Two things I don’t understand, despite many attempts by their aficionados to explain them to me. I wonder if there’s any connection between them, or if they just both happen to be concepts that seem to me incomprehensible, very recent, and based on some sort of ‘virtual’ value that didn’t exist before someone invented them out of thin air.
Both crypto coins and NFTs are based around a decentralised digital ledger. So there is a technological commonality between them.
There are differences of course between a coin and an NFT. One of the most important ones is that an NFT is not divisible so it is considered non-fungible whereas crypto coins are fungible.
I can see how coins might have some value or use (not as much as crypto-lovers think, but some). NFT’s… I’m far more dubious about. But at least they are not minted by using up huge amounts of energy.
And they are both indeed based on some sort of ‘virtual’ value that didn’t exist before someone invented them out of thin air. Like every physical item, they are worth what someone is willing to pay for them.
There’s an internet meme about NFTs that equates them to that old novelty gift where you can buy a star. You give some company your money, they give you a certificate and a photo of your star, its coordinates, all the identifying info. But there’s no way to collect your property, you don’t know that someone else hasn’t already bought it or that your star won’t be sold to someone else. And now, the companies that did the transactions are gone along with their sales records so…enjoy your NFTs.
Is that a flawed comparison?
No, that’s a very good comparison, except that the claim is that the sales records are public and indelible on the blockchain.
The main problem with spending your money on such things is that
- The company doesn’t really have any legal right to give you any ownership claim on the star.
- The thing you paid for isn’t a legal ownership claim in any sense.
#2 is definitely true for NFTs, #1 sometimes is, although the fact that #2 is true means that #1 is sometimes irrelevant.
Only in that star may actually be providing someone with some use out there.
There’s a whole 2-hour explanation video that recently came out that explains NFTs. But really it’s about crypto. The 4th chapter mark is called “NFTs exist to get you to buy crypto”.
Someone should show that to Microsoft. I think they just invested 100 Billion into NFT’s
You are only off by about 5 orders of magnitude there, as well as what was actually invested in.
They didn’t invest in NFTs, they invested in the technology behind NFTs. And they didn’t invest 100 billion, their venture investment fund, along with several other groups, put up $27 million into a company that makes money off of other people investing in NFTs.
Just because something is worthless doesn’t mean that it’s not worthwhile to sell it to suckers.
You’re right. It’s probably nothing. I’m sure a 2 hour YouTube video and a mid 1990’s message board will have the final say.
I was just pointing out the extreme error of your claim. It’s not a message board that says your claim is wrong, it is reality.
Just learned in the thread next door what NFT stands for: No F***ing Talent.
I couldn’t agree more.
And now for the Cryptothingy!
You Googled “Microsoft NFT” and read the first article on Palm.
Activision Blizzard makes 60% of it’s revenue from in-game purchases and microtransactions (An industry with an expected total revenue of 75 Billion in 2025). Microsoft has also been working with Enjin on their Azure Heros program for NFT/blockchain based rewards.
A “skin” has zero real value. People spend billions on them.
Your claim was that Microsoft invested $100 billion into NFTs.
If you think that has any validity at all, how about an actual cite?
As I said, just because something is worthless doesn’t mean that it’s not worthwhile to sell it to suckers.
But that has nothing to do with your claim.
Yeah, got to agree with k9bfriender here.
MS did just spend $70 billion, but for ActivisionBlizzard, which is a games company.
ActiBlizz has some NFT stuff in the works (like many games companies) but that’s a far cry from MS investing $100 billion in NFTs. ActiBlizz’s main money makers are mobile games like Candy Crush and some AAA tiles like Call of Duty and some e-Sports games.
I’m not seeing anything that suggests Microsoft invested anywhere near $100 billion in NFTs in particular, though there are articles suggesting they hope to make that kind of money in that market from suckers.
Another games company:
If you have any trust in the wisdom of canadian truckers or the ones manipulating them you might consider buying some Bitcoins: