NFT's and Beanie Babies, interesting article

[Bigdaddy]

I kept reading 'Beanies' but I kept thinking 'modern cards' with their manipulated supply and demand not built on ownership, but on never ending price escalation.

And then I thought about all of the collectible markets, including the little pieces of cardboard that we chase. Of course some are more robust than others, but they are all built on the premise of 'what someone is willing to pay'.

[Leon]

I need fungible. Like holding this in my hand..

[yanks87]

NFT's puzzle me. I am a designer/illustrator and have been approached by several people saying that it is the "Way of the Future" and I could make a ton of money doing it. Much like everything else, people don't want what I bring to the table, they just want what is already out there, recycled or respun with a faux rarity in it, and nothing that exists outside of the digital realm. My new year's resolution has been to stay away from digital things, and stop doing commissions for people, going back to just producing the work that I do.

I think that is the equation for falling into a "starving artist" lifestyle, which is good, because I have a good 25lbs to lose this year! Not sure the Mrs will be on board though!!

[Rhotchkiss]

I think some NFTs make sense, even a lot of sense. I think NFTs are similar to trade marks or copywrites, which are hardly novel. Trade Mark is defined as "A name, symbol, or other device used to identify and promote a product or service, especially an officially registered name or symbol that is thereby protected against use by others." A trade mark is an ownership interest in an intangible item, and it has value -- the Nike Swoosh, Tony the Tiger, the McDonalds Arch, etc. There is no inherent value in the Nike Swoosh, and it can be seen everywhere and be reproduced easily, but that sucker is a worth a buttload!

A copywrite is defined as "the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (such as a literary, musical, or artistic work)". You can hear Hey Jude by the Beatles all over the radio. You can sing it yourself and learn it on the guitar. Yet someone owns the rights to that song and can license it and make real money. Plus, there is substantial value in owning the rights to Hey Jude

To me, NFTs are the "tangible" property version of a trade mark or copywrite. Take, for example, NFTs that are artwork or symbols. These make sense to me and I understand why they could have value. For example, you can see the image of Starry Night by Van Gogh everywhere and there are a zillion reproductions/copies. Yet there is only one original Starry Night by Van Gogh, and that original is priceless. Thus, if an artwork NFT was ever to gain huge popularity, I think having the original/the only actual would be very valuable, both in its own right and for licensing purposes.

Suppose someone created an NFT that served as the symbol for the BLM movement or the LBGQ rainbow. Even though the symbol is used everywhere and can be recreated easily, having the original/the actual NFT would have real value.

Thus, I understand this aspect of NFTs and why/how they can have value. THAT SAID, here is what I think does not make sense with NFTs:

1. They are relatively easy to make and there are so many of them being made. I dont know the percentage, but I would guess that less than 0.01% of all original artwork being produced today will be worth in a year (let alone 10 years) what it sells for in a gallery today; indeed, it may be relatively worthless. I fear there are so many NFTs out there, and more being made all the time, that everyone is rushing to own one (or more) and nobody will eventually care about a monkey with a blue beanie, just as nobody cares about another landscape painted in oil. Some NFTs will have major value, but I think it will be a very small percent and who knows which ones that will be.

2. I totally do not understand the plays/video clips. You are not going to license a block by Zion and you can find it all over the internet and who cares, let alone understands, that you "own" that video clip. To me, this is not like digital art or a symbol. I do not understand them

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I think some NFTs make sense, even a lot of sense. I think NFTs are similar to trade marks or copywrites, which are hardly novel. Trade Mark is defined as "A name, symbol, or other device used to identify and promote a product or service, especially an officially registered name or symbol that is thereby protected against use by others." A trade mark is an ownership interest in an intangible item, and it has value -- the Nike Swoosh, Tony the Tiger, the McDonalds Arch, etc. There is no inherent value in the Nike Swoosh, and it can be seen everywhere and be reproduced easily, but that sucker is a worth a buttload!

A copywrite is defined as "the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (such as a literary, musical, or artistic work)". You can hear Hey Jude by the Beatles all over the radio. You can sing it yourself and learn it on the guitar. Yet someone owns the rights to that song and can license it and make real money. Plus, there is substantial value in owning the rights to Hey Jude

To me, NFTs are the "tangible" property version of a trade mark or copywrite. Take, for example, NFTs that are artwork or symbols. These make sense to me and I understand why they could have value. For example, you can see the image of Starry Night by Van Gogh everywhere and there are a zillion reproductions/copies. Yet there is only one original Starry Night by Van Gogh, and that original is priceless. Thus, if an artwork NFT was ever to gain huge popularity, I think having the original/the only actual would be very valuable, both in its own right and for licensing purposes.

Suppose someone created an NFT that served as the symbol for the BLM movement or the LBGQ rainbow. Even though the symbol is used everywhere and can be recreated easily, having the original/the actual NFT would have real value.

Thus, I understand this aspect of NFTs and why/how they can have value. THAT SAID, here is what I think does not make sense with NFTs:

1. They are relatively easy to make and there are so many of them being made. I dont know the percentage, but I would guess that less than 0.01% of all original artwork being produced today will be worth in a year (let alone 10 years) what it sells for in a gallery today; indeed, it may be relatively worthless. I fear there are so many NFTs out there, and more being made all the time, that everyone is rushing to own one (or more) and nobody will eventually care about a monkey with a blue beanie, just as nobody cares about another landscape painted in oil. Some NFTs will have major value, but I think it will be a very small percent and who knows which ones that will be.

2. I totally do not understand the plays/video clips. You are not going to license a block by Zion and you can find it all over the internet and who cares, let alone understands, that you "own" that video clip. To me, this is not like digital art or a symbol. I do not understand them

Ryan,

Not really into the NFT thinking myself because they aren't tangible items, but I think I can understand where you're coming from. It's something like saying that '52 Topps Mantle cards are all valuable, but there is only one '52 Mantle card that was the very first to ever be printed and come off the production line. And if that first ever one could be identified and verified, it could be worth even more money to at least some people. Am I on the right line of thinking?

If so, I wonder if the card companies ever thought of maybe taking the first ever sheet(s) of cards they produce for every set and begin setting them aside for some later promotion or sale as the designated first ever cards produced. Modern card production seems to be mostly about manufactured rarities. Well here's another type of rarity they've actually been producing all along, just never recognized and took advantage of before. People often collect milestone examples of things, ticket stubs from games where milestones are achieved, the actual ball hit or pitched for the milestone, etc. Along with designating the the first ever of each card produced, they could do the same thing at say the 1 millionth of each card produced. There's bound to be some suckers.......errrrrr, collectors that will happily pay more for that milestone card. These NFTs seem to be somewhat along the same lines then.

But here's a legal question then. If you do acquire an NFT, and then see someone posting or using an image of it elsewhere, can you take them to court to have it removed or taken down since they used it without having first gotten your permission to do so as the NFT owner? Or even better, if the party using an NFT image you own uses it without your permission, and they are in whatever manning somehow making money off that NFT image, can you also sue them for the profits they've earned off it (or at least some share of it)? And how does that work if someone posts and uses your NFT image without your permission, and then someone else besides them copies, re-sends, or otherwise uses that unauthorized image and somehow makes money off of it, can you as the NFT owner go after and sue these secondary users also? Or is my original thinking correct, and owning an NFT is like owning the first ever '52 Topps Mantle card ever produced? Anyone else can have and use their '52 Topps Mantle card any way they like, but you only own the first one produced, and have no say or control over what everyone else does with their own copy of the card.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I think some NFTs make sense, even a lot of sense. I think NFTs are similar to trade marks or copywrites, which are hardly novel. Trade Mark is defined as "A name, symbol, or other device used to identify and promote a product or service, especially an officially registered name or symbol that is thereby protected against use by others." A trade mark is an ownership interest in an intangible item, and it has value -- the Nike Swoosh, Tony the Tiger, the McDonalds Arch, etc. There is no inherent value in the Nike Swoosh, and it can be seen everywhere and be reproduced easily, but that sucker is a worth a buttload!

A copywrite is defined as "the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (such as a literary, musical, or artistic work)". You can hear Hey Jude by the Beatles all over the radio. You can sing it yourself and learn it on the guitar. Yet someone owns the rights to that song and can license it and make real money. Plus, there is substantial value in owning the rights to Hey Jude

To me, NFTs are the "tangible" property version of a trade mark or copywrite. Take, for example, NFTs that are artwork or symbols. These make sense to me and I understand why they could have value. For example, you can see the image of Starry Night by Van Gogh everywhere and there are a zillion reproductions/copies. Yet there is only one original Starry Night by Van Gogh, and that original is priceless. Thus, if an artwork NFT was ever to gain huge popularity, I think having the original/the only actual would be very valuable, both in its own right and for licensing purposes.

Suppose someone created an NFT that served as the symbol for the BLM movement or the LBGQ rainbow. Even though the symbol is used everywhere and can be recreated easily, having the original/the actual NFT would have real value.

Thus, I understand this aspect of NFTs and why/how they can have value. THAT SAID, here is what I think does not make sense with NFTs:

1. They are relatively easy to make and there are so many of them being made. I dont know the percentage, but I would guess that less than 0.01% of all original artwork being produced today will be worth in a year (let alone 10 years) what it sells for in a gallery today; indeed, it may be relatively worthless. I fear there are so many NFTs out there, and more being made all the time, that everyone is rushing to own one (or more) and nobody will eventually care about a monkey with a blue beanie, just as nobody cares about another landscape painted in oil. Some NFTs will have major value, but I think it will be a very small percent and who knows which ones that will be.

2. I totally do not understand the plays/video clips. You are not going to license a block by Zion and you can find it all over the internet and who cares, let alone understands, that you "own" that video clip. To me, this is not like digital art or a symbol. I do not understand them

NTFs limited like modern shiny cards makes sense to me in the high end watch market. Some are insanely rare and the owners don't openly post pictures. I know it is being discussed and hopefully it happens. There are watches I would buy NTFs of.

[Rhotchkiss]

Bob, I think thats a reasonable comparison. Or, consider original negative of a very famous photo. Imagine you had the negative of Ruth bowing out in his last game. The actual negative. You could make a millions pics off it, but there is only one negative. I think thats what an NFT is like, except its not tangible, its digital. But you can take it to another level - I can produce 20 photos from the negative, label them 1-20 and then destroy the negative or somehow retire it so more pics can be made. You can do this with an NFT too - make a limited edition/run, 1 of 20 of the same thing. Or, you can make some dumb monkey with 85 different hats on and sell each one of those hat-monkeys as an NFT that is part of the larger monkey-hat run. I am not saying this is a good buy, but only trying to explain, in somewhat "earthly" terms, what I think an NFT is.

And, as the owner, I think you would be able to bring actions against people who used your NFT without licensing it/permission; just like if someone used my painting or song in a commercial or movie.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Bob, I think thats a reasonable comparison. Or, consider original negative of a very famous photo. Imagine you had the negative of Ruth bowing out in his last game. The actual negative. You could make a millions pics off it, but there is only one negative. I think thats what an NFT is like, except its not tangible, its digital. But you can take it to another level - I can produce 20 photos from the negative, label them 1-20 and then destroy the negative or somehow retire it so more pics can be made. You can do this with an NFT too - make a limited edition/run, 1 of 20 of the same thing. Or, you can make some dumb monkey with 85 different hats on and sell each one of those hat-monkeys as an NFT that is part of the larger monkey-hat run. I am not saying this is a good buy, but only trying to explain, in somewhat "earthly" terms, what I think an NFT is.

And, as the owner, I think you would be able to bring actions against people who used your NFT without licensing it/permission; just like if someone used my painting or song in a commercial or movie.

I agree that there is value in having the original. The issue with NFT’s is that ppl think they own the jpeg or video which isn’t actually true. The NFT is stored on a server somewhere and the address is stored on the blockchain in a smart contract which is what you actually buy. If the server crashed or shutdown or the file is deleted/moved then your nft is gone. All you are buying is a number that points to a server somewhere that tells you what resides there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ronnie73]

Beanie Babies bring back a lot of memories. I remember at one point, baseball cards shows also included Beanie Baby dealers. I'll never forget the time when McDonald's was giving out mini versions each week and locations were running out of them after the first couple days. My girlfriend at the time had me driving to every McDonald's within a 200 mile radius. Then we'd sell them for $20 each. I still have a large comicbook box of them, along with other random regular issues.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Bob, I think thats a reasonable comparison. Or, consider original negative of a very famous photo. Imagine you had the negative of Ruth bowing out in his last game. The actual negative. You could make a millions pics off it, but there is only one negative. I think thats what an NFT is like, except its not tangible, its digital. But you can take it to another level - I can produce 20 photos from the negative, label them 1-20 and then destroy the negative or somehow retire it so more pics can be made. You can do this with an NFT too - make a limited edition/run, 1 of 20 of the same thing. Or, you can make some dumb monkey with 85 different hats on and sell each one of those hat-monkeys as an NFT that is part of the larger monkey-hat run. I am not saying this is a good buy, but only trying to explain, in somewhat "earthly" terms, what I think an NFT is.

And, as the owner, I think you would be able to bring actions against people who used your NFT without licensing it/permission; just like if someone used my painting or song in a commercial or movie.

Okay Ryan, I think we're on the same page then in understanding these NFTs, and still not sure why people are willing to pay so much for them. As you said, these are digital images, not something tangible. So one digital image is exactly the same as every other similar one out there, unlike say a work of art where the artist also puts out a limited edition number of prints of that piece. Those prints will never be exactly the same as the original painting, and you can always tell the original from a print. Not so sure that is the case with an NFT digital image. Guess it is a lot of the old fart in me that has a hard time valuing such non-tangible items so highly, because once that digital image gets out there for all to see, copy, and forward, its out there. You won't be physically able to know of and sue everyone who now may have a copy of it as well.

That's why I alluded to an NFT as maybe like the first ever '52 Topps Mantle card to be made. You don't have the only one, just the first one. So the value is in the bragging rights of saying you have the first one. But with these digital images, exact copies can be quickly and easily made, and then forwarded to a huge, ever expanding, number of people. Not the same as owning the negative and then making prints one by one, or having someone then try making a copy from one of the prints, that will never come out as good as a print made from the original negative.

I guess I'll never understand the younger generations and what they see in all these new things. Maybe that's the main problem with the world in general, things are changing too fast and too quickly. Just thinking back to when I was born in the '50s, and all the technological advances and discoveries that have occurred during my life up to now, it almost literally dwarfs all of mankind's combined previous advances and discoveries up till then. Just look how the hobby itself has changed in the last 30-40 years, and the further unknown changes coming with the Fanatic's dealings, things like these NFTs, and God knows what else. As a former colleague of mine and I always used to say to each other, "I'm getting too old for this sh#t!"

[t206fanatic]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I think some NFTs make sense, even a lot of sense. I think NFTs are similar to trade marks or copywrites, which are hardly novel. Trade Mark is defined as "A name, symbol, or other device used to identify and promote a product or service, especially an officially registered name or symbol that is thereby protected against use by others." A trade mark is an ownership interest in an intangible item, and it has value -- the Nike Swoosh, Tony the Tiger, the McDonalds Arch, etc. There is no inherent value in the Nike Swoosh, and it can be seen everywhere and be reproduced easily, but that sucker is a worth a buttload!

A copywrite is defined as "the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (such as a literary, musical, or artistic work)". You can hear Hey Jude by the Beatles all over the radio. You can sing it yourself and learn it on the guitar. Yet someone owns the rights to that song and can license it and make real money. Plus, there is substantial value in owning the rights to Hey Jude

To me, NFTs are the "tangible" property version of a trade mark or copywrite. Take, for example, NFTs that are artwork or symbols. These make sense to me and I understand why they could have value. For example, you can see the image of Starry Night by Van Gogh everywhere and there are a zillion reproductions/copies. Yet there is only one original Starry Night by Van Gogh, and that original is priceless. Thus, if an artwork NFT was ever to gain huge popularity, I think having the original/the only actual would be very valuable, both in its own right and for licensing purposes.

Suppose someone created an NFT that served as the symbol for the BLM movement or the LBGQ rainbow. Even though the symbol is used everywhere and can be recreated easily, having the original/the actual NFT would have real value.

Thus, I understand this aspect of NFTs and why/how they can have value. THAT SAID, here is what I think does not make sense with NFTs:

1. They are relatively easy to make and there are so many of them being made. I dont know the percentage, but I would guess that less than 0.01% of all original artwork being produced today will be worth in a year (let alone 10 years) what it sells for in a gallery today; indeed, it may be relatively worthless. I fear there are so many NFTs out there, and more being made all the time, that everyone is rushing to own one (or more) and nobody will eventually care about a monkey with a blue beanie, just as nobody cares about another landscape painted in oil. Some NFTs will have major value, but I think it will be a very small percent and who knows which ones that will be.

2. I totally do not understand the plays/video clips. You are not going to license a block by Zion and you can find it all over the internet and who cares, let alone understands, that you "own" that video clip. To me, this is not like digital art or a symbol. I do not understand them

great post Ryan, can tell you get it. A few things to add:

1) your point about supply rapidly expanding is a good one. Most NFT's will not have any reasonable secondary market, and the ones that do are considered the "blue chips" of the space.

2) You're referring to NBA Top Shot, which occupy an interesting niche in NFT's, not fully decentralized like most on Ethereum, but still digitally, verifiably scarce. I agree with you that those don't seem valuable, but then again a lot of the younger generation would blush at the prices we pay for pictures of dead guys. Value is in the eye of the beholder.

[swarmee]

The merging of beanie babies and NFTs? Metta World Peace (formerly Ron Artest) has started an NFT company via Dapper (home of NBATopShot and NFLAllDay) where they are minting 10,000 Meta Pandas.
For $199 they will mint you a fresh panda NFT of your own, and you also receive $199 "worth of merchandise" like swag jackets that they will mail to you.

If you happen to get serial numbers ending in 37 or 96, you get some additional perks. There is a live kickoff party Friday night in LA if you happen to get randomly gifted with an invite NFT.

I missed out on Bored Apes, so I bought 4. No joke. Let's see if chubby panda basketball gifs can go to the moon... ;-)

www.metapandaclub.com

[MattyC]