He is selling tokens that represent actual memorabilia that he just can’t bear to part with. How touching.
Or as vlogger Nash Bozard rephrased it, "“John Lennon’s Son Scamming Gullible Rubes By Auctioning Off His Father’s Stuff Without Actually Selling it.”
Now, Julian says he has no intention of selling the actual items, but I am wondering can he? Does the existence of NFT tokens get in the way of selling the items themselves?
I think we should pay for the collection in virtual cash. I’m reminded of Stanislau Lem’s Dragons Of Probability. “True the guarantee he offered for dragon removal -dracolysis- was only statistical; though one ruler did pay him in similar coin, that is in ducats that were only statistically good.”
I am reminded of the old story of the restaurant owner who heard a peasant who lived above the restaurant remark on how he enjoyed the smell of cooking and proceeded to sue him for compensation. The judge told the defendant to produce what money he had, jingled it in front of the plaintiff, and declared the matter settled.
You can have the tokens that are stored on the blockchain represent actual physical ownership of an item. For example, keeping track of who owns a piece of real estate could be done with NFTs. But that is apparently not what he is doing here.
These appear to be their own digital items, separate from the physical items, and take the form of “audio-visual collectibles, each narrated by the 58-year-old musician and philanthropist.”
So those are worth what they are worth…which will probably end up being what seems like a crazy amount.
It looks like some people have tried it as a proof of concept type thing, but yeah, the laws would have to catch up in most jurisdictions to legally recognize, for example, transfer of title using this method.