Would you pay $750k for this punk? (NFT Art)

krooton said:
Artificial rarity is totally a thing though, diamonds are a prime example.
Click to expand...

No idea about diamonds but I'm led to believe by news articles and such that the ones that sell for the amounts being dabbled in NFTs here ($750k+) are pretty rare, no? Of course I'm not saying the £1ker from Ernest Jones is scarce :D.
 
Russinating said:
As per crypto, it's slightly different though isn't it. Beyond the commodity price, gold has value in that it's a useful material. Even if the price of gold crashed to $0, somebody would still want to buy it because it makes for aesthetically pleasing jewellery and it's useful in electronics.

Art represents sometime's time, skill and thought, and at the end you get something phyiscal that holds physical value, even if just for the cost of the canvas it sits on, and price often reflects its scarcity. These have no time or skill, and with a lot being reproductions (that I've seen) there's no thought either, and in the case of these "CryptoPunks" there's 10,000 of them...

And there is no way in real life that these pieces of art - painted, printed or otherwise - would command these insane prices unless it was by a famous artist. That's the thing. If they were a few hundred dollars even, sure, but you can buy a Banksy for these prices.
Click to expand...
An argument about the value of things backed up by a reference to Banksys stencils?

Also the thing being sold here is an NFT to digitally sign things like original digital artworks. Anything that can be irrefutably marked as the original carries value. Using your Banksy reference, I could go and whack a stencil down, spray paint and claim it a Banksy, but that isn't irrefutably Banksy and therefore carries no value (other than a punishment by the law :)). This NFT allows that process to happen, therefore it carries value.

Guess how much a certificate authority costs to setup and briefly counter sign a website as being "legitimate"? Guess how ineffective that still is given that several CAs have been compromised because at their root is a single governing entity that signs other entities.

This NFT solves a huge problem and creates an entire market.

Go and check the Deep Fakes thread for an absolute specific use case for this tech.
 
Russinating said:
As per crypto, it's slightly different though isn't it. Beyond the commodity price, gold has value in that it's a useful material. Even if the price of gold crashed to $0, somebody would still want to buy it because it makes for aesthetically pleasing jewellery and it's useful in electronics.

Art represents sometime's time, skill and thought, and at the end you get something phyiscal that holds physical value, even if just for the cost of the canvas it sits on, and price often reflects its scarcity. These have no time or skill, and with a lot being reproductions (that I've seen) there's no thought either, and in the case of these "CryptoPunks" there's 10,000 of them...

And there is no way in real life that these pieces of art - painted, printed or otherwise - would command these insane prices unless it was by a famous artist. That's the thing. If they were a few hundred dollars even, sure, but you can buy a Banksy for these prices.
Click to expand...

I dunno, there is plenty of naff art sold for all sorts of prices. I'm not sure this is massively different to people assigning a high value to crypto tbh... people will pay for some bitcoin token because enough people collectively decide to assign some value to it, same thing with this stuff.
 
dLockers said:
An argument about the value of things backed up by a reference to Banksys stencils.
Click to expand...

Why is that flawed? All but fledgling art has value way beyond the "cost".

I'm not debating that these things have A value, and I understand how this and the blockchain solves a problem, but THE value that they're going for? That's what I don't get. $750,000 isn't just a "punt and see how it goes" value of investment.
 
Russinating said:
Why is that flawed? All but fledgling art has value way beyond the "cost".

I'm not debating that these things have A value, and I understand how this and the blockchain solves a problem, but THE value that they're going for? That's what I don't get. $750,000 isn't just a "punt and see how it goes" value of investment.
Click to expand...
Well mainly because Banksys art is a literal stencil that is incredibly easy to duplicate so I found it a curious example. A Picasso, maybe.

I think the valuation will include a lot more due diligence than you and I would be able to understand in the 30 secs it takes the read the thread. Its either a nut case having a punt, or some form of valuations team that has agreed based on certain assumptions that $750,000 is the value. Or the $750,000 is a hybrid punt and valuation, in that the purchase itself drives up the demand?

No idea. Great to see though :D

Somewhat transcending this is that the very currency used to buy this fits the same pattern - some random collection of bits and bytes that has a perceived value. That is getting a bit too philosophical even for me.
 
Remember, the super rich people will waste money on anything.

This is chump-change to a billionaire, like someone on £40k spending £30.
 
dLockers said:
Well mainly because Banksys art is a literal stencil that is incredibly easy to duplicate so I found it a curious example. A Picasso, maybe.
Click to expand...

If you find a Picasso painting for $750k let me know :D. I used Banksy as a relevant example as 'ease of duplication' doesn't come into it as that's not my argument here. That's just art isn't, Rothko being one of the most notable examples of that.

Anyway, I DIGRESS!
 
TheOracle said:
Nope, I've also made a certificate of authenticity

You know what....there's that many idiots about I might try and sell the JPG on ebay for a laugh
Click to expand...
I studied steganography at university and it isn't that bonkers of an idea.

In my latest book purchase about cartographers - apparently some took it upon themselves to put fake streets/countries in as a form of copy protection. Including the London A-Z!
 
TheOracle said:
How do I store this on a crypto network?

Would £100,000 be a sensible asking price do you think

IPMFhrP.jpg
Copyright - TheOracle 3.3.21
Click to expand...

Probably not! :p

I mean obvs it's highly speculative but surely part of the value is these things being brand new and these being among the early examples etc..

You might as well ask - can I buy a urinal and sign my name on it and then flog it for whatever the below piece would be worth at auction:

UDXa676.jpg

While ostensibly literally anyone can go out and buy a urinal and do that, that specific piece would still be attributed some ridiculously high value by the poncy art world collectors. Yours likely wouldn't be.

Ryan-3 said:
No different to Jackson Pollock IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah that too - literally anyone can go buy a canvas and splatter some paint on it - doesn't make it worth the same.
 
Participant said:
Or any currency.
Click to expand...

Well certainly any crypto at least.

With a real currency you've got a substantial chunk of a given population locked into using it and a state to back it up - your salary, various contracts (mortgage or rent etc..) etc.. are all in that currency - much less speculative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom