correction... always were worthless.

It's always been a con game.

Their so-called "value" was always determined by the ability of the person shilling it to make up bullshit. Literally the definition of a "confidence" game. Same problem as crypto in general. It's only has value if you have confidence in the person shilling it. The moment that person loses the confidence of their marks, the entire thing crumbles to nothing because it isn't backed by any real tangible assets.

Well I am shocked!

No not actually.

Out of the top collections, the most common price for an NFT is now $5-$10.

Still overpriced!

You mean to tell me that purchasing what is essentially a URL hosted on someone else's server is a poor investment?

Shocked Pikachu Face

Small correction: Even though some NFTs sold for millions, the NFTs have always been worthless.

So it was like we thought all along, cool.

Does anyone else think that NFTs are an allegory/miniature version of how art is easily commodified by capitalism? IIRC, NFTs were there to help finance artists who work on a purely digital medium, but then grifters coopted the NFT space and try to sell sets of same-looking artwork. Complete with "fandoms" and drama, as well.

The whole point was to get dollars into crypto so the holders could cash out. The value was never meant to stay.

95% seems a little low. I assume that it's closer to 99.9%.

I'm sure they were a great way to launder money at the time.

Not my Donald Trump trading cards! Nooo!

Maybe now I'll finally be able to buy the ones I want

(There aren't any)

I find it fascinating that NFTs were supposed to be a proof-of-ownership technology, but because people are stupid & greedy made pictures to sell with it

It is all worthless?

Always has been

Started laughing when nfts were introduced, still chuckle today.

It's great. Love it.

Grab the tulips! Grab them!

Shocking

well that surprised no one

Oh man. I remember getting downvoted to hell for stating that they were a scam and provided no actual value or true, to technical "non-fungibility".

Whomever named them NFTs instead of grift cards missed an opportunity.

Wowie gee whiz, no one in the universe could have seen that one coming. /s

All those rappers and celebrities with cartoon donkey and monkey profile pics showed how much for sale they are. They will promote poison to you for money

Ponzi schemes have an oversaturation problem like every other one.

My favourite part of NFT/Crypto is all of the creators that outed themselves by pushing for it, taking sponsorships, etc.

Don't put your reputation on the line to sell links to ugly JPEGs, please.

Oh no.

Anyway.

Not dissimilar to money laundering or MLMs.

The biggest operation of money laundering in the history of the world.

Now? Always were.

Lol, classic. Where's Ubisoft's NFT collection they were selling so hard last year?

NFTs are like a ticket roll, they can be quite useful, but that requires having an event or service that those tickets apply to. NFTs so far completely failed to create that. To justify the decentralized nature of NFTs you'd further have to make that ticket apply to multiple different services. That didn't happen either.

Buying your hats in a game with NFTs is pointless as long as those hats only work in that one singular game, centralized services can handle that better. On the other side, if you'd use NFTs to sell the digital games themselves, they could be quite useful and breaks through established online-store monopolies. But that of course would require different online shops to accept the same NFT, e.g. buy NFT for a game on Steam, but download it through EPIC. That's something NFTs could allow, but it would require the whole industry to play along, which due to everybody competing against each other is rather unlikely.

"Bull run"

More like Bullshit run. Literally nobody fell for the grift. Celebrities bought into it because it was a pump and dump scheme and they can afford it. There is literally no use case for NFTs and even basic normies saw that.