I wonder if people would bid more for just a plain NFT. $200k to be able to touch a thing once a year seems like a lot of money. NFTs that offer nothing in return, other than the NFT, sell for a...
I wonder if people would bid more for just a plain NFT.
$200k to be able to touch a thing once a year seems like a lot of money.
NFTs that offer nothing in return, other than the NFT, sell for a lot more.
This looks like one of the more tangible uses of an NFT that I've seen. It really is a contract for ownership of the physical item - the company stores it for you and offers access on their terms,...
This looks like one of the more tangible uses of an NFT that I've seen. It really is a contract for ownership of the physical item - the company stores it for you and offers access on their terms, you can freely sell on that contract while they still hold on to the cube, but if you (or a subsequent purchaser) want to trade in the contract for physical possession of the cube then you can do so. It's an almost textbook example of what crypto enthusiasts say the blockchain could bring to markets like real estate: transparent, freely tradable contracts of ownership with no intermediary needed. Whether that's necessarily a good thing, or even possible within our current legal framework, is another matter - but this seems like at least one proof of concept to point to.
As for the price, that's just the opening bid, so there's still every opportunity for it to go crazy, given sufficient publicity. Sure, NFTs have gone for orders of magnitude more, but for every million dollar win there's a thousand that don't sell at all or barely make back their gas fees. Doing something novel and selling something tangible (yes I'm aware how absurd it is that that's now considered novel) is a good way to get some headlines, grab free publicity for their business, and potentially pre-sell a very expensive white elephant that they otherwise would never have even considered making.
Feel like it's also a good example of why NFTs often aren't that useful, though, or at least don't have all the properties you'd think they have. For this to work, you have to implicitly trust the...
Feel like it's also a good example of why NFTs often aren't that useful, though, or at least don't have all the properties you'd think they have.
For this to work, you have to implicitly trust the company, no? What if you go up to the company and they refuse to honor their commitment and don't let you touch the cube? Nothing, now you have to go back to old tech like laws and courts (/s). The blockchain is only validating that the transactions and ownership records are legitimate.
So functionally there's little difference than if the store had setup a trading system using a normal database that they run. No matter what you have to trust the company that owns the physical cube to do what they promised they'd do. If you assume no trust in them, then the whole thing is pointless to begin with.
Oh yeah, totally - there's a lot done on the blockchain that could equally be done on a normal database somewhere. I will say it's not nothing, though: if you need to go to court, a...
Oh yeah, totally - there's a lot done on the blockchain that could equally be done on a normal database somewhere.
I will say it's not nothing, though: if you need to go to court, a cryptographically secure and provable record of ownership is a pretty damn solid thing to have on your side. Doubly so if it's ten years down the line and it's changed hands 47 times. Having the records held by the company themselves would be a lot riskier/more subject to loss or falsification if we're assuming bad faith and legal action is already on the table.
It's not a replacement for the court, but it is a potentially interesting way of maintaining records that you might need to present to the court.
Publishing legal records almost makes sense as a blockchain thing. However, something like a certificate transparency log (which records transactions on encrypted website names) would be just...
Publishing legal records almost makes sense as a blockchain thing. However, something like a certificate transparency log (which records transactions on encrypted website names) would be just about as good.
For example, here is the log for Tildes which shows that it gets renewed via Let’s Encrypt every three months.
A blockchain cannot enforce contracts in physical space. What if the company selling the NFT just says "no, sorry" and don't let you into the building or take possession of the cube? Anyways a...
freely tradable contracts of ownership with no intermediary needed
A blockchain cannot enforce contracts in physical space. What if the company selling the NFT just says "no, sorry" and don't let you into the building or take possession of the cube?
Anyways a real missed opportunity here by the cube manufacturer. If they made a few more cubes and implemented a fractional cube reserve they could have arranged to sell thousands of these instead of just one. And in the event of a cube run they don't even have to go out of business just tell everyone "whoops!". :P
I'm pretty certain the ten week lead time means they haven't even made this one yet - smart move to get the money first and then worry about minor details like manufacturing! As for enforcement, I...
