from what I’ve read, you can make an NFT with the exact same fucking image as long as the nft idiots don’t get pissy over it, but it won’t be the same url
or at the very least, you can take existing art (such as those from a dead or living artist) and turn it into an nft (you own it now)
is the url supposed to be special and that’s why they buy it? or is it mainly because of the image?
the url is the only thing conceivable that holds value, since it is technically unique, but some fucking idiots try to justify their purchase by saying they just liked the art (x to doubt)
also the url itself is pretty much worthless since noones gonna look at your profile, see the link, and click it
NFTs are a straight up scam and anyone telling you otherwise has a 70% chance to be trying to sell you one
essays upon essays 
oh my god how the fuck did this go from lego game economy to sports cars to NFTs 
you guys are speaking a whole new language at this point
1 Like
1 Like
Copy =/= minting
Again, I believe I stated you can make an infinite amount of them continuously, not copy, but infinite production of further fractionalized tokens.
It’s really odd that you think supply = copy pasting
Do you think people copy paste products???
Value can be changed as fractionalized NFTs can again, be sold at any price regardless of the original price of the fraction or any other fractionalized token.
You would’ve already realized the error with this thinking if you read a single article on Veblen goods.
For a simple explanation
The “uniqueness” of NFTs is not from their supply or else every NFT following that logic would be of equal value
The “uniqueness” of NFTs is sold on 2 aspects
- Who created the NFT
- Being a Veblen good, the price itself increases its demand. This works because not everyone can afford a $1.2mil NFT. Expensive NFTs are unique because they’re expensive.
I(a nobody) can mint a 2c NFT of say the image of a dog
Big famous celebrity can mint an NFT worth 2mil fractionalized and 20k a piece.
Using the silly notion that supply and demand are always equal(I still believe fractionalization is an increase in supply however it would apply regardless), and therefore my NFT should be of equal value to the 20mil one. See the error with believing that supply and demand are always equal.
someone make this a copypasta
This
Every trading discussion ever ends up becoming an argument because 1 person values function over rarity and always disagrees with the person who values rarity over function
Opportunity cost/Attention economics >
GEEZ , GOD DAMNT , CAN YOU GUYS just stop and accept the others opinion value?
It’s respectful and I’ve changed opinions of the guy I’m “arguing with” and he’s done the same for me although i think it was obvious that we were wrong on the points we argued if we thought about it more, don’t see what’s wrong with this at all
None of this is about that, all 3 here understand how someone can value rarity over functionality and vice-versa
It does and is the backbone of economics that isn’t shattered by what’s essentially a digital receipt
Veblen goods are goods that increase in demand as the price increases. Would you like to know why? Because it adds scarcity. A painting worth 10 million is more appealing than one worth 10 thousand because it’s a lot more exclusive to own. You are essentially just buying the prestige
The only thing I really failed to understand was copying = minting.
So because everyone can’t buy it that’s what puts it in demand. That’s supply. Supply doesn’t just have to be the quantity of something but it’s accessibiliy as a whole. How easy it is to get ahold of more or less. So selling something for 2 million will exclude it from the billions of people who can’t afford it. That creates scarcity and so for increases the demand.
No and why would it? It has no demand for it. Because there are billions of nobodies in this world but only a few people, the rich and famous, who can put their name on something to “legitmize” (probably misspelled that, idk phone doesn’t auto correct here) an NFT. Also as I said before, if someone with capital claims the price of something they have the means to back up that claim. I can try to sell a painting for 20 million and get laughed at but Bill Gates can do the same thing and people would line up to buy it. An exaggeration but accurate.
There is no government agency telling you you must set your price to meet your demand. You can price things however. This means you can charge a large price for a good which by itself can increase demand. So how does supply take into effect here? Because not everyone can afford this expensive good. Supply and demand on Veblen goods.
No promises on the second one but I will stop as this has gone off topic. @Level idrc about continuing this conversation any further so if you do make a topic about it.
NO I CANT ACCEPT IT I CANT GIVE UP AHH FIGHT BACK I GRIP YOU NOW AND GRIP YOU IN DEEPTHS 
i will say anything more
you literally just proved my point in your own sentence
Same supply + Low Demand = Low profit
Same supply + High Demand = High Profit
Supply and demand were not equal in magnitude
It does not “break the backbone of economics” because NO economist would ever state that supply and demand are always equal.
Also the term you were thinking of the entire time was “equal in magnitude” but that’s just semantics.
Everything else written by you is inaccurate to an extent as well but I’m not typing up an essay for what should be common sense
This is literally the definition of supply in economics
I’ve genuinely never heard someone argue something this braindead, NFTs were a simple example
If you want more, search for any situation where excess supply or excess demand has occurred (every second of the day)
Even worse was when you thought that increasing prices creates scarcity when scarcity occurs whenever a price isn’t high enough and the opposite occurs. Scarcity is when there’s too low of a supply and high demand, increases in prices end scarcity
Scarcity in itself is an example when supply and demand aren’t equal