The First SE NFT.

[LeonKeyh]

I think that this could have been way worse. I also think this could have been way better. But more importantly, I think that we, as a gaming community, need to have a ZERO tolerance policy for NFTs. Look at what "micro"transactions have become due to the slow methodical stretching of the term. NFTs have no business existing at all and absolutely shouldn't be integrated with video games. Zero Tolerance, even if it isn't "that bad", because that's the foot in the door.

[DPZ2]

what’s to stop other people from making copies and use it on their phones? I can already download the image and set it as background if I want to. Am I missing something?.

There is nothing stopping someone from creating an image from the announcement and using it on their phones. Why would it matter?.

The purpose of the NFT itself appears to be proof of authenticity. The assignment of the digital certificate into your wallet is traceable to the purchase of the image and transference from an SE account, nothing more. This might be the only real use of an NFT that isn't speculative in nature. A paper trail would work just as easily, but paper certificates of authenticity could be faked, I suppose.

[Rolder50]

The use of an NFT to represent a proof of authenticity for a physical product seems like one of the real actual uses for an NFT, to me. Now if it was proof of authenticity for a digital image it'd be stupid, but it's not, so what's the problem here?

[Sclair0]

Pretty much exactly the way I predicted they'd introduce them, by tying them to other desirable goods first.

I really dont want to see them linked to any Square goods in general, but I worry it'll only be a matter of time before 'Get this emote with any NFT purchase' is attempted by Square.

[Larirawiel]

The use of an NFT to represent a proof of authenticity for a physical product seems like one of the real actual uses for an NFT, to me. Now if it was proof of authenticity for a digital image it'd be stupid, but it's not, so what's the problem here?

There is no real use for NFTs. Replace the term "NFT" through "crypto scam" and you are always right.



Cheers

[Toutatis]

The use of an NFT to represent a proof of authenticity for a physical product seems like one of the real actual uses for an NFT, to me. Now if it was proof of authenticity for a digital image it'd be stupid, but it's not, so what's the problem here?

If related to a physical product, the authenticity and value resides with the physical product itself (physical things/art can be fake too), not the NFTs. NFTs prove only that a transaction occurred.

If related to digital art, it is the same bs. Identical copies are easy to make and NFTs are not equivalent to copyrights. It’s just a transaction for the sake of a transaction. Think of the pet rocks clipart NFTs. The emperor has no clothes.

NFTs are just another scam.

[LeonKeyh]

For the "uninitiated" or "confused" this is a great video explaining NFTs (without being TOO long)

[TaleraRistain]

Amiibos still have real, monetary value. And they can be physically used and displayed. That is the difference. NFTs are arguably one of the worst scams of all time.

I'm not defending this in the slightest, but this does have a physical statue. The NFT is a certificate of authenticity on both versions and then the more expensive has an NFT for a digital version of the statue itself. The weird thing is the fine print says they won't support the certificate being traded or sold in the marketplace. So that raises all kinds of questions about what happens if someone wants to sell their physical statue.

[Vahlnir]

I'm not defending this in the slightest, but this does have a physical statue. The NFT is a certificate of authenticity on both versions and then the more expensive has an NFT for a digital version of the statue itself. The weird thing is the fine print says they won't support the certificate being traded or sold in the marketplace. So that raises all kinds of questions about what happens if someone wants to sell their physical statue.

But the value resides in the statue, not the NFT. There is no monetary value as a result of the NFT being present. It is just...there, for pretty poor bragging rights.

[MilkieTea]

I'm not defending this in the slightest, but this does have a physical statue. The NFT is a certificate of authenticity on both versions and then the more expensive has an NFT for a digital version of the statue itself. The weird thing is the fine print says they won't support the certificate being traded or sold in the marketplace. So that raises all kinds of questions about what happens if someone wants to sell their physical statue.

I want to address the bolded part specifically, and I'm just using this specific post as a backboard though I've seen this comment a lot here - so this isn't particularly aimed at you, dw!

NFTs, by virtue of what they are, *shouldn't* be used as Certificates of Authenticity, and it's worrying that we're delving further and further into them. I come from this with an artists perspective, having had my work stolen quite a lot over the past 12 years as a digital artist, so of course take what I say with a grain of salt because I'm biased. I mean, of course I'm biased. Artists and digital creators are having their works stolen and turned into NFTs - a more notable example being Qing Han (Qinniart), who died. After her death, many of her works began to be uploaded and converted into NFTs. And even outside of artists creative works being stolen, NFTs can't even be used as preventative measures because the NFT can essentially be copy-pasted, and there is nothing stopping anyone from taking the NFT and making a new NFT out of the old NFT. So even if an artist wanted to preemptively create NFTs out of their work before others did, that still doesn't work.

In my opinion, NFTs being used as Certificates of Authenticity is like allowing just anyone to slap pictures in the Louvre and claim that it's theirs. Sure, you're going to have some works that are genuine and authentic - but there's also works that aren't.

And that's where I'll veer back into this situation - NFTs can be copied. Fake "Certificate of Authentications" can be made. What's to stop some shady 3rd party site from selling NFTs of this? The blockchain is notorious for allowing this to happen, with close to no repercussions for whoever decides to do that. It protects no one. It does nothing. It's speculative investing that now can't be used as speculative investing because SE has decided to cut off that avenue. And on top of that, the NFT market has crashed - big time. There's absolutely *no benefits* to this, even with the NFT acting as a sort of Certificate of Authenticity, because even that isn't sacrosanct.