Since it's about NFTs, I think you, op, should move the thread to altcoin discussion. NFTs have value of what they represent and of how people perceive it, plus the copyright, I suppose. I don't think they're completely useless, but I think they're risky and overrated. They can be a nice way to support creators and to spread digital art, so to me, it's not about financial innovation and is more about fundraising. And while NFTs are often compared to ICOs, I think the difference is that with NFTs you know exactly what you're getting, whereas with ICOs people were often unsure, confused, trying to understand what the project was actually promising, etc.
NFTs aren't altcoins though, they are completely different. Altcoins can potentially have value, whereas NFTs, in my opinion, don't serve any actual purpose (I started this thread hoping that somebody would disagree but so far no takers
).
I suspect that most people actually do
not know what they are getting with an NFT, because of your description here which is actually... misleading--even though I suspect that's what many people think of when they think of an NFT.
But yes,
copyrights. You know who would need to go to court to bring damages in a copyright lawsuit?
Actual human beings. A private key can't take another private key to court. A known person can't take a private key to court. A private key can't take a known person to court. It takes two known parties with real identities to go to court, and without the help of a functioning court system, the concept of "copyrights" is completely meaningless.
And if you have a contract between two known entities, then why especially do you need blockchain anywhere in this mix?
So my question here, put another way, is this:
Do NFTs have any valid reason to exist?