2021.04.07 批评者对NFT不了解的地方

shiyi18

What Critics Don’t Understand About NFTs
The complexity and arbitrariness of non-fungible tokens are a big part of their appeal.

By Jonathan Zittrain and Will Marks
An illustration of a pixelated banana stuck to a white background with duck tape
Adam Maida / The Atlantic
APRIL 7, 2021
SHARE
About the authors: Jonathan Zittrain is a professor of law and a professor of computer science at Harvard, where he co-leads the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society’s Institute for Rebooting Social Media. Will Marks is a senior research coordinator at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center.

Long before cryptocurrency speculators got involved, art prices were capricious—as the British artist Banksy no doubt understands. Recently, the work “Game Changer,” which he delivered unsolicited to an English hospital last year, earned it $23.2 million at auction—about $20 million more than experts had predicted. Banksy has famously mocked high-priced sales: In 2006’s “Morons,” he portrays an auction house selling a work that reads i can’t believe you morons actually buy this shit.

Last month a company called Injective Protocol took the spirit of “Morons” to a new extreme: After purchasing one of 500 prints of that work for just under $100,000, the company scanned the print and then destroyed it. A copy of the resulting digital file was then placed on IPFS—a distributed data-storage network whose initials stand for interplanetary file system—for anyone to see. A “non-fungible token,” or NFT, that points to the work was exchanged for almost 230 units of a cryptocurrency called Ether, about $400,000. All things considered, the purchaser of that token might have been in on the joke rather than the butt of it: Some NFTs are selling for tens of millions of dollars.

These high prices suggest that regulators may not be moving quickly enough to protect unsuspecting investors. Impulsively buying GameStop shares on Robinhood is risky enough—the equivalent of placing a long-shot Kentucky Derby bet because the horse had a cool name. Worse still is losing your money because you didn’t understand what a horse race was and thought your wager was actually buying a horse.

Derek Thompson: The GameStop story you think you know is wrong

Yet the presumption that NFT buyers are being ripped off misses an important paradox of certain digital goods: The less of a link they have to tangible, non-internet stores of value, the higher the price they might command. NFTs’ abstraction, their seemingly arbitrary valuation, and even the paltriness of the privileges they convey to their owners are, for now, big selling points, especially to buyers purchasing directly from artists. People have complex reasons for buying things, and NFTs are no exception.

In the long history of technology and finance, new and complicated phenomena have frequently led to large sums of money rapidly changing hands. In fact, many markets depend on this dynamic, especially in arcane realms even more disconnected from real-world referents than NFTs are. During the 2008 financial crisis, another three-letter acronym—CDOs, for collateralized debt obligations—collapsed as curiously as they came about, giving rise to the 2008 financial crisis. The complexity that makes them so sketchy in the eyes of regulators and financial commentators appealed to certain investors.

Some artists and other content creators have described the NFT craze as a blessing. They’re selling comic books, music albums, digital artwork, tweets, basketball videos, and even farts, in many cases for large sums of money, on a “blockchain,” a collectively generated, public, distributed ledger that undergirds cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and Ethereum. Some artists, such as the Canadian DJ deadmau5, are cashing in even as they declare skepticism. After acknowledging that he’d made a “low effort NFT,” deadmau5 told his Instagram followers that “artists are happy to have finally found a way to fuck people over harder than any major label ever could.”

RECOMMENDED READING
A series of circuits and wires labeled with the letters of the alphabet
Email Is Dangerous
QUINN NORTON

Chasing the ‘Holy Grail’ of Baseball Performance
BEN ROWEN
Photo of induction stove top and gas stove with blue flame
Kill Your Gas Stove
SABRINA IMBLER
In the narrowest version of an NFT, its first buyer is getting three things: the warm feeling that may accompany financing an artist; the pride that comes with claiming a relationship to a digital artifact and its creator; and perhaps most tangibly, an asset that can be traded at a later date. The buyer is not, however, acquiring anything that they alone can use. In the physical world, if you purchase a candy bar, you can’t give someone a piece of it without losing a few bites of your own. That makes your freedom to take a bite valuable, because the bar has only so much chocolate.

