I dont understand NFT and certainly am not suggesting it's a great idea. But I notice a pattern among collectors. Anything new seems to get a knee jerk negative response and many times downright derision. CAC comes to mind and so does accepting bitcoin for coin purchases. We constantly talk about the need to grow the collector base and getting younger people involved. Maybe being negative towards innovative changes is not the best way to grow the hobby.
@Gazes said:
I dont understand NFT and certainly am not suggesting it's a great idea. But I notice a pattern among collectors. Anything new seems to get a knee jerk negative response and many times downright derision. CAC comes to mind and so does accepting bitcoin for coin purchases. We constantly talk about the need to grow the collector base and getting younger people involved. Maybe being negative towards innovative changes is not the best way to grow the hobby.
It's not just collectors. People just hate change.
@Gazes said:
I dont understand NFT and certainly am not suggesting it's a great idea. But I notice a pattern among collectors. Anything new seems to get a knee jerk negative response and many times downright derision. CAC comes to mind and so does accepting bitcoin for coin purchases. We constantly talk about the need to grow the collector base and getting younger people involved. Maybe being negative towards innovative changes is not the best way to grow the hobby.
It's not just collectors. People just hate change.
I think people just like real stuff, and are tired of all the fake stuff.
If I want a NFT “work” I could still posses it without the blockchain.
If I email it to the company we can all have a piece of the pie.
digital works are ripped off all the time. I don’t see a blockchain ownership helping there.
Then there is the legal aspect. First, will the government recognize a blockchain entry as proof of ownership? Then, even if there is recognition, would there also need to be some contract if rights are involved? How is the contract recorded?
...pass me over what you guys are all smoking on...in the streets, getting “block-chained” is a bad thing...however, I’m always down to give a nerd a cigars worth of time to teach me something new
Having said that, could the cert number be what is recorded in the blockchain and physical ownership change hands with a blockchain documented sale?
What if the buyer does not want to use the blockchain?
In general, if I want the “work” who wins — a blockchain or paper contract?
Blockchains contain no names, but they do provide proof of ownership in code. Some owners like anonymity. When sold how does one easily remain anonymous and maintain storage of the “work?” Will there be an NFT or paper contract to keep everyone quiet re who is storing it?
@MsMorrisine said:
Having said that, could the cert number be what is recorded in the blockchain and physical ownership change hands with a blockchain documented sale?
What happens to the blockchain when someone recertifies the coin and it gets a different number? What if it's cracked out?
@Gazes said:
I dont understand NFT and certainly am not suggesting it's a great idea. But I notice a pattern among collectors. Anything new seems to get a knee jerk negative response and many times downright derision. CAC comes to mind and so does accepting bitcoin for coin purchases. We constantly talk about the need to grow the collector base and getting younger people involved. Maybe being negative towards innovative changes is not the best way to grow the hobby.
It's not just collectors. People just hate change.
I think people just like real stuff, and are tired of all the fake stuff.
I would have zero interest in anything NFT.
It's not real versus fake. It's new versus old. People hated slabs when they first came out also. People hated ebay and PayPal.
@MsMorrisine said:
Having said that, could the cert number be what is recorded in the blockchain and physical ownership change hands with a blockchain documented sale?
What happens to the blockchain when someone recertifies the coin and it gets a different number? What if it's cracked out?
It all just gets added to the blockchain. Unless the id is the cert number, then the chain dies. If the chain is linked to the coin image...
@Gazes said:
I dont understand NFT and certainly am not suggesting it's a great idea. But I notice a pattern among collectors. Anything new seems to get a knee jerk negative response and many times downright derision. CAC comes to mind and so does accepting bitcoin for coin purchases. We constantly talk about the need to grow the collector base and getting younger people involved. Maybe being negative towards innovative changes is not the best way to grow the hobby.
It's not just collectors. People just hate change.
I think people just like real stuff, and are tired of all the fake stuff.
I would have zero interest in anything NFT.
It's not real versus fake. It's new versus old. People hated slabs when they first came out also. People hated ebay and PayPal.
I won't mention CAC. Lol
No... NFTs serve zero purpose. You either own the real thing or you dont.
People didn't hate Ebay or Paypal. Even slabs are "real".
Do people actually think others will "oh" and "ah" at their virtual coin collection?
There is nothing new about people dreaming they owned a rare coin. What is new is that they would be willing to fork over cash to own their dream. Dreams are personal. No one cares about your own dreams. If you think its important to own, then go for it. But dont expect others to see any value in it.
@Gazes said:
I dont understand NFT and certainly am not suggesting it's a great idea. But I notice a pattern among collectors. Anything new seems to get a knee jerk negative response and many times downright derision. CAC comes to mind and so does accepting bitcoin for coin purchases. We constantly talk about the need to grow the collector base and getting younger people involved. Maybe being negative towards innovative changes is not the best way to grow the hobby.
It's not just collectors. People just hate change.
I think people just like real stuff, and are tired of all the fake stuff.
I would have zero interest in anything NFT.
It's not real versus fake. It's new versus old. People hated slabs when they first came out also. People hated ebay and PayPal.
I won't mention CAC. Lol
No... NFTs serve zero purpose. You either own the real thing or you dont.
People didn't hate Ebay or Paypal. Even slabs are "real".
Do people actually think others will "oh" and "ah" at their virtual coin collection?
There is nothing new about people dreaming they owned a rare coin. What is new is that they would be willing to fork over cash to own their dream. Dreams are personal. No one cares about your own dreams. If you think its important to own, then go for it. But dont expect others to see any value in it.
People absolutely hated eBAy and PayPal. The venom directed at eBay for incorporating PayPal at the beginning was tangible. I still know people who hate both.
Again, the point is that people hate change. It has nothing to do with real or fake. In fact, the line between "real" and "fake" isn't as obvious as you make it out. The vast majority of your assets are digital. There is not a pile of money at your bank with your name on it.
You are not understanding the NFT. Personally, I don't see the point for coins. BUT, the NFT represents ownership of the coin and comes WITH the coin. The same is true with prior applications of NFT's. They are really not much different than the deed to your house. It represents ownership along with the blockchain history of prior ownership. It is attached TO THE COIN, it is not in place of the coin.
What's to prevent someone owning a famous coin from creating more than one FTE's of that coin?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
All this talk about buying electrons makes me wonder if some folks are hoping they can be transported into the digital world. Makes a movie like Matrix come to mind.
A NFT is not tied to a physical object. The NFT asset itself is the non-fungible item as the name implies. For coins this would NOT be a picture of a coin. That already happens with a true-view.
For those that have kids that play video games, a NFT is like buying an add-on for a character in a game. It's not something you can physically possess, but something that you own, virtually, that has some value.
@nags said:
A NFT is not tied to a physical object. The NFT asset itself is the non-fungible item as the name implies. For coins this would NOT be a picture of a coin. That already happens with a true-view.
For those that have kids that play video games, a NFT is like buying an add-on for a character in a game. It's not something you can physically possess, but something that you own, virtually, that has some value.
This is not actually true. The majority of NFT's are tied to digital assets. This is not a necessity. Some NFT's are tied to physical objects.
@MsMorrisine said:
Having said that, could the cert number be what is recorded in the blockchain and physical ownership change hands with a blockchain documented sale?
What happens to the blockchain when someone recertifies the coin and it gets a different number? What if it's cracked out?
Pcgs would have to work that out
What happens when a digital “work” is deleted by accident?
Cars have VINs, perhaps they could NFT. Until they are scrapped?
Not for me. I like a tangible collection, but I can see how some might like to own the next best thing of the item if they can not afford the original.
@divecchia said:
Not for me. I like a tangible collection, but I can see how some might like to own the next best thing of the item if they can not afford the original.
Donato
As @ErrorsOnCoins has suggested, the collection would be tangible. It would just have an NFT attached to it as a certificate of ownership or even a provenance.
@divecchia said:
Not for me. I like a tangible collection, but I can see how some might like to own the next best thing of the item if they can not afford the original.
Donato
As @ErrorsOnCoins has suggested, the collection would be tangible. It would just have an NFT attached to it as a certificate of ownership or even a provenance.
This is what makes this idea a non starter for me, if I already have the item in my hand I see no use for the NFT. I get where the NFT is useful for digital items that you cannot hold in your hand, I just don't see the value for it in this application.
@divecchia said:
Not for me. I like a tangible collection, but I can see how some might like to own the next best thing of the item if they can not afford the original.
Donato
As @ErrorsOnCoins has suggested, the collection would be tangible. It would just have an NFT attached to it as a certificate of ownership or even a provenance.
This is what makes this idea a non starter for me, if I already have the item in my hand I see no use for the NFT. I get where the NFT is useful for digital items that you cannot hold in your hand, I just don't see the value for it in this application.
It would be a "show piece" in a NFT portfolio for the rich.
At a cocktail party, one could show off their NFT portfolio (of all their various NFTs) on a digital device and say on this one, I also own the real coin.
@divecchia said:
Not for me. I like a tangible collection, but I can see how some might like to own the next best thing of the item if they can not afford the original.
Donato
As @ErrorsOnCoins has suggested, the collection would be tangible. It would just have an NFT attached to it as a certificate of ownership or even a provenance.
This is what makes this idea a non starter for me, if I already have the item in my hand I see no use for the NFT. I get where the NFT is useful for digital items that you cannot hold in your hand, I just don't see the value for it in this application.
It would be a "show piece" in a NFT portfolio for the rich.
At a cocktail party, one could show off their NFT portfolio (of all their various NFTs) on a digital device and say on this one, I also own the real coin.
A bragging contest does not impress me, I guess it does for some.
@divecchia said:
Not for me. I like a tangible collection, but I can see how some might like to own the next best thing of the item if they can not afford the original.
Donato
As @ErrorsOnCoins has suggested, the collection would be tangible. It would just have an NFT attached to it as a certificate of ownership or even a provenance.
This is what makes this idea a non starter for me, if I already have the item in my hand I see no use for the NFT. I get where the NFT is useful for digital items that you cannot hold in your hand, I just don't see the value for it in this application.
It would be a "show piece" in a NFT portfolio for the rich.
At a cocktail party, one could show off their NFT portfolio (of all their various NFTs) on a digital device and say on this one, I also own the real coin.
A bragging contest does not impress me, I guess it does for some.
Not everyone that participates in the registry or collects top grade coins does so to brag about it, possibly some do but not all. It is presumptuous for anyone to assume that a top ranked set in any registry is actually the very best set, not every collection is listed in a registry. And I've seen many coins at the under grade level that are (imo) nicer more appealing coins to view, registries are a numbers game which does not automatically equate to the nicest just the best number.
@divecchia said:
Not for me. I like a tangible collection, but I can see how some might like to own the next best thing of the item if they can not afford the original.
Donato
As @ErrorsOnCoins has suggested, the collection would be tangible. It would just have an NFT attached to it as a certificate of ownership or even a provenance.
This is what makes this idea a non starter for me, if I already have the item in my hand I see no use for the NFT. I get where the NFT is useful for digital items that you cannot hold in your hand, I just don't see the value for it in this application.
It would be a non-starter in that context because that's not how it would work. A NFT can represent a physical asset, but that is just a ledger of ownership and creates no value as the NFT isn't the item owned itself. To have any stand alone value an NFT has to be a limited digital asset.
For coins it would be like the US mint selling 100 NFTs for each version of the 2021 Gold Eagles. It would be a digital version of the coin not tied to a physical asset. If the mint did this, and there was a registry, they would sell.
@divecchia said:
Not for me. I like a tangible collection, but I can see how some might like to own the next best thing of the item if they can not afford the original.
Donato
As @ErrorsOnCoins has suggested, the collection would be tangible. It would just have an NFT attached to it as a certificate of ownership or even a provenance.
This is what makes this idea a non starter for me, if I already have the item in my hand I see no use for the NFT. I get where the NFT is useful for digital items that you cannot hold in your hand, I just don't see the value for it in this application.
It would be a non-starter in that context because that's not how it would work. A NFT can represent a physical asset, but that is just a ledger of ownership and creates no value as the NFT isn't the item owned itself. To have any stand alone value an NFT has to be a limited digital asset.
For coins it would be like the US mint selling 100 NFTs for each version of the 2021 Gold Eagles. It would be a digital version of the coin not tied to a physical asset. If the mint did this, and there was a registry, they would sell.
Again, this isn't exactly true. The NFT, as a ledger of ownership, would be a complete provenance for a coin. This does create (potentially) value. Again, I personally don't see the need for NFT's on coins, however, I don't think you can definitively say it has no value. It only has no value if having "Eliasberg" or "Simpson" or "Pittman" on a slab has no value. The fact is some people value provenance.
Not everyone that participates in the registry or collects top grade coins does so to brag about it, possibly some do but not all. It is presumptuous for anyone to assume that a top ranked set in any registry is actually the very best set, not every collection is listed in a registry. And I've seen many coins at the under grade level that are (imo) nicer more appealing coins to view, registries are a numbers game which does not automatically equate to the nicest just the best number.
You can try to make that case. However, the registry works because it appeals to people's vanity. Look how many people spend $35 to slab $5 coins to complete and/or compete in their registry.
And now you have custom registry sets for people to create their own idea of a collection.
Registry sets were brilliant marketing because of their appeal to vanity, not in spite of it.
I would not dismiss NFT's so definitively. I personally don't see the need. But, frankly, I also don't see the need for a lot of slabbing that goes on. I don't care that much about provenance. But as long as people care about either one, there is potentially a market for the NFT. It may take a while for old-timers to get with the program. But ask the old-timers how many people balked at slabs in 1980. How many people still balk at CAC?
@divecchia said:
Not for me. I like a tangible collection, but I can see how some might like to own the next best thing of the item if they can not afford the original.
Donato
As @ErrorsOnCoins has suggested, the collection would be tangible. It would just have an NFT attached to it as a certificate of ownership or even a provenance.
This is what makes this idea a non starter for me, if I already have the item in my hand I see no use for the NFT. I get where the NFT is useful for digital items that you cannot hold in your hand, I just don't see the value for it in this application.
It would be a "show piece" in a NFT portfolio for the rich.
At a cocktail party, one could show off their NFT portfolio (of all their various NFTs) on a digital device and say on this one, I also own the real coin.
I don't know that it really works as a show piece for an article you don't physically own. I do think you could make the case that it has value as provenance and as a certificate of ownership.
Although I do wonder if one could sell a limited number of NFT's on a coin like a 1913 "V" nickel that gave you ownership of a high res or 3-D image of the coin. Maybe Bruce @tradedollarnut wants to defer the cost of his recent addition by selling a limited edition of 500 NFT's for a 3-D image of the coin. Given the near impossibility of adding such an item to your physical collection, there might be a market for such a thing.
@divecchia said:
Not for me. I like a tangible collection, but I can see how some might like to own the next best thing of the item if they can not afford the original.
Donato
As @ErrorsOnCoins has suggested, the collection would be tangible. It would just have an NFT attached to it as a certificate of ownership or even a provenance.
This is what makes this idea a non starter for me, if I already have the item in my hand I see no use for the NFT. I get where the NFT is useful for digital items that you cannot hold in your hand, I just don't see the value for it in this application.
It would be a non-starter in that context because that's not how it would work. A NFT can represent a physical asset, but that is just a ledger of ownership and creates no value as the NFT isn't the item owned itself. To have any stand alone value an NFT has to be a limited digital asset.
For coins it would be like the US mint selling 100 NFTs for each version of the 2021 Gold Eagles. It would be a digital version of the coin not tied to a physical asset. If the mint did this, and there was a registry, they would sell.
Again, this isn't exactly true. The NFT, as a ledger of ownership, would be a complete provenance for a coin. This does create (potentially) value. Again, I personally don't see the need for NFT's on coins, however, I don't think you can definitively say it has no value. It only has no value if having "Eliasberg" or "Simpson" or "Pittman" on a slab has no value. The fact is some people value provenance.
We already essentially have that now with cert numbers, auction history, and registries. To have any extra value it would have to be a stand-alone digital asset.
This has already happened with sports and pop culture collectibles. The NFTs with value are stand-alone digital assets. A Kobe digital card as an NFT can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars , not an NFT to show ownership of an existing physical card.
@divecchia said:
Not for me. I like a tangible collection, but I can see how some might like to own the next best thing of the item if they can not afford the original.
Donato
As @ErrorsOnCoins has suggested, the collection would be tangible. It would just have an NFT attached to it as a certificate of ownership or even a provenance.
This is what makes this idea a non starter for me, if I already have the item in my hand I see no use for the NFT. I get where the NFT is useful for digital items that you cannot hold in your hand, I just don't see the value for it in this application.
It would be a non-starter in that context because that's not how it would work. A NFT can represent a physical asset, but that is just a ledger of ownership and creates no value as the NFT isn't the item owned itself. To have any stand alone value an NFT has to be a limited digital asset.
