Lucadg
Joined 16 years ago
Joined 16 years ago
About NFTs: we tend to think they somehow need an image to make sense, while the "own the NFT to own the image" is both wrong and just one specific use case out of many. I find it useful to think about NFTs as "internet native property titles" which do not embed "law enforcement".
See it this way: if you own a house, you own a property title which proves it. In case someone squats your house and the law enforcement does not help you get it back (e.g. due to corruption or slow legal system), it's just a useless piece of paper.
Same with NFTs. Some use cases have enforcement embedded (e.g. ENS domains) and bear no risk, some don't (OpenSea minted image NFTs) and carry some risk from centralized entities (the same risk we have in 100% of Web2 applications btw)
Enforcement often happens at the app layer, even if the NFT image can be compromised. E.g. an NFT which gives you access to a walled web page will still work even if the image is compromised.
It's code which does stuff and if you want to be on the safer side of it, you allow time and liquidity to test them out.
If you want to assume risks and possibly higher rewards you get in early (ape, in crypto speech).
It's pretty simple.
What makes it complicated is that they are called smart contracts.
If we had several competing platforms we wouldn't be in this mess.
I think I got it thanks to you tough: milking cows.
Does it work? Too harsh?
YC Badge: 0xe2fcb9715cf1532436da296dbd7fb2dbadd5b228