The NFTs companies actually want to sell you have none of the advantages touted as game changing (ownership, resale etc). The issuer decides exactly what privileges the buyer will get and tightly controls the whole experience, so very similar to in game currencies.
In the case of ubisoft it sounds like you get a unique serial number stamped into your in-game skin for your money 
Neo isn’t onboard with the idea of digital scarcity …
Saw this last night and rolled my eyes. I like Keanu and his views, but group him in with the people who don’t get the tech. NFTs are so much more than images that people can claim ownership over and others can copy+paste.
For the record I do find the current NFT trends dumb. But the potential of assets – physical as well as digital – and their ownerships being traceable on a public ledger is so much bigger than what most people are focussing on right now.
A lot of tech built on blockchain reminds me of when Bitcoin was still immature. Explaining it to people was like trying to teach your 90 year old grandma how to use a smartphone. We’re still at early days, but people are generally beginning to understand why it might be impactful in some way. We’ll get there with the rest of it.
NFTs are certainly a strange thing and I’m not sure I’ve fully got my head around them but essentially what seem to make them valuable is being listed on a blockchain which one can prove ownership of.
So essentially other things could be NFTs as well, what if music creators start to upload their songs to the blockchain; this could lead to whole new industry.
You should re-examine your assumptions. If your thesis for cryptocurrencies is that they are wonderful tech the world just doesn’t understand yet, you are wrong. Lots of people understand cryptocurrencies and are skeptical of their utility, and most people are only interested in them now as a get rich quick scheme. The tech has failed in challenging traditional currencies payment systems which are better on almost every metric.
NFTs are the latest in a very long list of excuses for the existence of cryptocurrencies, from digital gold to currencies to micropayments to inventory tracking to app platforms. Most of them are structured as MLM schemes where the first in must convince others to buy in to make money, the original networks have unsustainably high fees and energy usage and the entire space is filled with scams and fraud from exchanges to the likes of tether.
On top of that there are some fundamental design decisions which make these currencies unsuited to payments (distributed, pseudo anonymous, public chain, uneven distribution) and they don’t address the major problems we do have (verified identity, fraud prevention).
I can set up an nft marketplace tomorrow like opensea based on trad payments and it would be fundamentally the same scam - sell worthless digital ‘art’ where ownership and authentication is tied to a central registry swapped around mostly by the same small set of people painting the tape to draw others in (see diagram above). The cryptocurrency angle adds nothing but a ‘distributed’ veneer - try selling your receipt for an ‘asset’ outside these promotion platforms and see how it goes, you might get lucky but probably you’ll fail to convince anyone. To sell with them on top of gas fees for every transaction you’ll be paying opensea commission and if you want to sell it your buyer will be paying them again and so on forever till the hype dies.
We’re not still at the early days, we are 12 years in, and at this point I think it’s clear that crypto and nfts are not the future of anything. This is a shame as the hegemony of states over our money is not really a desirable situation given how badly they mismanage it, but exchanging one set of currencies with the wrong incentives and kleptocratic rulers for another set is not attractive to me at least.
Ubisoft’s Quartz platform trailer on Youtube has been delisted from Youtube, seems that idea went down with the gaming community like a lead balloon.
They do already! Just not the big ones, check out Audius https://audius.co/
If you really want your mind blown check out Axie infinity. They use NFTs (but it’s not the sole purpose) and is a play-to-earn video game based on Pokemon. You literally get paid to play it 
See Infinity Revenue, Infinity Possibilities
Something cool artists can do is ensure royalties on their work. If you make an NFT, you can ensure 5% of all future sales go back to you. Artists come first
To clarify my standpoint, I don’t think that all cryptocurrencies are wonderful, and I would appreciate not having words put into my mouth. My belief is not even that every implementation is worthwhile. In fact, you have to sift through a lot of junk – as you put it, excuses for the existence of cryptocurrencies, as well as abundant scams and shills – to get to the really promising tech.
