of pointless imo. And it's funny that I'm making this argument because some people will make extremely similar arguments against Bitcoin such as people starting their own blockchains and digital tokens etc, and you know my feelings about that.

It's sort of like an argument of having a physical painting vs a copy of a painting. You want the original and everyone agrees that it's worth more because of the historical significance and the artist actually touching it. And I understand that. But in this case, even the "original" ends up being a copy and not the real thing because it is not tangible. If you owned the original PC that the NFT originated on and the original file(s), then I suppose you would have the original version, but that's the only way... and that's not the point of this entire space at all, obviously.

I guess what it boils down to for me and while I'm open to being wrong and someone changing my mind, I think as far as money goes, money does not necessarily need to be something physically tangible that we can lay our hands on... just something that we all agree upon that can't be devalued or forged. Whereas with art, in my eyes for my preference, it needs to be something tangible otherwise even transferred ownership just boils down to it being a copy. Which it is. And while I could be having boomer brain because the concepts are very similar if not identical to decentralized digital money, maybe part of it boils down to for me is I don't own collectibles. I have not been too interested in physical collectibles of any sort since my teenage years, essentially.

There is a huge future for decentralized networks that revolve around money and storage of value. Digital identity, various forms of finance, security, etc, you name it.

Ultimately, I guess I don't really care even if huge monetary opportunity is staring me in the face because it does not interest me because I do not care about collectibles. I have not lived my life in such a way that I am constantly seeking money up to this point nor am I going to do so in the future. But my preferences don't matter and therefore NFTs are probably a huge deal, financially speaking, going forward. Because all of this boils down to belief. And if enough people believe that value is present, it will have value. And I do believe enough people are hopping on the NFT belief bandwagon for it to be an ongoing thing into the future.

[highwhey]

I haven't looked super closely at this but the short term gains are insane if you know when to get out. There have been a substantial number of pump and dumps surrounding NFTs, arguably as much if not more than cryptos as a whole, which is shocking because the overwhelming vast majority of cryptos are pump and dump scams.

And at the risk of sounding like a boomer, I'm not quite sure I understand the appeal of owning a digital piece of art. Sure, you can claim "ownership" over certain pieces of media and while technically nobody else can own it and be recognized as owning the digital 'original', digital art/media can be pirated like crazy and replicated and duplicated as such that it's kind of pointless imo. And it's funny that I'm making this argument because some people will make extremely similar arguments against Bitcoin such as people starting their own blockchains and digital tokens etc, and you know my feelings about that.

It's sort of like an argument of having a physical painting vs a copy of a painting. You want the original and everyone agrees that it's worth more because of the historical significance and the artist actually touching it. And I understand that. But in this case, even the "original" ends up being a copy and not the real thing because it is not tangible. If you owned the original PC that the NFT originated on and the original file(s), then I suppose you would have the original version, but that's the only way... and that's not the point of this entire space at all, obviously.

I guess what it boils down to for me and while I'm open to being wrong and someone changing my mind, I think as far as money goes, money does not necessarily need to be something physically tangible that we can lay our hands on... just something that we all agree upon that can't be devalued or forged. Whereas with art, in my eyes for my preference, it needs to be something tangible otherwise even transferred ownership just boils down to it being a copy. Which it is. And while I could be having boomer brain because the concepts are very similar if not identical to decentralized digital money, maybe part of it boils down to for me is I don't own collectibles. I have not been too interested in physical collectibles of any sort since my teenage years, essentially.

There is a huge future for decentralized networks that revolve around money and storage of value. Digital identity, various forms of finance, security, etc, you name it.

Ultimately, I guess I don't really care even if huge monetary opportunity is staring me in the face because it does not interest me because I do not care about collectibles. I have not lived my life in such a way that I am constantly seeking money up to this point nor am I going to do so in the future. But my preferences don't matter and therefore NFTs are probably a huge deal, financially speaking, going forward. Because all of this boils down to belief. And if enough people believe that value is present, it will have value. And I do believe enough people are hopping on the NFT belief bandwagon for it to be an ongoing thing into the future.

can't say i am even the slightest interested in digital art...but whatevs, seems to be taking off and i am very interested in the gaming aspect of it. from the very LITTLE i understand, NFT's are just a one of thing right? it makes a lot of sense that gaming will be using NFTs with skins/guns. seems like a no brainer to invest in.

[Shogon]

can't say i am even the slightest interested in digital art...but whatevs, seems to be taking off and i am very interested in the gaming aspect of it. from the very LITTLE i understand, NFT's are just a one of thing right? it makes a lot of sense that gaming will be using NFTs with skins/guns. seems like a no brainer to invest in.

Yes... as far as I know, most/all NFTs are 1 of 1s afaik but I could be wrong about that. Certainly, at most they would be limited in quantity otherwise what would be the point.

