Topic: Are NFTs just marketing gimmicks with no added value? (Read 326 times)

A Bitcoin maximalist had entered the chat.
1.Smart contracts aren't scams. They are a tool, which can be used for good projects or bad projects. It depends how you use it.
2.Meme coins shouldn't be taken seriously(however, some crypto traders are taking them seriously).
4.Some altcoins are legit, while others are pump and dump shitcoins(actually most altcoins are shitcoins). You can't put all altcoins in the "scam" category.
5.The idea behind NFTs has some valid points, but the execution is what makes NFTs a joke.
Please move this forum thread in the Altcoin Discussion forum, since we aren't talking about Bitcoin.

At the end of the day, whether you're an engineer, developer, or investor, profits matter most, so as long as the game can make a profit, there's no reason for people to say no. In this market, besides bitcoin, the rest of the market are all money games, we don't need to care what effects they create or how they are applied. As long as we feel we can profit from it, we can participate. If you don't like those money games, stay with bitcoin you will be safe. Many people laugh at the NFT trend, metaverse, P2E... but it cannot be denied that it has also brought huge profits to many people and that is their purpose when participating in this game.

So what. Everybody else around him did. And who is to say Satoshi won't sell someday? Or that he actually intended to sell but died before he could?

Ethereum is also universally recognized as a commodity, as are many other cryptocurrencies. ETH market cap is over $400 billion. Not as high as BTC, but far larger than most corporations in the world including GM and IBM, and around the same as Exxon Mobile. Bitcoin is the biggest brand in digital currencies right now, but it's certainly not the only one, and who knows what the future will bring.

What you are saying is akin to calling everything that isn't an Apple computer a "scam" because they are from companies that are less valuable than Apple.

And if you think something as volatile as high-tech is going to stay the same "forever", maybe talk to somebody who thought the same thing about IBM in the 80s or Microsoft in the 90s or AOL in the 2000s. Don't get too attached--all I'm saying...

However, very much similar to the art collecting community and the market behind this, the NFTspace appears to have become developed into something similar where money will be laundered in these markets and this will be liquidity that will be greeted and accepted happily.

Also, the development of new NFT standards like erc404 will create new types of usecases where big inflows will go and where new markets will be created.

You don't know what you're talking about. Satoshi himself has never sold one bitcoin or sat.
To this day Satoshi's wallet(s) still contains a million bitcoin in it and has never moved.


That is why bitcoin is universally recognized as a commodity while ethereum and all the other scam coins are not.

That would all describe Bitcoin as well. Maybe it wasn't called an "ICO" at the time, but that's what it amounted to.



Once again they had absolutely no reason to use blockchain technology in their offering--they only did that as a gimmick. You (identified you) buy a thing from the NFL team (identified as well). What possible value add does blockchain have in that context?

So I guess if you call drawing attention to your collectable using a popular (but meaningless) buzzword, "legit utility", then you'd be right, but in that case I can't see this hype cycle lasting too much longer. There have been collectables in the past for things like this without blockchain, and I suspect they will simply revert to that soon enough.

And I haven't seen any actual concrete examples of how they would use them in gaming and music, but the above rule would probably still apply: you can create the same exact product without blockchain without any loss of end-user value.

For the most part yes.  Just like with ordinals.  I honestly don't understand why bitcoin devs even waisted their time on them.  Is/was that really necessary? How about spending time improving the blockchain or working on satoshis proposed escrow that doesn't involve a 3rd party.

Now some NFL teams used NFTs for game tickets.  Now that's legit utility.  I know there's stuff in the gaming and music world that can utilize them in some fashion that is legit, but I don't really understand how they work. 

Anything that started with a premine or ICO is by definition a scam and unregistered security that was created to get around the disclosure laws.
Why do you think that is? What do they have to hide? Early investors, VCs and devs reward themselves with hundreds of millions of tokens which they proceed to dump on retail, which the ETH developers and insiders are still doing to this day.

Exactly what features does ethereum have that are actually useful in the real world with real value beyond being used as a platform to promote memecoins, NFTs and other assorted scams? Whenever I hear that some shitcoin has some great unique feature that is never seen before they are never able  to describe exactly what that feature is in plain English. They will just spout off a bunch  of techno babble nonsense that no normal person can understand. That is when you know it is a scam, not unlike the smooth-talking snake oil salesmen roaming around selling snake oil cures during the days of the wild west. These days you have modern-day snake oil salesmen most of which are in the crypto industry. Don't be fooled.