I'm pretty certain the ten week lead time means they haven't even made this one yet - smart move to get the money first and then worry about minor details like manufacturing!
As for enforcement, I added a few thoughts on that above before I saw this post. Tl;dr: blockchain stores contract and current owner, court still enforces that contract.
That's a deal as compared to the big one. It'd only cost you $161,840 to glue 8,092 of those cubes together, and it would still be cheaper than the $200k minimum bid.
That's a deal as compared to the big one. It'd only cost you $161,840 to glue 8,092 of those cubes together, and it would still be cheaper than the $200k minimum bid.
I wonder if people would bid more for just a plain NFT.
$200k to be able to touch a thing once a year seems like a lot of money.
NFTs that offer nothing in return, other than the NFT, sell for a lot more.
This looks like one of the more tangible uses of an NFT that I've seen. It really is a contract for ownership of the physical item - the company stores it for you and offers access on their terms, you can freely sell on that contract while they still hold on to the cube, but if you (or a subsequent purchaser) want to trade in the contract for physical possession of the cube then you can do so. It's an almost textbook example of what crypto enthusiasts say the blockchain could bring to markets like real estate: transparent, freely tradable contracts of ownership with no intermediary needed. Whether that's necessarily a good thing, or even possible within our current legal framework, is another matter - but this seems like at least one proof of concept to point to.
As for the price, that's just the opening bid, so there's still every opportunity for it to go crazy, given sufficient publicity. Sure, NFTs have gone for orders of magnitude more, but for every million dollar win there's a thousand that don't sell at all or barely make back their gas fees. Doing something novel and selling something tangible (yes I'm aware how absurd it is that that's now considered novel) is a good way to get some headlines, grab free publicity for their business, and potentially pre-sell a very expensive white elephant that they otherwise would never have even considered making.
Feel like it's also a good example of why NFTs often aren't that useful, though, or at least don't have all the properties you'd think they have.
For this to work, you have to implicitly trust the company, no? What if you go up to the company and they refuse to honor their commitment and don't let you touch the cube? Nothing, now you have to go back to old tech like laws and courts (/s). The blockchain is only validating that the transactions and ownership records are legitimate.
So functionally there's little difference than if the store had setup a trading system using a normal database that they run. No matter what you have to trust the company that owns the physical cube to do what they promised they'd do. If you assume no trust in them, then the whole thing is pointless to begin with.
Oh yeah, totally - there's a lot done on the blockchain that could equally be done on a normal database somewhere.
I will say it's not nothing, though: if you need to go to court, a cryptographically secure and provable record of ownership is a pretty damn solid thing to have on your side. Doubly so if it's ten years down the line and it's changed hands 47 times. Having the records held by the company themselves would be a lot riskier/more subject to loss or falsification if we're assuming bad faith and legal action is already on the table.
It's not a replacement for the court, but it is a potentially interesting way of maintaining records that you might need to present to the court.
Publishing legal records almost makes sense as a blockchain thing. However, something like a certificate transparency log (which records transactions on encrypted website names) would be just about as good.
For example, here is the log for Tildes which shows that it gets renewed via Let’s Encrypt every three months.
(I wonder why there are multiple entries though?)
A blockchain cannot enforce contracts in physical space. What if the company selling the NFT just says "no, sorry" and don't let you into the building or take possession of the cube?
Anyways a real missed opportunity here by the cube manufacturer. If they made a few more cubes and implemented a fractional cube reserve they could have arranged to sell thousands of these instead of just one. And in the event of a cube run they don't even have to go out of business just tell everyone "whoops!". :P
I'm pretty certain the ten week lead time means they haven't even made this one yet - smart move to get the money first and then worry about minor details like manufacturing!
As for enforcement, I added a few thoughts on that above before I saw this post. Tl;dr: blockchain stores contract and current owner, court still enforces that contract.
I paid $20 for a 100 gram tungsten cube that I physically own and get to touch multiple times a day. It's actually a great thinking/fidget toy.
That's a deal as compared to the big one. It'd only cost you $161,840 to glue 8,092 of those cubes together, and it would still be cheaper than the $200k minimum bid.
It is?
Yep!