I value your perspective and scepticism but you frame your argument it as if one token should solve all problems. Which I can understand, as that would be incredible, but it is naïve to expect such since most underlying technologies are created to solve a small amount (if not one) of problems. Case in point: the web, which was designed to do one single thing (connect hypertext documents), and was built on top of other technologies (TCP, IP) which were also designed to do one single thing.
So you are right that Bitcoin is a long way “in” – the proposal is now 13 years old. And, like most technologies, the concept dates back much further. But this does not mean that all of the addressable tech is automatically more than a decade old. Your argument is ill advised if so, and I’d recommend further research.
You speak a lot about tech which is built on smart contracts (NFTs, inventory tracking, app platforms). This tech was first proposed in implementable form in 2014, and Ethereum, which was first in line, didn’t see daylight until mid-2015. You may consider 6 years to be a long time in modern terms, but from an organisational standpoint this is not that long.
Your argument about creating an NFT marketplace stands: you could indeed set one up tomorrow. That’s one of the perks of open source and public ledgers. And you could scam people out of their money. But maybe you failed to read my post fully, since I also said “For the record I do find the current NFT trends dumb.”
I also want to point out that you are not really selling a “receipt.” It’s more like a contract (hence the name for the tech, “smart contract”), which also includes the “receipt,” since (depending on the chain) the transaction is usually public record. That contract lays out the terms of use of whichever asset is tied to it, in most cases which is usually the right to use a dumb jpeg… but not the right to own it (hence again why I went on record).
But! Here’s where it gets interesting: You can write just about anything in a contract! Hopefully you are already savvy to this since you are a Freetrade investor (I commend your investment decision). So as you can now imagine, a contract could theoretically include a term that the copyright is transferrable via the token. Or it could include the right to reproduce. What is in there is entirely up to who writes (mints) the contract. Most owners and marketplaces currently restrict this to “right to use”… in other words, a “license.” Which makes sense, but at this point it is not particularly easy for most people to grasp, since the web itself has trained people to expect a digital free-for-all where you can easily download whatever enters your browser or network – be that an image, song, movie, game, 3d-printable object, or basically anything that can be digitised (but, and this is the source of the key argument, do you have the license from the rights holder to use it? I don’t really want to get into this, but the short answer is: well, that depends on the license you have been granted by the owner).
Where it gets further interesting is that you can also implement functions into this contract, which can execute automatically (e.g. kick-back, rights expiration, shared ownership, etc) and are also public record. Almost as if you are giving the contract a brain of its own. Which is crazy to consider when you think about commonplace written contracts. But this is where is gets a bit complex. It is far more important to understand the fundamentals before getting your knees wet.
Also I want to highlight one other thing I agree about with your post: money (fiat), as it is, is a broken system, whether we are discussing source/control of circulation/value over printed money, a duopoly of centralised corporations dictating which business can or cannot transact, or simply bullion being a difficult thing to move around.
This post is already a bit long since there was a lot of cleaning up to do, but I want to quickly circle back to my point about most technology being able to do everything in existence.
Focusing only on payments:
there are some fundamental design decisions which make these currencies unsuited to payments (distributed, pseudo anonymous, public chain, uneven distribution) and they don’t address the major problems we do have (verified identity, fraud prevention)
You can do any of these things by combining multiple technologies, or writing your own on top, or changing the tokenomics or distribution of the token or nodes, and so forth.
- If you don’t want distribution, then centralise your network.
- If you want anonymous payments, then solve it by adding anonymity.
- Or, make every transaction completely traceable. Or somewhere in between.
- Distribution concerns? Again, you can distribute how you please.
- Fraud and identity concerns? Require centralisation and KYC, or your own decentralised version of verifying the source.
Bitcoin won’t solve all of these things, if any at all. Ethereum won’t. Neither will Cardano. Nor Solana. Ripple. Terra. Not Polygon, not Uniswap, not Tron. And certainly not Dai. Or any of the thousands of different networks and tokens built for specific cases. But they can do what they were built to do. Like the services and applications built on top of the web and Internet, each technology has its own purpose, and you can select the technology for your usage based on what you need to accomplish. Or better yet, build your own – in the comparison of smart contracts to the web, we’re still pre-Amazon.