Correct, but if the holders of the NFT ever need to enforce their contract, they need to reveal themselves as actual human beings.

And since that's the case, the blockchain aspect of the transaction has no value whatsoever.


Why not? Do you keep track of every commercial rental transaction at every strip mall you drive past? Contracts are enforced by the parties involved, not a generalized "they". The minute you want to enforce your contract, you'd need to reveal yourself.

Note that there are privacy-enhanced ways of hiding your identity from the general public, e.g through an LLC or whatever. But you cannot, by definition, hide the identity from the court, which would require documentation proving the parties in the lawsuit lawfully represent the lawful owners. (I suppose, with enough key pairs, you could devise a scheme to bring a suit using only key pairs, but this would require a mind-boggling string of new legislation that I think we could all agree would never practically happen* ).

(*And note here we would just be talking about key pairs and not blockchain, which would still just be an implementation detail that would be pointless for a system whose primary purpose is to be revealed to a central government).

Absolutely its the same with a photo. But nobody is paying say $100k for a photo. Because you aren't buying a photo because you think it is some rare asset. You're buying it because you think it looks nice and you want it on your wall, so you're maybe paying a few hundred dollars for it and the frame if it is really nice and a big frame. People who buy NFT pictures are silly enough to think they are getting something unique and valuable that only they can own, when in reality anyone can copy paste the picture, and the creator or literally anyone else could create more of the same or similar things. If they were buying it because they think the picture is cool...well that is worth $0 because anyone can copy-paste the picture.

However a physical piece of art, like a painting, is different, because that times time and effort and unless the artist is also extremely skilled at copying they aren't ever going to make the exact same painting again and again. And a print of a painting is of course obviously not the real thing. And this is why an original painting can be worth a lot, but a photo is not worth a lot, and NFT pictures are only worth a lot because rich crypto people don't know the difference in value these things hold so they go around trading NFT pictures for many thousands of dollars when there is no underlying value there.

Similarly, a signature from a famous person is more about like proof that you met the person, unless of course you bought it off someone else, but still it is proof in the object that the person actually held and signed this thing. And signatures are limited, and everyone understands there will be many signatures, but they are still limited by some amount. And having a copied signature is meaningless because the value is based on the idea that the person actually signed that exact physical object, while having a copy-pasted NFT picture gives you the exact same picture. Anyway signatures are a pretty silly thing to be valuable because its literally just the fact that someone wrote their name on something haha.

I think the main point, as I said in my first post in this thread, is that NFTs are only valuable if the valuable thing is in the ownership, not in the data. Which is basically what you said: people feel like the get value from being part of an NFT club. That is their own fault for thinking their is immense value in that haha, but that is each person's individual decision to throw away money on that idea. The picture itself is worthless because you can copy paste it endlessly. But I don't know any NFT pictures where you actually get any value from the ownership, though if you say there are ones with member-only perks I'll believe you, but with the vast majority the value is supposed to be the picture itself. Maybe there are some that gives you some sort of special owner-only access to other things. In that case the value of the NFT would be derived from that, and not the useless copy-pasteable image in the NFT.

Basically, NFT pictures are the epitome of greater-fool theory, because there is no actual utility of the picture (anyone can get the image for free), there is no actual scarcity of the picture (anyone can get the image for free), the only value is that you paid a lot for it so you hope that alone means someone else later will buy it from you for even more money. So yeah, you're right NFT pictures are mostly worthless, and people are only paying to feel like they are part of some club, and given the prices some people pay, they are paying fortunes to just feel like part of a pretty useless club online haha. But physical media is different. And also let's realize NFT does not equal NFT pictures. NFT pictures are a type of NFT, and specifically a type that doesn't take advantage of anything of value NFT tech can provide, so its a very dumb use of NFT tech. It just happens to be that the really dumb thing became popular because its visual and rich crypto people speculated their way into paying absurd sums of money for things that have no underlying value.