And yes you're probably right if NFTs are being used to transfer ownership of unique in game skins/cosmetics/weapons/armor/items and digital "land" then it probably is a no brainer from a money making perspective. Especially if you get in on something that ends up being highly sought after prior to a game blowing up.

Imagine having a unique skin in Fortnite that you bought prior to Fortnite blowing up.

But I mean, at the same time you probably need to be careful... there could theoretically be millions of unique skins, in a situation like that. Just saying. Case by case basis evaluation.

Some people are buying tweets, NBA clips, trading cards, etc.

[highwhey]

Yes... as far as I know, all NFTs are 1 of 1s.

And yes you're probably right if NFTs are being used to transfer ownership of unique in game skins/cosmetics and digital "land" then it probably is a no brainer from a money making perspective. Especially if you get in on something that ends up being highly sought after prior to a game blowing up.

does BTC not have an NFT market/component? just trying to be ahead of the curve here. very upset i did not listen to your BTC thread a couple years back

[Shogon]

does BTC not have an NFT market/component? just trying to be ahead of the curve here. very upset i did not listen to your BTC thread a couple years back

Ethereum is a lot more flexible currently and has a lot more projects going on surrounding it. As it stands, BTC is viewed as hard money whereas ETH is viewed as something where a lot of various financial applications are taking place.

I don't stay obsessed with the space anymore like I was from 2016 to 2019. No, I have not sold my BTC and I literally never will unless it's for a very good reason. I would rather someone crush my nuts in a vice and gouge my eyes out.

But I will say... I still believe that given a long enough of a timeframe, all altcoins including Ethereum... go to "zero" in relation to BTC. Ethereum rolled back their blockchain in 2016... because it is centralized. If Bitcoin rolled back transactions, it would crater in value. Fortunately nobody can do that. Certainly I'm sure that has changed somewhat over the years for ETH, but nevertheless... I'm not even sure ETH has a known supply cap?

Surely someone who has kept up with it more closely than I have can tell you more, but IDK, I view Ethereum as a shitcoin over a long enough of a time frame. What that time frame looks like, I haven't the faintest idea.

BTC is still evolving and it might as well be a living organism at this point. It is not going to stay in its current form forever. It will adapt and suck everything up. It is very slow moving because getting things "right" with something this important has to be. Rushing for improvements is certain death.

Stack sats.

[highwhey]

Ethereum is a lot more flexible currently and has a lot more projects going on surrounding it. As it stands, BTC is viewed as hard money whereas ETH is viewed as something where a lot of various financial applications are taking place.

I don't stay obsessed with the space anymore like I was from 2016 to 2019. No, I have not sold my BTC and I literally never will unless it's for a very good reason. I would rather someone crush my nuts in a vice and gouge my eyes out.

But I will say... I still believe that given a long enough of a timeframe, all altcoins including Ethereum... go to "zero" in relation to BTC. Ethereum rolled back their blockchain in 2016... because it is centralized. If Bitcoin rolled back transactions, it would crater in value. Fortunately nobody can do that. Certainly I'm sure that has changed somewhat over the years for ETH, but nevertheless... I'm not even sure ETH has a known supply cap?

Surely someone who has kept up with it more closely than I have can tell you more, but IDK, I view Ethereum as a shitcoin over a long enough of a time frame. What that time frame looks like, I haven't the faintest idea.

BTC is still evolving and it might as well be a living organism at this point. It is not going to stay in its current form forever. It will adapt and suck everything up. It is very slow moving because getting things "right" with something this important has to be. Rushing for improvements is certain death.

Stack sats.

i hate ethereum. the tx fees are beyond ridiculous and ineffecient. but there are too many projects on its blockchain to fail at this point. their whole "smart contract" isn't even unique (any longer). there are much better blockchains out there that do it faster, cheaper and more effecient.

i agree about btc though, it's price alone dictates the rest of the crypto world.

[Shogon]

i hate ethereum. the tx fees are beyond ridiculous and ineffecient. but there are too many projects on its blockchain to fail at this point. their whole "smart contract" isn't even unique (any longer). there are much better blockchains out there that do it faster, cheaper and more effecient.

i agree about btc though, it's price alone dictates the rest of the crypto world.

Careful about those other coins and saying they're better than ETH as a result of them "being faster." You need to know that the likely reason that they do it faster and cheaper and "more efficiently" is because likely nobody is using those blockchains. If the amount of people that are currently using the Bitcoin blockchain via on chain transactions and the lightning network, for example, all suddenly switched those daily transactions to ANY other blockchain, all of those blockchains would be choked into extinction basically immediately.

And it's not even a matter of hash power, for those of you that don't understand any of this. It's a matter of the technology on those blockchains does not even scale as well as Bitcoin does despite Bitcoin being labeled as "slow."

