You promised us real things -- a real brain! That's what we want. // The first step in that journey is to accept that in the largest scheme of things no one has the right to tell us our true value. // So should I buy an NFT?
It's funny that you start off with a quote from Graeber because reading (a few pages) of Debt is what inspired me to buy some Ethereum a few years ago. A few months later I sold them at $40 each for a 100% return on my investment, cementing my status as a financial genius.
NFTs without IP rights attached seem a bit ridiculous to me, but then again I suppose if I buy a Warhol I can't monetize that either unless I sell it to someone else.
There's simple "investment advice" when it comes to NFTs: "Are you especially good at picking breakout crypto? If yes, then NFTs represent a real opportunity for you; if not, maybe go easy?" And as you observe, there's always a question of what is safer, dollars or investments in "stuff." Graeber points out that dollars and "stuff" aren't fundamentally different sorts of investments, and depending on which institutions are backing them up, their value could be subject to whimsy and chance in either case.
There's another argument in favor of NFTs that your comment highlights, tho: there's a huge barrier to entry in the Warhol market, and virtually none in the NFT world. You can't afford a Warhol, but you can afford Ethereum. That's good for Chop -- but it's also good from a social justice standpoint, because previously disenfranchised collectors/investors are now finding a spot at the table. A broader investor community means broader investments and a democratizing of both risk and reward, rather than the continued consolidation of wealth/power/collateral in the (traditionally white + male) hands.
That's the argument, anyway. While I'm a fan of social justice, I'm not necessarily sold on all the mechanics of how that argument works. But wouldn't you know that next week's post touches on just this topic? Would love to hear your thoughts on that!
You briefly mention the banana with duct-tape, but fail to mention that it's essentially an NFT using old technology. When you buy the artwork, you are not buying the banana or the duct-tape. You are buying certified instructions for assembling the artwork elsewhere.
That’s right, at least in part—and the parts matter. The last century has been about the shift from material property to IP, and the artworld is possibly behind other sectors. But it’s a Ship of Theseus problem: is the work complete if you don’t assemble it? The same could be said of, say, a Dan Flavin light sculpture. You buy the right to say you have the sculpture, but that right is undiminished if you change the lightbulbs, as you necessarily would as they burned out. Is it a flavin if the bulbs are original but burned out? Is the work materially itself or not itself, or, paradoxically both? It’s a license to sell the idea of the work, so ‘essentially’ crypto without blockchain. But again, all the magic happens within the elisions of the word ‘essentially,’ just as Theseus’s ship was essentially not the timbers that composed it, but also was.
It's funny that you start off with a quote from Graeber because reading (a few pages) of Debt is what inspired me to buy some Ethereum a few years ago. A few months later I sold them at $40 each for a 100% return on my investment, cementing my status as a financial genius.
NFTs without IP rights attached seem a bit ridiculous to me, but then again I suppose if I buy a Warhol I can't monetize that either unless I sell it to someone else.
There's simple "investment advice" when it comes to NFTs: "Are you especially good at picking breakout crypto? If yes, then NFTs represent a real opportunity for you; if not, maybe go easy?" And as you observe, there's always a question of what is safer, dollars or investments in "stuff." Graeber points out that dollars and "stuff" aren't fundamentally different sorts of investments, and depending on which institutions are backing them up, their value could be subject to whimsy and chance in either case.
There's another argument in favor of NFTs that your comment highlights, tho: there's a huge barrier to entry in the Warhol market, and virtually none in the NFT world. You can't afford a Warhol, but you can afford Ethereum. That's good for Chop -- but it's also good from a social justice standpoint, because previously disenfranchised collectors/investors are now finding a spot at the table. A broader investor community means broader investments and a democratizing of both risk and reward, rather than the continued consolidation of wealth/power/collateral in the (traditionally white + male) hands.
That's the argument, anyway. While I'm a fan of social justice, I'm not necessarily sold on all the mechanics of how that argument works. But wouldn't you know that next week's post touches on just this topic? Would love to hear your thoughts on that!
(And I promise it's shorter and less gonzo!).
You briefly mention the banana with duct-tape, but fail to mention that it's essentially an NFT using old technology. When you buy the artwork, you are not buying the banana or the duct-tape. You are buying certified instructions for assembling the artwork elsewhere.
That’s right, at least in part—and the parts matter. The last century has been about the shift from material property to IP, and the artworld is possibly behind other sectors. But it’s a Ship of Theseus problem: is the work complete if you don’t assemble it? The same could be said of, say, a Dan Flavin light sculpture. You buy the right to say you have the sculpture, but that right is undiminished if you change the lightbulbs, as you necessarily would as they burned out. Is it a flavin if the bulbs are original but burned out? Is the work materially itself or not itself, or, paradoxically both? It’s a license to sell the idea of the work, so ‘essentially’ crypto without blockchain. But again, all the magic happens within the elisions of the word ‘essentially,’ just as Theseus’s ship was essentially not the timbers that composed it, but also was.