yep I did, i will try a different address, thanks!
I finally got in and got two common ones. Pfffft
@drunkwooky you got the same exact two my brother got. And for full disclosure he was the one who tipped me off to tip all you off about this. I wish I got more free for referring people.
I got the same rare rare Jessica Cruz Green Lantern… Maybe we are the only two in the world to get that one…seeing it is rare.
Rare is a very subjective word nowadays. I blame eBay…. Everything is rare on eBay….
I’m still going to pretend that DrunkWooky and myself are the only ones who have it. I’ll be able to pretend it is only a matter of time before I am filthy rich.
This is what I can’t wrap my head around with these NFTs. What is the draw? I just don’t get it. All these images are readily available for free online.
If anyone hasn’t hopped on board the Veve app, they have been dropping Marvel comics fairly frequently there now as well as digital collectibles.
The “rare” versions of those are reselling for a decent amount on the aftermarket.
Yeah, but you, “Own,” that image everyone is sharing! Allegedly. Basically in the same way I own the Brooklyn Bridge if I say I own it and write I do on a digital piece of paper I can trade around.
That’s true.
Now, disclaimer, I am an NFT skeptic and I don’t buy into the following theory, but I am just playing Devil’s Advocate and explaining the collectible theory.
The theory is that while you could read Amazing Fantasy 15 in a facsimile or digitally on ComiXology or any number of reprinted collected editions, you don’t own the original work when you do that.
Similarly, when an NFT is “minted” for the first time, it has a unique provenance, much like a 1962 first print AF15. So, to save money, yes, you can buy a reprint, but it doesn’t have the unique qualities of the original. Even if you were to perfectly recreate the spinning, lighting, shadows, reflections, and resolution of the original, it will not be the original. Therefore, you can’t claim it as a “first” minting of it.
Still just ones and zeroes…
And a first printing of Detective Comics 27 is just a bunch of paper stapled together.
A bunch of tangible old paper with sequential art of iconic Americana printed on it, from a century ago…or… modern day 1s and 0s in a cpu processor that are not tangible.
Why is the tweeter bird logo thingy shown on the bottom right corner of your DC NFTs?
That was made almost a century ago and quite unique (in terms of how it was printed, production, etc) while I can physically hold and display… whereas your NFT can be recreated with a simple cp
command from a command line…
Tweeting about the first NFT gets you the second one. I would guess they are using Twitter as a means to generate awareness/excitement about their products.
Again, I don’t think the two are at all on the same order of magnitude in terms of historic value. I’m just saying that there’s nothing stopping human society from placing the same premium on a particularly unique NFT 100 years from now.
If you take any collectible high enough up the ladder of abstraction and it’s just it’s constituent parts, it ceases to have that extrinsic value we place on it. Ancient Egyptian pots are just dirt formed and hardened into desirable shapes. Taken out of their historic context, they can be recreated.
Anything of “collectible” value derives most of its value from extrinsic context we project onto it. Even Detective Comics 27. If society as a whole decided to stop valuing that book, it would go back to a bunch of paper stapled together.
I don’t pretend to understand any of this, but if people think something has value, then it has value. That is sort of the definition of FIAT currency. It’s not like our dollars are backed by gold or silver any longer. They are just pieces of paper that society agrees has value.
Our younger generation is not only tech savvy, but tech dependent. Their whole lives revolve around images and “likes” and “follows” - some of which generates income. The times, they are a-changin’. Besides, it’s free for me.