The NFT as ownership should really become the standard. Instead of having any people “authorizing” yadadada it’s done completely by machine and traceable.
No middlemen needed. Just I own x, this says I own x. I can sell you x, and you get ownership of x immediately. No “waiting 45 days to close” or “2 day transaction close” or even “title search verification.” Too many middlemen benefitting from the current system to allow NFT to replace them though. That’s the actual challenge.
Okay, someone gains access to your device and sends themselves the NFT that proves ownership of your house.
What do you do? Do you just accept that since they own the NFT, that means they own the house? Probably not. You’ll go through the legal system, because that’s still what ultimately decides the ownership. I bet you’ll be happy about middle men and “waiting 45 days to close” then.
Not like it couldn’t have been done before without NFTs (Steam cards come to mind), my guess is that there wasn’t any “interest” or “pressure” from high up to do that.
It would be an issue if every place that cared about those cards crashed. Let’s use a real world example: Decentraland and Vault Hill. Both offer similar services, a “virtual reality metaverse”, not unlike VR Chat or Second Life. Both allow you to buy marketplace items in the form of NFTs, which go straight to your wallet.
So far, so good. But, right now, neither has any plans to accept the other’s NFTs. I can prove I own something from another game, but the game itself doesn’t care. I also can’t buy Decentraland stuff with VHC tokens, nor Vault Hill items with MANA, which makes them rather centralized.
As soon as either company crashes and goes bankrupt, everything connected will become useless and lose most or all value. Thus, blockchain wouldn’t fix the issue.
However, NFTs that are accepted by both will have higher value.
but the game itself doesn’t care.
We are starting seeing this on Roblox and Fortnite where skins can pass through to different games.
.
As soon as either company crashes and goes bankrupt, everything connected will become useless and lose most or all value. Thus, blockchain wouldn’t fix the issue.
That’s exactly what blockchain is fixing. E.g. Your valuable skins don’t disappear when the company running the game you play goes bankrupt.
That’s the theory. Games companies are at the private blockchain stage but there are some small web3 game developers.
A single airline in Argentina is experimenting with it in partnership with a bullshit travel company. Hardly the proof that NFTs make any sense anywhere. And of course, the only places this story is getting traction is the blockchain hype blogs, which is red flag #2 and #3.
The NFT as ownership should really become the standard. Instead of having any people “authorizing” yadadada it’s done completely by machine and traceable.
No middlemen needed. Just I own x, this says I own x. I can sell you x, and you get ownership of x immediately. No “waiting 45 days to close” or “2 day transaction close” or even “title search verification.” Too many middlemen benefitting from the current system to allow NFT to replace them though. That’s the actual challenge.
Okay, someone gains access to your device and sends themselves the NFT that proves ownership of your house.
What do you do? Do you just accept that since they own the NFT, that means they own the house? Probably not. You’ll go through the legal system, because that’s still what ultimately decides the ownership. I bet you’ll be happy about middle men and “waiting 45 days to close” then.
The legal system needs to enforce ownership and recognise the blockchain as the official ownership registry.
Nfts will creep in slowly as efficiency gains are realized. They are already being used for airline tickets.
NFTs, doing what loads of services have been doing for 20 years, but slower!
Previously you’ve not been able to transfer tickets without third party help. Nor could issuers participate in the profits in the secondary market.
Not like it couldn’t have been done before without NFTs (Steam cards come to mind), my guess is that there wasn’t any “interest” or “pressure” from high up to do that.
Steam cards are a good example. Imagine if stream went bankrupt. Wouldn’t be an issue with Blockchain.
It would be an issue if every place that cared about those cards crashed. Let’s use a real world example: Decentraland and Vault Hill. Both offer similar services, a “virtual reality metaverse”, not unlike VR Chat or Second Life. Both allow you to buy marketplace items in the form of NFTs, which go straight to your wallet.
So far, so good. But, right now, neither has any plans to accept the other’s NFTs. I can prove I own something from another game, but the game itself doesn’t care. I also can’t buy Decentraland stuff with VHC tokens, nor Vault Hill items with MANA, which makes them rather centralized.
As soon as either company crashes and goes bankrupt, everything connected will become useless and lose most or all value. Thus, blockchain wouldn’t fix the issue.
However, NFTs that are accepted by both will have higher value.
We are starting seeing this on Roblox and Fortnite where skins can pass through to different games. .
That’s exactly what blockchain is fixing. E.g. Your valuable skins don’t disappear when the company running the game you play goes bankrupt.
That’s the theory. Games companies are at the private blockchain stage but there are some small web3 game developers.
A single airline in Argentina is experimenting with it in partnership with a bullshit travel company. Hardly the proof that NFTs make any sense anywhere. And of course, the only places this story is getting traction is the blockchain hype blogs, which is red flag #2 and #3.
It’s one example of NFTs in real business. Need more?