For coins it would be like the US mint selling 100 NFTs for each version of the 2021 Gold Eagles. It would be a digital version of the coin not tied to a physical asset. If the mint did this, and there was a registry, they would sell.
Again, this isn't exactly true. The NFT, as a ledger of ownership, would be a complete provenance for a coin. This does create (potentially) value. Again, I personally don't see the need for NFT's on coins, however, I don't think you can definitively say it has no value. It only has no value if having "Eliasberg" or "Simpson" or "Pittman" on a slab has no value. The fact is some people value provenance.
We already essentially have that now with cert numbers, auction history, and registries. To have any extra value it would have to be a stand-alone digital asset.
This has already happened with sports and pop culture collectibles. The NFTs with value are stand-alone digital assets. A Kobe digital card as an NFT can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars , not an NFT to show ownership of an existing physical card.
I don't think people will pay thousands for NFT's of physical assets alone. However, that is not the same as saying NFT's wouldn't have value as part of the physical asset.
Does a PCGS slab add value to a raw coin? Yes, even though it's the same coin.
Does a True View image add value to the PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
Does a CAC sticker add value to the PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
Does provenance add value to the CAC stickered PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
While I don't need or want NFT's myself, I would not be so quick to dismiss them.
I don't think people will pay thousands for NFT's of physical assets alone. However, that is not the same as saying NFT's wouldn't have value as part of the physical asset.
Does a PCGS slab add value to a raw coin? Yes, even though it's the same coin.
Does a True View image add value to the PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
Does a CAC sticker add value to the PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
Does provenance add value to the CAC stickered PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
While I don't need or want NFT's myself, I would not be so quick to dismiss them.
I agree that all those things add value. The NFT market is pretty clear as far as what is valuable and what isn't. There may be something out there, but I am not aware of any NFT being done for what you are suggesting. There is partial ownership of physical assets...
I'd be curious to see if a US mInt NFT would sell. If they issued a press release saying that for the next 10 years they are committed to selling 100 of each eagle released in the form of a NFT at the same issue price as the physical version.
I don't think people will pay thousands for NFT's of physical assets alone. However, that is not the same as saying NFT's wouldn't have value as part of the physical asset.
Does a PCGS slab add value to a raw coin? Yes, even though it's the same coin.
Does a True View image add value to the PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
Does a CAC sticker add value to the PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
Does provenance add value to the CAC stickered PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
While I don't need or want NFT's myself, I would not be so quick to dismiss them.
I agree that all those things add value. The NFT market is pretty clear as far as what is valuable and what isn't. There may be something out there, but I am not aware of any NFT being done for what you are suggesting. There is partial ownership of physical assets...
I'd be curious to see if a US mInt NFT would sell. If they issued a press release saying that for the next 10 years they are committed to selling 100 of each eagle released in the form of a NFT at the same issue price as the physical version.
I don't know about an eagle, since you could buy the physical. But what if they sold 100 (or 500 or 1000) 3-D models of rejected proposals for commemoratives. You would essentially be buying digital patterns. In that case, you could well have competition to complete a set of a scarce commodity.
[Dear Mr. Ryder, I'd like credit for the suggestion!]
So, copies?
And the inevitable copies and more copies of the copies?
What's to stop the reproductions and counterfeits?
Ohh, that digital construct is the real one?
😂
@Baley said:
Agree! I'm not at all interested in buying any NFTs.. but I'm very much looking forward to creating and selling lots and lots of them!
😉
Gotta love wealth redistribution and capitalism. Quite ironic actually.
The bottom very well may fall out of the NFTs, bitcoin... but I definitely would not be shorting them.
I have an 18 yr old son that I was talking with him and a couple of his buddies about the NBA hotshots NFTs and those sorts of things. It's completely obvious to them, and preferable to physical objects.
I asked them if they would rather have $20 or a new jersey for their online NBA player. No hesitation, new jersey because it's worth way more and they value it more than $20.
I grew up in a tangible world, they are growing up in a digital world. Most of the value of collectibles is based on demand, not the intrinsic value of the physical item. A Michael Jordan rookie card is $.01 of cardboard. I'd prefer it in cardboard , my son would prefer it on his phone, or better yet, rotating above his online player's head to indicate he's a badass.
I don't think people will pay thousands for NFT's of physical assets alone. However, that is not the same as saying NFT's wouldn't have value as part of the physical asset.
Does a PCGS slab add value to a raw coin? Yes, even though it's the same coin.
Does a True View image add value to the PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
Does a CAC sticker add value to the PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
Does provenance add value to the CAC stickered PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
While I don't need or want NFT's myself, I would not be so quick to dismiss them.
I agree that all those things add value. The NFT market is pretty clear as far as what is valuable and what isn't. There may be something out there, but I am not aware of any NFT being done for what you are suggesting. There is partial ownership of physical assets...
I'd be curious to see if a US mInt NFT would sell. If they issued a press release saying that for the next 10 years they are committed to selling 100 of each eagle released in the form of a NFT at the same issue price as the physical version.
I don't know about an eagle, since you could buy the physical. But what if they sold 100 (or 500 or 1000) 3-D models of rejected proposals for commemoratives. You would essentially be buying digital patterns. In that case, you could well have competition to complete a set of a scarce commodity.
[Dear Mr. Ryder, I'd like credit for the suggestion!]
I'd go with the eagles. They could be included in the registry sets and collectors may want them to complete their sets. They would be the lowest minted eagles. My guess is there is more demand for eagles. It would be very similar to just another "finish" in the eagles.
I don't think people will pay thousands for NFT's of physical assets alone. However, that is not the same as saying NFT's wouldn't have value as part of the physical asset.
Does a PCGS slab add value to a raw coin? Yes, even though it's the same coin.
Does a True View image add value to the PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
Does a CAC sticker add value to the PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
Does provenance add value to the CAC stickered PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
While I don't need or want NFT's myself, I would not be so quick to dismiss them.
I agree that all those things add value. The NFT market is pretty clear as far as what is valuable and what isn't. There may be something out there, but I am not aware of any NFT being done for what you are suggesting. There is partial ownership of physical assets...
I'd be curious to see if a US mInt NFT would sell. If they issued a press release saying that for the next 10 years they are committed to selling 100 of each eagle released in the form of a NFT at the same issue price as the physical version.
I don't know about an eagle, since you could buy the physical. But what if they sold 100 (or 500 or 1000) 3-D models of rejected proposals for commemoratives. You would essentially be buying digital patterns. In that case, you could well have competition to complete a set of a scarce commodity.
[Dear Mr. Ryder, I'd like credit for the suggestion!]
I'd go with the eagles. They could be included in the registry sets and collectors may want them to complete their sets. They would be the lowest minted eagles. My guess is there is more demand for eagles. It would be very similar to just another "finish" in the eagles.
Except if it is not "another finish", you bump up against all the people on here who would prefer the physical object. To YOUR earlier point, if there is no physical alternative, you might have a lot more interest.
@jmlanzaf said:
if there is no physical alternative, you might have a lot more interest.
Or very likely, none at all.
You say because you don't embrace digital. Given the $70 million NFT that sold recently, you do not necessarily represent the market.
Nor does a convoluted transaction by a crypto promoter.
Some may say the Mona Lisa is priceless, while others may say its worthless. IMO, its quite easy to argue a 1/2 inch wrench is more valuable.
A 1/2 inch wrench is useless if I'm feeding a baby.
You are allowed to stay out of any market you want. You can consider coins to be worthless trinkets. You can reject old U.S. silver and gold coins as being debased bullion. Totally you're right. HOWEVER, your opinion is not a market analysis. Objectivity is required.
Personally, I have no interest in NFTs. However, I do recognize that it could well be a vibrant market and am not willing to dismiss it out of hand.
There is a lot of misconception about blockchain, cyrpto, NFTs, only because they have only been used for what seems silly. NFTs can represent both physical and digital things, so we are talking about real coins here. Basically an NFT is like a digital certificate of authenticity. When PCGS, NGC etc. certifies a coin, they would create an NFT. Think of it like a standardized form that would be filled out by the grading service. The appeal to this system is in the technology behind NFT's and blockchain. Currently grading companies keep a database of all the coins they certify, and the serial numbers on the slabs are used to reference the information in their database. A blockchain is just a way to store information, like a spreadsheet or a database. When you're talking about crypto currency it is a ledger of transactions that records a transfer of value between two people. When you're talking about NFTs it's a database of information about unique objects that have value.