I don't agree with that. But its fine if that's your opinion. If a real estate company says they are legally bound to giving out payments to the holders of the NFTs, then they are legally bound to do that. And the payments would all be transparent. So if they aren't paying it would be very obvious to everyone. As to whether or not the owners of the NFTs would have to identify themselves I don't know, but it would be extremely easy to call out the company if they aren't making the payment since all of the NFT owners would be aware that none of them are getting any payments. What you are saying is that a company would be allowed to transparently scam people, and everyone would know about it, yet no one would do anything about it....obviously that is not how things work.

Besides, the whole thing could be automated. Like: money from rentals gets sent through a crypto service that converts the appropriate amount to the cryptocurrency used and it gets sent out to the NFT holders. Rest of the money goes to the company. This is very doable. So I don't see any ground for you thinking this couldn't happen. I'm not saying it will happen, I have no idea if this kind of real estate crypto product will be created by companies, but it could absolutely be done.

Why? becasue it is a easy way to scam money from the idjits that buy into them.
What is their added value? Only thing I like about them is the massive fees they generate for us miners. If fools want to spend their BTC on high fees to give to us miners, works for me...

If the artist made no promises about the number of reproductions, that would be correct. If you buy a print of a Banksy, and it doesn't have something like "42/100" in the corner, then you are just buying an official copy of a Banksy, but he can make as many as he wants. But there's also an implicit notion of limits since it's a physical thing. Banksy might make 1000 prints or even 10,000, but he probably won't make ten million, so your print will be worth marginally more than just the production costs. Old posters have value of being from a particular time, etc.

Every work of art (any kind of intellectual property, really) will have some implicit or explicit contract associated with it, e.g. it's copyright statement for instance.

NFTs can't enforce their contract unless they are connected to an identity. I like the idea of buying and selling contracts on the internet, and this notion that NFTs have popularized is very cool, but using blockchain for it is pointless.

Isn't it the same with art? Let's say you buy a framed photo of something. The seller could make a copy. You pay $1000 for it and the next day he makes another 50 copies. Unless it's written in a contract that he can't make copies, he can.
It's the same with other collectibles. People buy signatures of other people for money, but we all know they can make more of these.

IMO NFTs are mostly worthless, but if buying that monkey or penguin makes you feel better, special, like you're a member of an elite club, you should do it. Some NFT's are such entries and allow you to get member only content.

I'll just call out that one example of what I am talking about. Without a contract enforceable in a court of law, who is to say what "profits" are? What happens when you don't get paid? Are you going to sue? Sue who? You can't take a private key to court.

So in your example, #2 will never be met. Ever.

Bitcoin--and currencies generally--work because the value is inherent in the singleton brand name. You value Bitcoin because it's Bitcoin.

In the case of NFTs, the value is supposed to be a contract--but an unenforcible contract is no contract at all. It's just a worthless piece of paper.

Contracts are only enforceable when there are two identified legal entities--known individuals or known business entities. Entities that can, for instance, hire lawyers to defend themselves in court.

If the counterparty if a private key, then it cannot do so--but you can't sue it, either.

In other words, if you buy an NFT connected to a contract that states you will get half of the profits from the rentals in an apartment complex, you have... just been ripped off. You will never see any of those profits because there's no way for you to collect them.

I get that some (many?) NFTs are based on contracts with the names of real people and/or real business names. But if that's the case, why bother with blockchain?

NFTs are nothing but useless digital contents. With the advancements of AI technology, 99% of the NFTs are created by Ai algorithm without any human interference (apart from typing prompt) and then sold in the marketplaces. Just because the ownership is recorded in a blockchain, NFTs can's draw value out of it. It was a hype which has died down long ago, died even faster than ICO craze. Also it is a playground for the money launderers at a much larger scale.

So if you are planning to invest in NFT, hold on. Rather invest in Bitcoin or ETH for long term and forget everything else. NFT is a pure scam business.

That's what I think but maybe because I don't understand it very well. In any case I think the vast majority of NFTs are garbage and maybe a few are saved. For as in art, many people paint pictures or make statues but few become of great value.


Of the latter, but not of the former. Mozart took much less effort to compose than Salieri, and guess who went on to fame.

