Because it’s pretty much the same.
At the very core ownership that isn’t recognised by the state is meaningless. So that ape picture? No one really cares about some guy claiming to own it because they have control over the token. As long as it’s on the internet everyone can just copy it and there’s no authority caring about it one bit since NFT isn’t recognised as for example copyright is.
Even when it comes to stuff like items in games, these also are only worth anything as long as the publisher of the game recognises your claim to it! And even if they did recognise it, there’s absolutely nothing preventing them from changing their minds later. Simply because they create the game however they like and have 100% control over it’s development.
deadlyduplicate@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Except it’s not ownership, it is digital rights management. Right now DRM is handled by private corporations, not the state, and it generally is anti-consumer. NFTs could be used for DRM in a more pro consumer way.
magnusrufus@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That all hinges on a pretty big “could”.
deadlyduplicate@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Absolutely, companies are not going to just decide to implement NFTs in a way that gives more control to users unless it means more money for them. Does change the fact that the technology has that potential, even if it remain unutilized.
Syndic@feddit.de 1 year ago
Only if the companies in charge would allow that. And they really have zero incentive to do so. The way it currently is, is way more profitable for them.