- Up to now the NFT hype seems to be about arguably ugly pictures.
- Many of them obviously produced in a process that outputs lots and lots of them with little differences (rendering the scarcity reasoning somewhat void). Why should Brutally Ugly JPG #666 be worth hundreds of ADA just like #001 through #665?
- And it’s not even clear if you really purchase the copyright or rather just a hash of the picture (in addition to the questionable value of the copyright of an ugly picture). Or are there platforms in the Cardano universe with clear terms on that? Didn’t find anything like that on CNFT.
- And are there processes that guarantee that only the real creator can mint an NFT, processes to remove an NFT from the chain in case of copyright violations?
- And, even if they are legitimately from the original creator and there are terms granting the NFT owner rights that are more useful than some hash value on the chain: Only the first purchase leads to a profit for the creator. All further trading values the creativity of the creator by generating profits for some anonymous person having purchased the NFT cheaper from the creator. That’s … somehow odd.
(Point 2 begins to make sense, here. An artist can show over the course of n NFTs that they rise spectacularly in value and then sell m more NFTs for higher prices. That’s maybe even somehow similar to the traditional art market, but still … strange and probably not something each and every artist will want to do.)
So, are there use cases for which these obstacles are irrelevant or solved?
Use cases not necessarily in “art”?