[highwhey]

Careful about those other coins and saying they're better than ETH as a result of them "being faster." You need to know that the likely reason that they do it faster and cheaper and "more efficiently" is because likely nobody is using those blockchains. If the amount of people that are currently using the Bitcoin blockchain via on chain transactions and the lightning network, for example, all suddenly switched those daily transactions to ANY other blockchain, all of those blockchains would be choked into extinction basically immediately.

And it's not even a matter of hash power, for those of you that don't understand any of this. It's a matter of the technology on those blockchains does not even scale as well as Bitcoin does despite Bitcoin being labeled as "slow."

fair point. ethereum network has significantly more traffic. maybe that is distorting the speed/price.


is BTC due for another halving?

[Shogon]

fair point. ethereum network has significantly more traffic. maybe that is distorting the speed/price.


is BTC due for another halving?

Halvings are every 4 years... last one was what? May 2020? Which means May 2024 would be the next?

https://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/

[CeltsGarlic]

About your video game point.. I not sure NFTs are good for all those guns skins n shit. Why would you want it decentralized, when the value still depends on the central figure, in this case the game developer.Additionally if the game goes down its useless either way and why would game developers want this implemented in the first place?

[CeltsGarlic]

Ethereum is a lot more flexible currently and has a lot more projects going on surrounding it. As it stands, BTC is viewed as hard money whereas ETH is viewed as something where a lot of various financial applications are taking place.

I don't stay obsessed with the space anymore like I was from 2016 to 2019. No, I have not sold my BTC and I literally never will unless it's for a very good reason. I would rather someone crush my nuts in a vice and gouge my eyes out.

But I will say... I still believe that given a long enough of a timeframe, all altcoins including Ethereum... go to "zero" in relation to BTC. Ethereum rolled back their blockchain in 2016... because it is centralized. If Bitcoin rolled back transactions, it would crater in value. Fortunately nobody can do that. Certainly I'm sure that has changed somewhat over the years for ETH, but nevertheless... I'm not even sure ETH has a known supply cap?

Surely someone who has kept up with it more closely than I have can tell you more, but IDK, I view Ethereum as a shitcoin over a long enough of a time frame. What that time frame looks like, I haven't the faintest idea.

BTC is still evolving and it might as well be a living organism at this point. It is not going to stay in its current form forever. It will adapt and suck everything up. It is very slow moving because getting things "right" with something this important has to be. Rushing for improvements is certain death.

Stack sats.

I think BTC is what is holding this whole thing down. Such a shitty "coin" to be the face of the game. Its like if our first created car was still the most selling and the whole car market was swinging up and down based of the demand of antique junk.

[Shogon]

I think BTC is what is holding this whole thing down. Such a shitty "coin" to be the face of the game. Its like if our first created car was still the most selling and the whole car market was swinging up and down based of the demand of antique junk.

Complete, utter, thorough... ignorance.

[highwhey]

About your video game point.. I not sure NFTs are good for all those guns skins n shit. Why would you want it decentralized, when the value still depends on the central figure, in this case the game developer.Additionally if the game goes down its useless either way and why would game developers want this implemented in the first place?

your missing the point. people will want their unique gun skins to be an nft for the same reason that you mentioned, all this money spent on a skin that is useless after a couple of years...why not save its value? and play to earn is the foot in the door for this. the demand/market is there, it's going to force it because a developer will see its value and eventually introduce it to the gaming community.

the issue with games right now is you spend all this money and it's useless when the newer version is released. why can't i carry over my skins from previous games? game developers are greedy that's why. the free market will force NFTs to be mainstream. all it takes is for one big AAA developer to feature it and the others will follow.

there's A LOT of momentum building behind NFTs, it's building steam.
it's the same situation with ANY industry, when the latest technology is introduced, you're forced to adapt and roll with it or your competitors will have the upper hand in efficiency and you'll become uncompetitive.

[CeltsGarlic]

your missing the point. people will want their unique gun skins to be an nft for the same reason that you mentioned, all this money spent on a skin that is useless after a couple of years...why not save its value? and play to earn is the foot in the door for this. the demand/market is there, it's going to force it because a developer will see its value and eventually introduce it to the gaming community.

the issue with games right now is you spend all this money and it's useless when the newer version is released. why can't i carry over my skins from previous games? game developers are greedy that's why. the free market will force NFTs to be mainstream. all it takes is for one big AAA developer to feature it and the others will follow.

there's A LOT of momentum building behind NFTs, it's building steam.
it's the same situation with ANY industry, when the latest technology is introduced, you're forced to adapt and roll with it or your competitors will have the upper hand in efficiency and you'll become uncompetitive.

The only possible scenario I see if a game includes a sort of market where people can create skins and put them for sale. Because if the market is ran and supplied by the developer why even use blockchain tech. Regular database would even better and cheaper too, cause if the game goes down those NFT gonna be worthless either way.

There are a niche market for games where you could transfer skins either way.