Digital art through NFTs we're a total miss for me, and here comes NFT tweets. Like I know Jack Dorsey's like a thousand times smarter than me no doubt, but what the hell I don't know what he's thinking with this. I literally don't get the point of having "ownership" of tweets just by tokenizing it. I mean, what the heck do I do with it? It's bollocks. I actually want to be open minded to understand and embrace it, but I simply can't.
Right, I doubt many countries would legally recognize NFT, and there's no software mechanism for enforcing ownership too. It's pretty much the same as selling Moon land or some distant stars - a pointless record in a database that has no real life consequences. The fact that so many people are jumping this bandwagon just shows how speculative and irrational the crypto sphere is, and how there's a lot of "dumb money" - probably some early ETH investors who now sit on millions worth of ether and don't know what to do with it.
Actually, by buying the NFT the owner is not buying any enforceable property right. He is just buying a blockchain registered proof that he purchased a digitally autographed tweet.
It is a very doubtful investment isn't it?
This is my main issue with it. It's an entirely arbitrary ownership over a digital form of something. The only thing that that gives it value is people agreeing that 1) NFT ownership connotes actual ownership over something that only digitally exists, and 2) this is valueable.
But then again, that's cryptocurrency in a nutshell, so it's quite ironic that people think bitcoin has value but NFT "goods" don't.
just trying to get that very little share of what celebs got from endorsement LOL.