For me, I think they've got their own value. It's like paintings or sculptures, and it's value should be dependent on how much effort was put into it and how many people perceive it's value. Inherently speaking, it doesn't have a lot of value but then again, it's the people that would give that value. Also, shouldn't this be in the Altcoin Discussion or maybe the Other board? Seems out of place to talk about NFTs in Bitcoin Discussion.

Definitely a gimmick but I'm not going to let it be a bad thing, the reason people hate on NFT is it's lack of utility but it's also the fault of many people that look forward to buying NFTs, they're the reason that it's got a value, because someone's buying them, if you're mad about NFT, don't give it the attention and see it overnight becoming just a fad.

Yes! That's what NFTs are minus the marketing, they're just gimmicks that is used to siphon a lot of money from crypto investors that want to bank on their potential to make a lot of money and profit by investing in them, that's how I see NFTs and even though they're a profitable thing to invest especially if you know the right ones to invest into, I still can't get behind from the fact that it's not worth anything besides being just a JPEG or an item, at the list when it's an item, you've got some utility but other than that, it's useless. Kind of like a painting that doesn't even took any effort to be created, that's how I would answer those who say that NFTs are a work of art.

NFTs have value, but people have to use NFTs for its strengths.

Like with fungible cryptocurrencies, there's Bitcoin, which is using blockchain to its strengths, and then there's altcoins which definitely do not use blockchain to its strengths. So in fungible cryptocurrencies there's basically Bitcoin which is really valuable and then a bunch of fluff.

With non-fungible uses of cryptocurrencies...well, we've pretty much only seen the fluff so far. Digital images are a terrible use case for NFTs, because the valuable thing is the image, which can simply be copy-pasted regardless of owning the NFT. So a really terrible use case of NFTs has become the main use of NFTs lol, and I think a lot of people even just equate NFTs with digital images on blockchains now. But of course NFTs can have plenty of uses, we just need to play to the strengths of NFTs. Specifically, the valuable thing of an NFT needs to not be the data held, but the actual act of ownership. With images the valuable thing is the data, which is why its a terrible use of NFTs.

Anyway, to more directly answer your question, once someone finds a good use case in which to use NFTs, the only real reason to choose to use it over some other existing digital infrastructure would be if you want to allow ownership to pass between people in a p2p network.



So I'd say NFTs are useful when:

1) its the actual ownership of the NFT that is the valuable thing, where there is nothing supposedly valuable about the NFT data itself

2) the usefulness of owning the NFT comes directly through the blockchain itself, like partial owning of real estate split up into NFTs where the payouts of rental earnings get sent out to the NFT owners on the blockchain itself

3) you want to allow free market p2p passing of ownership (trading) of the ownerships. So like if this is some regulated thing or some centralized thing there's no reason to use NFTs because ownership would have to go through third parties anyway, but if that's not the case and you want the ownerships to be freely traded in the market then the easiest thing to do would be to do it through NFTs.

NFTs make the most sense when all three of these things are met. For example, NFT pictures only hits #3, making them pretty useless because there is no value in doing #3 if the first two things aren't very important to your NFTs.

And if it needs help from the courts to enforce, then it's absolutely idiotic to use... blockchain[/i] in this transaction. The whole point of blockchain is to remove the government from the equation.


Can you give any evidence to your claims here? How does an NFT give an artist a new way to sell their works that they didn't have before? In either case, the artist must create a usage contract for their work, and they must sign their own name to that, as well as that of the counterparty--just like they would do without the NFT being involved. So why have an NFT in the mix at all? What value does it add?


Can you explain how it will grow? What it will grow into? What they are evolving into? Any specifics?

Why do you think ethereum is a shitcoin?

A lot of altcoins are useless and most of the time end up dying
even if the projects are legit.  there are still chances that
altcoins are scams however not all of them are and ethereum is
a very bad example of what you would call a scam.

Bitcoin is superior to ethereum and all of altcoins but some of them
aren’t scam and actually provide some really unique features that
could be implemented in bitcoin in order to improve it more

NFTs are more than just marketing tricks, they provide a new way for artists and creators to own and sell their digital work, isn't that amazing?
While some see them as overhyped, NFTs are evolving and could change how we handle digital ownership across various fields.

We are just still early and some people don't appreciate the use of this, there's still room for growth.

