Rejection of the premise ≠ rejection of the execution
I see a lot of discussion about the ‘NFT bubble’ on Twitter, in the news, amongst the art community.
They’re right that there is a huge hype surrounding them &I don’t expect many pieces to hold the value they are sold for, but the conversation almost inevitably ends in a dismissal of the premise of NFTs altogether.
This misses the point. To dismiss the premise of NFTs because of the current execution seems incredibly shortsighted to me. Yes, IP and copyright issues need to be sorted. Yes, there need to be sets of standards agreed upon or at least widely used (such as where the image is stored if not on-chain, my vote is Arweave from my current understanding). See why that last point is important here.
But people often confuse the execution with the idea.
The ability to look past the current execution and at the core of an idea is a superpower.
Do not reject NFTs because you hate cartoon animal drawings and think they are valueless.
NFTs can address or help:
- Royalties/resale rights
- Creator ownership
- IP/copyright rights
- Gaming utility and ownership
- Creator/fan relationships
- Ownership & provenance
- & more…
This applies to everything though. When looking at something new I think it is always helpful to ask: what is the core of the idea here?
The current implementation can be stupid but maybe the idea isn’t.
Rejection of the premise ≠ rejection of the execution
