• HobbitFoot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    So it kind of sucks they did this, as their implementation of NFT’s was a decent use case for NFT’s outside of being investments. DRM rights that abide by first sale doctrine even if company dies is a good reason for a blockchain. Too bad they decided to treat it as something to invest in.

    • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      What the fuck is a good NFT implementation, something that works? Or something that might be beneficial for humankind like at all?

      It’s just crap, sha an image, toss it into a blockchain, … uh, …profit?

      What a scam and waste of people’s brains.

      • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The only thing I’ve heard that made sense was using it for things like contracts? But even then barely.

    • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      if the company dies, so does the server that hosts the image that your nft links to. If the company dies, the nft dies with it, regardless of who currently “owns” it, or how many times it’s been resold

    • uid0gid0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      What rights do you have after a first sale if the company the original contract was with dies? Someone else going to honor your NFT? What if the company also owned the blockchain your NTF is on?