You are quite correct, although NFTs aren't even legal contracts or any contracts, they are just tokens on blockchain that have unique identifiers and that's it. The people behind them told that they give ownership, but ownership is not actually ownership without having any way to enforce it. Bitcoin is self-enforcing, the system doesn't need any outside help, but NFTs are not. You can put a link or even a file on blockchain, but it won't stop anyone from copying it, so it needs the help of actual legal courts, which is the opposite of what Bitcoin has achieved.

You're right about this but this is a section for mostly Bitcoin discussions and not NFT/altcoin blockchain discussions.

There's the right section for this, you can move it from here through "move topic" at the bottom of this page.

Altcoin discussion --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0

Service discussion (altcoins) --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=198.0

What? What are you talking about?

With an NFT you can fake ownership easier than ever before since a private key proves you are the owner of nothing whatsoever.

What proves you own the Mona Lisa is government documents saying you own the Mona Lisa. And not "some private key" owns the Mona Lisa, but some actual human person owns it.

Imagine somebody sells you a house using an NFT. Then somebody else moves in "your" house and calls the police telling them to throw you out of their house. Now you have to sue the person who sold you this NFT... except there's nobody to sue since you can't take a private key to court.

In short, buying tangible goods as an NFT is always a scam. Don't do it .

I heard of NFTs back in 2017 and assumed it was a big joke. Back then people were paying $50K for some monkey JPEGs. I was thinking they were crazy. Then those Bored Apes became worth millions and then I decided to learn more about NFTs. Its basically a collection of art but you cannot fake ownership like you would a prized painting.

Say you bought the Mona Lisa, your friends came over and saw it. They wouldnt know 100% if its real or not. But with NFTs you cannot fake ownership. So I guess I understand the value behind it. But I am not much of an NFT investor or traders. I have no idea how the floor price even works.

I completely get that, and clearly the value of blockchain anything is based almost entirely on its brand name perception since the practical use is so limited. And there are billion dollar brands in the world like "Gucci" and "Real Madrid" and "Bitcoin" that make whatever object you place that brand on valuable just because the brand.

But NFTs are different because they usually pretend to be something they aren't. The reason is because insofar as you are selling a non-tangible item (e.g. a digital asset), then the only potential worth is the copyright protection on that item, which is buried in the contract for the NFT.

In other words, most people think they are buying a JPEG of a Monkey when buying an NFT that nobody else can buy but unless it's specified in the contract, the one who sold it to you could make one million more JPEGs just like it and sell them as a one-off.

And even if the contract for the NFT covers this, you have absolutely no recourse in enforcing your contract because there's no known counterparty to sue with the NFT itself. (And if there is one, then... why did you bother with an NFT in the first place since you could have just signed a plain old contract between two parties?)

So yes, value is subjective, but NFTs don't even guarantee you that subjective value.

NFT is like meme or shit coins the difference is that you are buying like a token that has a value it could be a picture or an virtual pet abd sometimes in the early years NFT become popular in a sense that it is used for defi games or crypto games where you will brough an NFT in that game then you will farm the coins that games has, honestly I quite earn a huge amount in doing crypto games, I know you know those popular crypto games but I will not mention it here, so for me the profitable NFT's are those in used for crypto games, but if you are talking about NFT like pictures or auto generated cartoon image then that's what I think is useless, lets take for example jake paul that brough a very huge amount of NFT but eventually its value is gone so a big lose, so I don't think collecting and keeping an NFT is not a good investment.

Ordinals or inscriptions which is like the bitcoin version of NFTs can be of financial value for the miners.

Inscriptions can provide miners with an extra source of income to help with high operating costs during a bear market.
This may at times cause network congestion and higher fees for every user but I don't mind paying higher fees on occasion to help out the miners.

Other than that the NFTs on other chains are nothing more than legalized gambling.

All of these things have as much value as people believe they have.

Something comes to my mind. Do you remember when youtube girls were selling stuff to their fanboys? It was their bath water, pieces of clothing, one even sold her farts in a jar and people were paying for that shit. It was worth something to them. Does it mean these things were valuable? To most of us they were shit but they were paying money for dirty underwear of some chick that doesn't even care about them.

Value is subjective and I think a picture of a monkey is worth 0, but some people think it's $100k...