By contrast, an NFT buyer is not purchasing a work, but rather a publicly available token that links to a work. For example, for a digital picture, the token may be a unique number and a link to a copy of the picture, hosted on a service such as IPFS. The token itself is visible to all, as is the work to which it points, so anyone else can look at the work and download it. And most NFT transactions don’t purport to convey copyright or other intellectual-property interests regarding the work in question, so owning an NFT tied to an animation of, say, a flying Pop-Tart cat doesn’t put you in a position to use that animation any differently than someone who hadn’t bought it. You have only a token that is hosted publicly online, “registered” as assigned to your digital wallet rather than someone else’s. If you orchestrate your wallet through an app, the app might present you with a handsome visual trophy case listing the NFTs that you’ve purchased. (As you can see, we’re having to reach to describe unique value.)

Anil Dash: NFTs weren’t supposed to end like this

By these terms, many NFT purchases are akin to acquiring a piece of art that nevertheless remains in the gallery where it was sold, open all the time to members of the public, who may grab a free print of the work after their visit—a replica so perfect that it can be considered an original for many purposes. Moreover, the museum might not happen to take care of “your” piece of art: It could lose it, damage it, replace it, or destroy it. Indeed, enough linked NFT assets have failed to load that a website, checkmynft.com, has been auditing some of the items sold on major platforms and hosted on IPFS.

To be sure, purchasing an NFT can come with extras, such as a tchotchke mailed to the buyer. You may wonder whether reselling the NFTs requires mailing that tchotchke to the next buyer. Maybe. In one instance, a $500,000 NFT for a digital “house” included a set of plans transferred to the buyer that the buyer could use exclusively—on the promise that if they sold the token, they’d pass along the plans and then delete their own copy.

But these more conventional fragments of ownership—ancillary artifacts or services that could be sold on eBay or at a flea market—are distractions from the value of NFTs more than enhancements of it. An essential part of NFTs’ value is that they don’t convey anything resembling traditional ownership.

When patrons support artists with a grant—and perhaps receive a public thanks from the artist—they are not buying works, but rather publicly signaling their commitment to the artist, intertwining their respective reputations. They are conspicuously consuming vapors, and the very intangibility of the benefits contributes to the conspicuousness. One is reminded of the short-lived app called I Am Rich, which merely displayed an image of a glowing red gem. It ran for $999.99 in the Apple App Store, and scored eight purchasers, only two of whom appeared to regret their purchase enough to seek a refund. And apps can’t be resold—so those purchasers weren’t in it for any perceived investment value.

At this point, no one should be surprised that NFTs can gain such high valuations based on so little. They are, after all, traded via cryptocurrency blockchains whose core function is to record the sale of unique internet tokens that need not point to anything at all and yet are independently accorded value because they’re commonly understood to be currency. When the cryptocurrency Ether—whose name is literally a synonym for vapor!—is going for $2,100 a unit, why should an Ethereum NFT that points to a digital artwork not also accrue independent attention? A single unit of bitcoin that fetched $4 when one of us first taught a class about it in 2011 is worth thousands of dollars today. Some “crypto whales”—people who got rich from that appreciation—have a near-religious commitment to cryptocurrency and its derivative technologies, and choose to keep their wealth on the blockchain beyond the usual standards of economic rationality.

Whether fungible or not, or currency or not, the value of blockchain tokens has arisen through a paradox. If Comcast, Walmart, or Goldman Sachs tried to build and operate a centralized blockchain, owning all the tokenized “coins” at first, few people would turn up to buy them and expect them to carry value—at least if the companies were offering no independent benefit in exchange. But bitcoin and its siblings are different in that no one in particular owns or operates them. Rather, unaccredited possessors of computing power have subscribed to the published protocols that describe blockchains, and have chosen to breathe life into them by lending their computing power to documenting the transactions there—in exchange for bits of that cryptocurrency. The paradox is that such currencies, when they work, have value precisely because no one formally controls them.

