> I haven't heard of any actual NFTs that granted any powers that your average pog doesn't though.
Not sure how familiar you are with the NFT space, in another comment I used Bored Ape Yacht Club as an example, let’s start with that.
If you own a pog, does that give you commercial rights to monetize the copyrighted artwork on the pog? Admittedly I’m not overly familiar with the pog market, but I don’t think purchase of any pog gives the own any underlying commercial rights to the IP.
It’s true not every NFT/NFT collection bestows the owner with commercial rights to a copyrighted work, but Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs is just one example which provides owners commercial rights to the underlying copyrighted image.
More importantly copyrighted works, like artwork, are not the only assets an NFT can represent. Further, you are correct with your example that they can be, and in fact have been, used to represent the right to redeem for a specific good/service by any bearer. Ticketing is in fact one such real world example.
I can make you a pog that does that, yeah. It's just a matter of writing it on the pog.
I can make you a pog that bans you from a club while you hold it too, for the bored apes example. Generally a bouncer will remember you when you come back the next day without the log though, which is a slightly better ban than NFTs can handle
What I can't do is make a pog that burns your house down when you try to sell it or give it away. That's a feature unique to NFTs afaik
You attach to the pog the same meaning in the same way. Non-fungible tokens by design solve the problem around "how do I trust that this is the correct token", but thats only a problem you need to solve in low trust environments.
> Non-fungible tokens by design solve the problem around "how do I trust that this is the correct token"
I don’t agree that is the only problem they solve, but assuming arguendo all an NFT did was solve the problem of trust, then that alone makes them more intrinsically valuable than dog shit. I mean I think HN has really lost the forest for the trees when it comes to NFTs.
They don't solve "the problem of trust" but instead the much narrower "how can a group of entities, who mutually do not trust each other, have a ledger whose state they can all agree on". Crypto loosely solves trust in trustless environments, but I'm having a hard time finding where that is nicely applicable. Most transactions already require a certain base level of trust. So, yeah, dog shit has a pretty clear use case and value whereas NFTs do not. Would love counter-examples for that though. The best I've found is in the art world, where having a token that corresponds to a given work would make it much easier to track the "official" version (vastly reducing the value of any more than one forgery substantially), and I guess the various traders and dealers don't have a high degree of trust in one another so this public and distributed ledger would help with that. Obviously a lot of other problems but it at least demonstrates a hint of some value.
Not sure how familiar you are with the NFT space, in another comment I used Bored Ape Yacht Club as an example, let’s start with that.
If you own a pog, does that give you commercial rights to monetize the copyrighted artwork on the pog? Admittedly I’m not overly familiar with the pog market, but I don’t think purchase of any pog gives the own any underlying commercial rights to the IP.
It’s true not every NFT/NFT collection bestows the owner with commercial rights to a copyrighted work, but Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs is just one example which provides owners commercial rights to the underlying copyrighted image.
More importantly copyrighted works, like artwork, are not the only assets an NFT can represent. Further, you are correct with your example that they can be, and in fact have been, used to represent the right to redeem for a specific good/service by any bearer. Ticketing is in fact one such real world example.