I was never a fan of NFT anyway. Till now, I hate NFT, and I think it's just a useless thing in the blockchain industry. It hasn't  added any value to the blockchain industry; it's just a waste of money. A few big mads made NFT popular. Even though I wasn't a fan of memes, it seems they are pumping hard, but still, I am not trading them. I have seen a lot of NFT projects just turn out to be scams. Sometimes something becomes a trend, and scammers take advantage of it to make money. There is no real value to NFT. 

I have often wondered if NFTs actually serves the purpose behind its idea or it's just a hyped initiative that is yet to fulfil its purpose.
Still, I see huge amounts for pieces of art or content on the NFT platforms being sold or priced.

Although, I know much has not been done as regards making it more demanded or in use by the broader society of artist and content creators, because why put my art or content on display for audiences who don't buy into the decentralized idea or know much about Blockchain and how to access it, after paying huge gas fees?

NFT's very existence depends somehow on the success or failure of cryptocurrencies and the decentralized Blockchain network and I see it as one of those initiatives or projects just like ETFs project, which serves as somehow an advert of progress or in this context a marketing strategy not a gimmick, with as much added value as the individual who owns it has placed on it.

Why would you care about something being decentralized if you are using your real name and identity? That defeats the whole purpose of blockchain, which is to resist government oversight into transactions.

And while "tamper proof" is physical impossibility, systems that are "tamper resistant" depend on the implementation, and blockchain doesn't help that problem one way or another, except perhaps to make the system somewhat more complex, adding to the risk of hacking.


What use cases? What business models?

My short opinion: Yes and no, depending on the use case!


It is correct that NFTs are essentially legal contracts and that contracts require known identities to hold up in court. However, the value of NFTs lies in their ability to provide a decentralized, transparent, and tamper-proof record of ownership and provenance.

While NFTs may not offer any inherent value on their own, they provide a decentralized, transparent, and tamper-proof record of ownership and provenance that can increase the value and liquidity of digital assets. They also enable new business models and use cases that are not possible with traditional digital content marketplaces.

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?

We both have the same question. Why?

It's just a junk of pixels that are put together to form a picture. I still remember somebody from I think Indonesia where he minted his own pictures as an NFT, and to my surprise, those pictures of him sold for ETH. I don't know the exact amount of ETH he got at that time, but at least he got a minimum of 10. Just imagine, anybody can just create their own JPEGs and JPGs and then sell it to anybody who thinks that it has a value.

Speaking of value, I guess I look at these JPEGs and JPGs as just pictures with no values at all, but as long as there is somebody that thinks that it has a value then he will definitely buy it. For me, these pictures are just worthless... or at least not worth an Ethereum or whatever, but no monetary value. Most of them are just scams trying to lure people to invest into their junk JPEGs.

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.

the meme/json junk thrust onto the bitcoin network are not even close to being genuine NFT. so lets not even call them that, but they are most definitely scam crap

as for nft in general. even the ones on the other networks are not true utility NFT. there will come in the future (a few generational changes of tokenisation) where by future tokens will offer more secure tokenisations.. but the current line up of NFT just dont meet all the expectations and value security/scarcity they promised to have

so in general, the current things terming themselves nft are mostly scams, or atleast over priced, over promised units, that dont truly provide the features/benefits/security/uniqueness they suppose to

This is the very reason why if you are an investor, you should do your own due diligence in uncovering the project itself. NFT is useful if there is solid backing behind it. Like for example, those real artists that really want to distribute their works via NFT. But in any business over the net, there will always a scammer on the loose.

I still believe there are few valuable projects that you can venture with, or NFT that you can own. However, if you can't keep up with the development phase of the platform you are using, better not to involve yourself in this type of investment. Just go for tangible artworks, meaning physical art. But we all know, they are quite expensive if you are looking for known artists.

You can easily spot fly-by-night projects by checking the following aspects-
> team/individuals behind the project - anonymous/fake profiles
> no solid background
> generic content of the site
> plagiarised content of the site
> all talks, no tangible plans/achievements
> too-good-to-be-true promises

Sorry but only idiots invest in altcoins which are good for nothing but promoting crap like NFTs and memecoins and getting hacked or rugpulled. Sorry but not sorry.
How many countless billions of dollars have been lost on ethereum over the years due to hacks and scams?

No one has ever explained to me exactly what ethereum and altcoins are good for other than stupid NFTs and meme coins, getting hacked and rugpulled.
With bitcoin the purpose of it is very clear and simple to understand. Bitcoin is nothing more than a store of value, like gold but only better. Period.

Bitcoin is an asset without an issuer which makes it a commodity. You cannot say that for anything else in the market.

When you introduce the human element (the issuer) it only leads to corruption and greed. Why would you trust people you don't even know and give them your money?
Why would you trust people you don't know not to scam you? With bitcoin you don't have to trust because it is an asset without an issuer, it is trustless.

I don't agree with what you said, but I can still believe that those tools are used to scam investors who don't know anything about them. If those are all scams, the other coins
that belong to those categories will no longer be listed on centralized exchanges.

Don't generalize; I also can't deny that there are scammers, but the scam is not the literal meme, NFT, altcoins, or smart contracts. You are dead wrong here on this matter.

I agree with you here, and personally I don't like to write off anything that has captured the interest of so many people in the world as a "scam".

Clearly NFTs are doing something people find useful, and my theory is that the buying and selling of contracts on the internet is a useful thing, even if:

1. Many or even most NFTs are scams.

2. Specifically using blockchain or not to do it doesn't make any difference to the product.

3. Blockchain-based NFTs will go extinct soon, replaced by plain old written contracts with known counterparties, now that NFTs have introduced everybody to the idea of buying and selling contracts*.

I personally like to drill down and learn more about a phenomenon rather than just dismissing it as a "scam". I'm not saying there's anything wrong if you do, but I'm just a geek when it comes to this stuff .


(* Of course I have the same view of Bitcoin and digital currency. )

I struggled with the proper placement of this topic. This is clearly a Bitcoin-related (blockchain-related) topic, and I think belongs on Bitcointalk.org, generally speaking.

But there's no dedicated area of NFTs on this website, or something that would seem to cover that topic in a general way.

And NFTs are definitely not like altcoins in terms of their usefulness and issues. I think that would be the wrong place for the topic.

Hence I placed this topic in the "general discussion" area, e.g. this one.

Why not move this thread to the altcoins discussion board for more proper replies on this subject matter, there's much to say when it comes to altcoins and this section only belongs to bitcoin discussion topics, altcoins and NFTs in particular have market buying and selling value which we can also partake from when it comes to discussions on how they have added value to the market s in cryptocurrencies, the same way we must never forget that this same altcoins have their risk in which if we are not observant can affect us.

I don't think you are completely correct. Infact Bitcoin can also be used to lure vulnerable people into scamming them. Having the idea that every other thing is scam aside Bitcoin does not prove you are a Bitcoin enthusiast but rather it shows your ignorance about crypto-currency in general.

NFT, memecoin, altcoin aren't one entity, although I don't own any altcoin yet but I won't consider them all scams because there are coins and project in those sector that has proven themselves and stood the test of time.

I understand you don't want to have anything to do with them but calling all of them a scam is a wrong mentality.

NFTs, meme coins, smart contracts, altcoins, etc. are nothing but scams.

These are the buzzwords that scammers use to lure people in and trick them out of their money. Bitcoin is the only one that is not a scam.
Many people enter the crypto market only to find this out the hard way after they lose their money.

If the government was doing their job ethereum and all the rest of the shitcoins would be shut down to prevent these scams from happening.
Of course that is why bitcoin exists because governments are totally clueless, incompetent and corrupt.

When it comes to blockchain-based NFTs, I'm trying to answer one question: why?

What is the actual added value of an NFT versus a plain old contract between two known entities as is done in traditional digital content marketplaces?

You might say that the difference is that the transaction can be done anonymously, but since NFTs are essentially legal contracts, and contracts require known identities to hold up in court, then it would seem as though an NFT itself doesn't add any value, since you need to add identity to the contract anyhow, at which point there's no added value to using an NFT.

What am I missing here? Why use an NFT when the NFT, by itself, is technically worthless, and a valid transaction without the blockchain aspect of the transaction is the same as the value with it?

In other words, couldn't you just enter into the same contract the NFT specifies with the real names of the parties, and accomplish the same thing, but without the added complexity of the blockchain stuff?

Can somebody who knows the NFT business tell me what I am missing?