Read: Cryptocurrency might be a path to authoritarianism

The internet itself similarly functions as a collective hallucination, owned by no one. It has no CEO. No entity controls its evolution. There are only manufacturers of internet devices, operators of networks that interconnect with the larger network, and authors of software that “speak” internet. When new internet standards are proposed by the unincorporated volunteer organization that stewards those protocols, they are not adopted through regulatory mandate, but through emergent consensus that they are better than what came before—or at least that they are likely to be adopted by others, who in turn are looking to see what everyone else is doing. This might seem like a shaky foundation for creative and commercial activities—one far more precarious than what the implacable mechanisms of centralized authorities would provide—but companies with trillion-dollar market capitalizations and a whole way of life have been built upon it. Had AOL or CompuServe or some other self-interested incumbent proposed to run a global interoperable computer network whose value depended upon contributions from others, it never would have taken off.


While the NFT party is going, one can hardly begrudge people who turn up as buyers and sellers, so long as they know what’s actually being exchanged and realize that they might be the last ones holding the tulip—or the token for a now-destroyed Banksy print.

The NFT craze, and the blockchains underlying it, lay bare the philosophical questions around why we treasure things beyond any tangible worth to us—and the leap of faith we indulge, wisely or otherwise, when we buy something not because of any innate worth to us but because we expect others to value it later. That its worth can arise through collective action is a testament to the unpredictability of human events—and a reminder that not everything in life gains value from top-down fiat.

Jonathan Zittrain is a professor of law and a professor of computer science at Harvard, where he co-leads the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society’s Institute for Rebooting Social Media.




批评者对NFT不了解的地方
不可伪造的代币的复杂性和任意性是其吸引力的一个重要部分。

作者：Jonathan Zittrain和Will Marks
一张用鸭嘴胶带粘在白色背景上的像素化香蕉的插图
亚当-迈达/《大西洋》杂志
2021年4月7日

关于作者。乔纳森-齐特林是哈佛大学的法学教授和计算机科学教授，他是伯克曼-克莱因互联网与社会中心重启社会媒体研究所的共同负责人。Will Marks是哈佛大学伯克曼-克莱因中心的高级研究协调员。

早在加密货币投机者介入之前，艺术品的价格就很反复无常--英国艺术家班克斯无疑明白这一点。最近，他去年主动送去英国一家医院的作品 "Game Changer "在拍卖会上获得了2320万美元，比专家预测的高出约2000万美元。班克斯曾以嘲弄高价销售而闻名。在2006年的 "白痴 "作品中，他描绘了一个拍卖行出售的作品，上面写着 "我不相信你们这些白痴真的会买这种垃圾"。

上个月，一家名为Injective Protocol的公司将 "Morons "的精神推向了一个新的极端：在以低于10万美元的价格购买了该作品的500张印刷品之一后，该公司扫描了该印刷品，然后将其销毁。由此产生的数字文件的副本被放置在IPFS--一个分布式数据存储网络，其首字母代表星际文件系统，供任何人查看。一个指向该作品的 "不可伪造的代币"，即NFT，被兑换成近230个单位的加密货币 "以太币"，约40万美元。综合考虑，该代币的购买者可能是参与了这个笑话，而不是笑话的主角。一些NFT的售价达到了数千万美元。

这些高价表明，监管机构可能没有迅速采取行动来保护毫无戒心的投资者。在Robinhood上冲动地购买GameStop的股票已经够冒险的了--相当于因为马的名字很酷而下了一个长线的肯塔基德比赌注。更糟糕的是，因为你不了解什么是赛马，以为你的赌注实际上是在买马，所以输掉了你的钱。

德里克-汤普森：你认为你知道的GameStop故事是错误的

然而，关于NFT买家被骗的推测，忽略了某些数字商品的一个重要悖论。它们与有形的、非互联网的价值储存的联系越少，它们的价格就越高。目前，NFT的抽象性、看似随意的估价，甚至它们向其所有者传达的特权的微不足道，都是很大的卖点，特别是对直接从艺术家那里购买的买家而言。人们购买东西有复杂的原因，NFT也不例外。

