https://cryptoart.io/artist/pak It's a nice pixel -- is it worth so much because of the now well-known pixel supply chain problems? For those who what to temporarily experience how the other half lives ... http://www.mostexpensivepixelontheinternet.com/
It’s worth that much because it’s a Pak 1:1 He knows how to unlock durable value by creating insightful commentary on the state-of-the-art in digital arts. Pak’s The Fungible collection offered Cubes for $500 earlier this year. They are now at a $30k floor. He created a token called ASH. One can burn their Cube at any time for ASH. The first Cube burned minted about 1k ASH. There’s a bonding curve for ASH mints. It’s currently around 700 ASH per Cube burned. ASH is currently trading ~$36usd. LostPoets was a recent release, it’s a year long game but at the end one can burn their Poets for ASH. Pak’s recent drop called Merge was offered to his collectors for $299. It will go through a similar rate of appreciation as Cubes. There are still folks in this thread who still don’t understand BTC or digital assets. Mockery is their currency. And there are those that will do some DD on Pak, “get it” and become a future whale.
FT had a nice video on NFT: https://www.ft.com/video/2cfc76ad-5...playlist-name=editors-picks&playlist-offset=2 Maybe they fell compelled because an intern said NFT stands for the New Financial Times. Intuitively I also think NFT is a great growth area. It coincides somewhat with this metaverse. I always get a bit wary though when I hear about DJ's 'promoting' these new area's. Like Deadmau5 and AOKI: https://www.forbes.com/sites/martys...ign-at-art-basel-miami-is-helping-promote-it/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrea...launch-is-shaping-future-music-collaboration/ Probably the guy from the FT video is right, wait for the dust to settle and THEN invest in it.
So, I think you are saying it's worth that much not because it's a better pixel than others but instead because an NFT celebrity created the pixel and later sold an NFT on the pixel. In addition to selling the NFT to someone else, what can the NFT buyer do with the NFT on this pixel?
Yeah, that’s a good summary. A collector would have ownership of a Pak 1:1. The demand is too great to continue to produce work like this, that is why he’s has expanded into offering larger collections. One of the drivers of NFT valuation is the type and form of access it offers. Pak has an exclusive discord that is very difficult (even when owning a qualifying piece) to get into for he opens it at random and for very short windows. He has curated a very tight knit community of very sharp minds, astute diamond handed investors that also have a refined artistic appreciation. His recent release of the LostPoets project has attracted a different crowd than BAYC or Cryptopunks. Pak’s has a 20+yr history in digital arts and considers himself more a designer than an artist. He was a celebrity prior to NFT’s, since he is a rare breed of an artist whom can code. He has built an AI bot that he describes as an “ocular engine” that has the largest following of such a thing on social media known as Archillect on twitter. For collectors of Pak, much like Picasso’s signature on napkin, his value is his being and is more than the sum total of his accomplishments. I get it, the pixel piece seems absurd. Done by anyone else, most likely not the same valuation. His Title piece would probably fry your mind. The pieces are more a commentary on the state-of-the-art which also includes market sentiment. He understands art history, social commentary, provenance, tokenomics and creating durable value for his collectors.
I guess the great thing about the metaverse is that no one gets trampled and killed there while watching Travis Scott? Or does your avatar get killed? I'm glad you guys "get it", because I don't. I've seen numerous stories about people losing all manner of digital assets by losing passwords or tokens or "keys" or laptops that contained some important mechanism to fetch these things. It seems like at the end of the day the only point of engaging in purchasing NFTs is to later realize some profit in some form - or as Baron mentioned - borrowing against it if you can get a lender to accept it as collateral. Which means aside from being the "new cool thing" it isn't terribly different from other asset classes, immeasurable risk notwithstanding.
There are two key points about NFT art: 1. Provenance 2. Eliminating middle men (applies to crypto in general) That's it. The art is sh*t, the community is disgusting, the space is a cesspool of idiocy & insanity. The insane prices you see are mostly ETH whales spending their riches just cause they got nothing else better to do and living in the real is too stressful for them. And lots of money laundering. And also NFT "collectors" flipping pieces back & forth to establish supposed values. Not too different from the real art world when you look at it objectively. None of that really matters in the long term view. A key reason why some ETH whales did start throwing stupid money at NFTs is to support the creative class & grow the space. This becomes even more significant when it comes to music artists. For decades, they were continually ripped off and taken advantage off by record labels, with little recourse. With NFTs, not only can music artists take full control of their work, but any average person can get invested early in artists they like and subsequently, benefit financially if the artist grows in popularity. The NFT can be coded to perpetually pay royalties to the creator every time it is sold. Taking it further, you have the obvious collector mentality, which simply mirrors the real world and the need of many to collect smth that others desire so that you can spend a significant part of your life talking about your amazing collection to others who also want the same just because it becomes their only source validation. It fills a void. Plus all humans have an urge to hoard & collect. Where NFTs will really start to shine in terms of true value creation is applying the tech to stuff like mortgages.
The provenance argument is retarded. Full stop. So you can post your monkey pic to your Twitter feed? I can screen cap it and post it to mine. Greater fool theory still makes you a fucking fool.
Take your emotions out of the equation and look at the facts. I assume you understand what artistic provenance means. When Beeple drops his art, it's all on the blockchain. You can't fake the editions, PERIOD. You do not need some snobby art expert to verify if the piece you bought is legit, then have him charge you for his time. You either own it or you don't. Anyone and everyone can see whether you own the real NFT or not. Yes it's just a jpeg, yes you can just make a perfect digital copy. You can also print out a copy of a Basquiat piece and frame it on your wall. Or buy a real piece and frame it on the wall. But without some authenticity service you pay for, which may not actually be accurate, an observer has no way of knowing if you truly own a Basquiat or not. I'll give a slightly related example of where the NFT tech is superior to real life collecting. Video Game Authority (VGA), considered the top grading company for retro video games is known to have graded & verified fake sealed rare games in their first few years of operation. Like a lot of them. Yet those are still being passed around & valued as real. Greater Fool Theory still applies, but at least with NFTs, you do not have those authenticity concerns.