you can just send the money to the artist if indeed your objective is to “contribute to the artist” no NFTs required
Yeah, people could donate directly, but some people decided to buy NFTs instead, and they wouldn’t have spent the money otherwise.
^
|
This is my logic which shows that my post is not bullshit. My post is only bullshit by the “logic” that you try to introduce.
And you don’t need to be writing these long-winded paragraphs. The point stands that you’re the one who brought up the argument about NFTs as means of ownership and then started arguing on the opposing side. Who are you arguing against? There is no-one on the proposing side, only the starmen you put there.
Yeah, people could donate directly, but some people decided to buy NFTs instead, and they wouldn’t have spent the money otherwise.
These arguments always make me smirk. Yes, of course I could use the slow, expensive, and exploitative financial rails that currently exist. But it’s fucking fun to buy NFTs. And easy. It’s as simple as that. I enjoy collecting these art pieces. I don’t give a flying fuck of a shit if it’s not actually “owning” it by some armchair lawyer’s abstract definition of “owning”. I support cool creators, the image appears in my wallet, I get perks associated with the token sometimes, and I have some prints of the art on my wall. I don’t care, like, not even a little bit, if I actually “own” it or not from a legal contract point of view, which is just a social layer anyways. I verifiably possess it, and that’s enough me.
Your argument was that my post didn’t follow yours hence was “bullshit”, yet your own post didn’t follow mine and hence was by that very logic “bullshit”.
Further and interestingly you ignored the quote I provided in the last post from somebody else up the thread, that disproves your own assertion that “you’re the one who brought up the argument about NFTs as means of ownership” - somebody else already brought it up and I was following it and kept doing it even when you came up with and unrelated anectdote.
That said, somebody else earlier on mentioned supporting artists in this thread.
So we both “jumped” over the other post and just followed on with some previous point from somebody else.
Either we’re both making “bullshit” posts (per that “logic” of yours) or we’re just cross talking and going along unrelated argument lines (which, frankly, having looked back to check the rest of the thread, we’re not the only ones).
Yeah, people could donate directly, but some people decided to buy NFTs instead, and they wouldn’t have spent the money otherwise.
^
|
This is my logic which shows that my post is not bullshit. My post is only bullshit by the “logic” that you try to introduce.
And you don’t need to be writing these long-winded paragraphs. The point stands that you’re the one who brought up the argument about NFTs as means of ownership and then started arguing on the opposing side. Who are you arguing against? There is no-one on the proposing side, only the starmen you put there.
These arguments always make me smirk. Yes, of course I could use the slow, expensive, and exploitative financial rails that currently exist. But it’s fucking fun to buy NFTs. And easy. It’s as simple as that. I enjoy collecting these art pieces. I don’t give a flying fuck of a shit if it’s not actually “owning” it by some armchair lawyer’s abstract definition of “owning”. I support cool creators, the image appears in my wallet, I get perks associated with the token sometimes, and I have some prints of the art on my wall. I don’t care, like, not even a little bit, if I actually “own” it or not from a legal contract point of view, which is just a social layer anyways. I verifiably possess it, and that’s enough me.
Your argument was that my post didn’t follow yours hence was “bullshit”, yet your own post didn’t follow mine and hence was by that very logic “bullshit”.
Further and interestingly you ignored the quote I provided in the last post from somebody else up the thread, that disproves your own assertion that “you’re the one who brought up the argument about NFTs as means of ownership” - somebody else already brought it up and I was following it and kept doing it even when you came up with and unrelated anectdote.
That said, somebody else earlier on mentioned supporting artists in this thread.
So we both “jumped” over the other post and just followed on with some previous point from somebody else.
Either we’re both making “bullshit” posts (per that “logic” of yours) or we’re just cross talking and going along unrelated argument lines (which, frankly, having looked back to check the rest of the thread, we’re not the only ones).