在技术和金融的漫长历史中，新的和复杂的现象经常导致大量的资金迅速易手。事实上，许多市场都依赖于这种动态，特别是在比NFTs更加脱离现实世界参照物的神秘领域。在2008年的金融危机中，另一个三个字母的缩写--CDO，即抵押债务义务--就像它们的出现一样奇怪地崩溃了，引起了2008年的金融危机。在监管机构和金融评论员眼中，它们的复杂性使其变得如此简略，吸引了某些投资者。

一些艺术家和其他内容创作者将NFT的热潮描述为一种祝福。他们在 "区块链 "上出售漫画书、音乐专辑、数字艺术品、推特、篮球视频，甚至是放屁，在很多情况下都能获得大笔资金，"区块链 "是一种集体生成的公共分布式账本，是比特币和以太坊等加密货币的基础。一些艺术家，如加拿大DJ deadmau5，正在兑现，即使他们宣布持怀疑态度。在承认他做了一个 "低努力的NFT "之后，deadmau5告诉他的Instagram粉丝，"艺术家们很高兴终于找到了一种方法，比任何大公司都更努力地操练人们。"

推荐阅读
一系列标有字母的电路和电线
电子邮件是危险的
QUINN NORTON

追寻棒球表演的 "圣杯
本-罗文
感应炉顶和燃气灶的蓝色火焰的照片
杀死你的煤气灶
SABRINA IMBLER
在最狭义的NFT中，它的第一个买家得到了三样东西：可能伴随着资助艺术家的温暖感觉；声称与数字艺术品及其创造者有关系而产生的自豪感；以及也许最切身的，一种可以在以后交易的资产。然而，购买者并没有获得任何他们可以单独使用的东西。在物理世界中，如果你购买了一块糖果，你不能把它送给别人而不失去自己的几口。这使得你咬一口的自由很有价值，因为这块糖只有这么多巧克力。

相比之下，NFT买家购买的不是作品，而是链接到作品的公开可用的代币。例如，对于一张数字图片来说，该信物可能是一个独特的数字和一个链接到图片的副本，托管在IPFS等服务上。代币本身对所有人都是可见的，它所指向的作品也是如此，所以其他人都可以查看作品并下载它。而且，大多数NFT交易并不打算传达有关作品的版权或其他知识产权利益，因此，拥有与飞翔的Pop-Tart猫的动画相联系的NFT，并不会使你在使用该动画时与没有购买它的人有任何不同。你只有一个在线公开托管的代币，"注册 "为分配给你的数字钱包，而不是别人的。如果你通过一个应用程序协调你的钱包，该应用程序可能会向你展示一个漂亮的视觉奖杯盒，列出你已经购买的NFTs。(如你所见，我们不得不伸手去描述独特的价值）。

阿尼尔-达什。NFTs不应该是这样的结局

根据这些条款，许多NFT的购买类似于获得一件艺术品，但它仍然留在出售它的画廊里，一直对公众开放，他们可以在参观后获得作品的免费印刷品--一个如此完美的复制品，在许多方面可以被视为原作。此外，博物馆可能不会碰巧照顾好 "你的 "艺术品。它可能会丢失它，损坏它，替换它，或摧毁它。事实上，有足够多的链接的NFT资产未能加载，以至于一个网站checkmynft.com一直在审计一些在主要平台上出售的、托管在IPFS上的项目。

可以肯定的是，购买NFT可以附带一些额外的东西，如邮寄给买方的小礼品。你可能想知道，转售NFT是否需要将该小玩意邮寄给下一个买家。也许吧。在一个例子中，一个价值50万美元的数字 "房子 "的国家信托基金包括一套转让给买方的计划，买方可以独家使用，并承诺如果他们出售该信托基金，他们将传递计划，然后删除自己的副本。

但这些更传统的所有权碎片--可以在eBay或跳蚤市场上出售的附属工艺品或服务--是对NFTs价值的干扰，而不是对它的提升。国家信托基金的价值的一个重要部分是，它们不传达任何类似于传统所有权的东西。