These applications and services, as well as obviously their underlying technologies, will become more accessible to the average joe as they mature and we see further improvements to usability and acceptance.
There are some who think crypto should do everything, including replacing fiat and bullion. But it’s way better when you combine one or more of those technologies – including the old ones like fiat – in tandem with the others.
Excellent response
May I commend you @heytokyo and @kenny for this excellent exchange. It gives people like me with very little understanding of NFT’s/blockchain some avenues to explore and think about.
An excellent exchange gentleman.
May I add the Internet did not replace the high street. Email did not replace letters. Digital advertising did not replace traditional advertising.
I changed my tune on crypto and eventually nfts early this year.
No new technology invented that I am aware of, that was taken up by millions has ever disappeared and most technology inventions have a lot of opposition before they became mainstream. You can go back to sailing ships and steam railway and horse drawn carts. People resisted change, but it all quickly got replaced over 20 years. The Internet too saw a similar time frame.
Those two facts alone should challenge anyone who says this technology will disappear.
If that doesn’t convince anyone consider the fact that everything is going digital. More and more is automated and going online. Why wouldn’t finance and property?
For anyone wanting to dig into the NFTs, unpack the space, and build an informed point of view I’d recommend starting with A16Z’s NFT Canon.
Ultimately, just like crypto, NFT’s themselves aren’t just one large homogenous group. There’s a lot of interesting (and nascent) development/experimentation happening across: provable digital ownership, community building and self-expression from internet-first principles.
It may seem like an incredibly large market today, but the idea is still relatively fragile (at the end of last year NFTs were virtually non-existent) and quite easy to dismiss.
I’m guessing you were talking about second life, although it’s the same story for decentraland and sandbox now
I value your perspective and scepticism but you frame your argument it as if one token should solve all problems.
I’d just prefer tokens to solve real-world problems. At one point cryptocurrencies were trying to do that, now we seem to be in a race to exploit the fever for all things blockchain again (similar to the pump and dump of 2017 but at a much larger scale). When I see people working on useful tech to solve problems, it’s heartening. When I see people falling for scams and get rich quick schemes because of the crypto associations and vague explanations about the revolutionary technology it is depressing. So far the evidence is that cryptocurrencies have solved very few real world problems for legal transactions (I’ll allow they might be useful in illegal transfers outside gov control), and I’d say the same for NFTs which solve no real-world problem except making a few people very rich at the expense of others.
I also want to point out that you are not really selling a “receipt.” It’s more like a contract
Current NFTs more closely resemble a receipt IMO, not a contract - it’s usually a url or marketplace id stored on the blockchain with some optional metadata. People are not using them to negotiate rights in most cases as you do with a contract, they’re buying them hoping to make money by selling to someone else later. The blockchain technology here is a solution in search of a problem and adds nothing but complexity, the marketplaces are deliberately centralised and prominent markets have even been caught front-running customers (as have crypto exchanges). Look at opensea for example - very few of the things you speculate about being possibilities are actually happening, instead people are selling generated digital pictures of robots or lions or whatever. Game companies and Football clubs are cashing in on the craze by selling items with zero marginal cost to fans for lots of money. It’s speculation and when the bottom falls out a lot of people will be left holding the bag (as they were with meme stocks like GMC and AMC, and as they will be with Tether and NFTs IMO).
It is far more important to understand the fundamentals before getting your knees wet.
Many people understand the fundamentals of cryptocurrencies and NFTs, objecting to an idea is not congruent with misunderstanding it. This is the central assumption I wanted to challenge - it is pervasive in crypto circles and makes any sort of informed discussion very difficult I’m afraid as it is shut down with ‘well if you truly understood…’.
You can do any of these things by combining multiple technologies, or writing your own on top, or changing the tokenomics or distribution of the token or nodes, and so forth.
I’ve been hearing about the bright crypto future right around the corner since I was first involved in the space around 2012. Not much has changed in 10 years, there are just variations on the same stories about the future of technology with nothing real to show for it. I’d be happy to see people work on useful stuff in cryptocurrencies instead of get rich schemes. Instead of that we got NFTs and more pure speculation on price instead of a focus on the fundamentals.
