> 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.
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.