当赞助人以资助的方式支持艺术家--也许会得到艺术家的公开感谢--他们不是在购买作品，而是公开表明他们对艺术家的承诺，将他们各自的声誉交织在一起。他们是在显而易见地消费蒸汽，而利益的无形性也促成了这种显而易见性。这不禁让人联想到昙花一现的 "我很有钱 "的应用程序，它只是显示了一个发光的红色宝石的图像。它在苹果应用商店的售价为999.99美元，有8个购买者，其中只有两个人似乎对他们的购买感到后悔而要求退款。而且应用程序不能转售，所以这些购买者并不是为了任何可感知的投资价值。

在这一点上，没有人应该对NFTs能够在如此小的基础上获得如此高的估值感到惊讶。毕竟，它们是通过加密货币区块链进行交易的，其核心功能是记录独特的互联网代币的销售，这些代币根本不需要指向任何东西，但却被独立赋予价值，因为它们被普遍理解为是货币。当加密货币以太币--它的名字简直就是水蒸气的同义词！--以太币的价格是2100美元一个单位，为什么指向数字艺术品的以太币NFT不应该获得独立的关注？2011年，当我们中的一个人第一次在课堂上讲授比特币时，一个单位的比特币能卖到4美元，今天却价值数千美元。一些 "加密货币鲸鱼"--从这种升值中致富的人--对加密货币及其衍生技术有着近乎宗教般的承诺，并选择将他们的财富保存在区块链上，超出了经济理性的通常标准。

无论是否可替换，或是否为货币，区块链代币的价值都是通过一个悖论产生的。如果康卡斯特、沃尔玛或高盛试图建立和运营一个中心化的区块链，一开始就拥有所有的代币 "硬币"，很少有人会转而购买它们，并期望它们有价值--至少如果这些公司没有提供独立的利益作为交换。但是，比特币和它的兄弟姐妹们是不同的，因为没有人特别拥有或操作它们。相反，未经认可的计算能力拥有者已经签署了描述区块链的公开协议，并选择通过借出他们的计算能力来记录其中的交易，从而为它们注入生命，以换取该加密货币的比特。矛盾的是，这种货币，当它们工作时，有价值，正是因为没有人正式控制它们。

阅读。加密货币可能是通往独裁主义的道路

互联网本身也同样作为一种集体幻觉发挥作用，不为任何人所拥有。它没有CEO。没有实体控制它的演变。只有互联网设备的制造商，与大网络互联的网络运营商，以及 "说 "互联网的软件的作者。当新的互联网标准由管理这些协议的非法人志愿者组织提出时，它们不是通过监管授权而被采用，而是通过新兴的共识，即它们比以前的更好，或者至少它们有可能被其他人采用，而这些人反过来又想看看其他人在做什么。这似乎是创造性和商业活动的一个不稳定的基础--比集中式当局的强大机制所提供的要不稳定得多--但拥有万亿美元市值的公司和整个生活方式都是建立在这个基础上的。如果美国在线或CompuServe或其他一些自利的现任者提议运行一个全球可互操作的计算机网络，其价值取决于其他人的贡献，它永远不会起飞。


当NFT派对正在进行时，人们很难责怪那些作为买家和卖家出现的人，只要他们知道实际上正在交换的是什么，并意识到他们可能是最后一个持有郁金香的人，或者是现在被毁掉的班克斯印刷品的代币。

NFT的热潮，以及它背后的区块链，暴露了围绕着我们为什么要珍惜对我们来说超出任何有形价值的东西的哲学问题，以及我们放纵的信仰的飞跃，不管是明智的还是其他的，当我们购买的东西不是因为对我们有任何天生的价值，而是因为我们期望其他人以后会重视它。它的价值可以通过集体行动产生，这证明了人类事件的不可预测性，也提醒我们，生活中并非所有东西都能从自上而下的指令中获得价值。

乔纳森-齐特林是哈佛大学的法学教授和计算机科学教授，他是伯克曼-克莱因互联网与社会中心重启社会媒体研究所的共同负责人。