Where it gets further interesting is that you can also implement functions into this contract, which can execute automatically (e.g. kick-back, rights expiration, shared ownership, etc) and are also public record.
Sure I thought these sounded interesting when they were originally brought up - Ethereum was at the centre of a lot of speculation on smart contracts and also blockchain as an app platform when it launched, as was Ripple say. Since then serious problems have become apparent, most serious being:
Smart contracts have an issue with enforcement - if code is law, bugs can mean contracts change retrospectively and without appeal, and hacking others is a permissable way to make money (there are many examples of this DAO Hack for one), if code is not law you’re just layering on top of real law, and all your smart contract additions are now dumb if there is a dispute. Also you have devs as ultimate arbiters of disputes, and bug fixes and/or forks used as mechanisms to change rules unilaterally. These problems mean smart contracts never really took off after a long gestation period where people tried to make them work.
It’s interesting that this DAO idea from 5 years ago is now making a comeback in communities based on having bought NFTs. Also interesting that the idea of asset tracking via blockchains is making a comeback, as that was first tried a long time ago - many of these attempts to use blockchains run up against the same problems - people don’t really need a trustless, distributed database, they need to trust their partners for other reasons, and it’s much simpler and more efficient to get rid of the trustless bit and do it directly or with an intermediary. This is a fundamental design problem, not a minor detail.
I agree our current currencies based on nation states are in many ways broken, but let’s replace it with something better, not something worse, and not get caught up in the hype around these technologies at present, which I’d contend is fuelled by the vast amounts of money currently involved, not the technology or solutions offered.
Not NFTs but solving a real world problem with actual investment.
But NFTs on a good layer 2 backed by a good company will be sweet.
I would point out A16Z are talking their book here, as they have heavily invested in this space, so I would not go to them for an impartial overview of cryptocurrencies or NFTs.
I would love this to be true but the amount of electrical items I have stored away that work but are obsolete would say otherwise. 
I think the tech has a place but we haven’t found the best use of it yet. Interesting that you mention tech that got replaced as an example of no tech ever disappearing. I do see your point though.
More generally about the thread my biggest argument against crypto, although I invest, is that it just can’t become too big ever in my views. Governments need to be able to adapt tax, budgets and various other things and that can only be done with the national currency.
No country that is stable would surrender control to outside their borders and people who think they would are a bit biased or not thinking it through. Once you take away the layers that make it appealing to the criminals etc and make it crystal clear transparent and taxable then the clamour for it will diminish.
Once the US, EU and UK have their own stable coins you can guarantee they will make it unfeasible for Bitcoin etc to be an attractive option. That’s not to say the tech won’t come back with new ideas or uses as it definitely will but many will have lost a fortune on the pyramid schemes by then and many made very rich.
A great discussion though for people to read to see a more detailed opinion than being in an echo chamber. 
Any creative endeavour, from artists and designers to musicians and entertainment IP studios have historically had to go through industry gatekeepers.
Distribution was owned by establishment entities. Galleries, Hollywood studios, record labels and more recently - platforms.
NFTs simply unlock the ability for creators to forge a direct relationship with their collectors, fans and supporters - completely unmediated by the legacy bodies that have controlled their industries.
For these Creatives - this is the only problem. Solving it is massive.
We’re going to see a wave of community backed brands and artists spanning fashion, entertainment, music, sport.
Nike have acquired RTFKT Studios
Adidas collab with punks comic and bored ape yacht club
Tobi Lutke the founder of Shopify has bought his .eth address and is integrating nfts to the shopify product
This is just this week…
Seems inevitable that nfts will just become ubiquitous and we’ll all just get used to owning a variety of digital assets?
Not all cryptos are meant to disrupt the current monetary system - they have so many use case that go beyond the simple currency narrative.
CBDG (I think) will not diminish interest in the space, the only way the may work is by be interoperable with the current universe of cryptos. CBDG is the government thinking to jump on the band wagon “if you cannot beat them, join them”. They will not work against but hand in hand with other cryptos.