When a grading service issues an NFT, this information is entered into the blockchain (just a simple example):
NFT address: 12345
Date: 7/27/2021
Coin information: 1954 US Quarter
Grade: MS 64+
A unique certification number: 987654321
Grading service information: PCGS
Owner address: 112233 (PCGS is the owner)
Then PCGS will transfer that NFT to the owner of the coin, John Doe. When that happens, this information is entered into the ledger.
NTF address: 12345
Sender address: 112233 (PCGS)
Receiver address: 445566 (John Doe -- names are not used)
Value: $100
If you sell your coin to someone, this information is entered:
Blockchains are decentralized. Instead of a company having all this information on a server, thousands of people have a copy on their computers. Every time a transition takes place, one of those computers is chosen at random to verify and add the new information, and then every other computer is updated. It's important to note that no information is ever removed from a blockchain, all new information about an NFT is just added to the end of the chain, and all previous information about an NFT remains linked to it.
Blockchains are incredibly secure. It is virtually impossible to change information on it or enter faulty information into it. This is made possible by highly complex cryptographic mathematics. You can think of it as etching information in digital stone. Additionally, blockchains are not owned by anyone which means you don't have to trust anyone with that information. In a world where facebook and Google have our information and do what they want with it, many would find this appealing as it takes away their ownership of us.
There are a few reasons I think this would be valuable to the coin collecting community:
It standardizes record keeping information. Regardless of who is grading the coin, they fill out the same "form."
Transferring NFTs kills two birds with one stone: Its a transaction that transfers money and information at the same time.
Standardized information leads to compatibility because everyone is using the same system, the same form. This creates the possible to remove intermediaries, anyone that exists between you and the person you are buying a coin from. For example, when you buy a coin online there are at least two entities between you and the seller: the marketplace you are purchasing from (ebay) and the financial institution that exchanges the money (bank, Visa, PayPal, etc). All of those entities take money out of the community. With blockchain and NFTs, no one gets a cut.
I'm writing this because there are projects currently being developed to enable the utility of NFTs in ways that are actually useful, and I am interested in exploring the possibility of an NFT platform for coin collecting. I understand why there is resistance to this because the current main stream explanation about NFTs revolves around people selling strange digital art for crazy amounts of money. I'm wondering if the explanation I just gave changes anyone's idea of what an NFT is, and if so is it something anyone thinks might be useful? I'm happy to answer any questions, and I thank you for your time.
No interest in Digital coins/NFT's or whatever.....I do love TrueView's however, but that's just nice photography. Hell, I actually had the idea that I wanted all of my slabbed coins cracked out, and raw, so I could really inspect them. Gotta be able to HOLD stuff!
Comments
I dont understand NFT and certainly am not suggesting it's a great idea. But I notice a pattern among collectors. Anything new seems to get a knee jerk negative response and many times downright derision. CAC comes to mind and so does accepting bitcoin for coin purchases. We constantly talk about the need to grow the collector base and getting younger people involved. Maybe being negative towards innovative changes is not the best way to grow the hobby.
It just depends, if I can get The CACS on my NTFs I'm all in. Big Time!!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
It's not just collectors. People just hate change.
I think people just like real stuff, and are tired of all the fake stuff.
I would have zero interest in anything NFT.
If I want a NFT “work” I could still posses it without the blockchain.
If I email it to the company we can all have a piece of the pie.
digital works are ripped off all the time. I don’t see a blockchain ownership helping there.
Then there is the legal aspect. First, will the government recognize a blockchain entry as proof of ownership? Then, even if there is recognition, would there also need to be some contract if rights are involved? How is the contract recorded?
...pass me over what you guys are all smoking on...in the streets, getting “block-chained” is a bad thing...however, I’m always down to give a nerd a cigars worth of time to teach me something new
Will anyone want to buy NFTs to own my forum posts?
Having said that, could the cert number be what is recorded in the blockchain and physical ownership change hands with a blockchain documented sale?
What if the buyer does not want to use the blockchain?
In general, if I want the “work” who wins — a blockchain or paper contract?
Blockchains contain no names, but they do provide proof of ownership in code. Some owners like anonymity. When sold how does one easily remain anonymous and maintain storage of the “work?” Will there be an NFT or paper contract to keep everyone quiet re who is storing it?
What happens to the blockchain when someone recertifies the coin and it gets a different number? What if it's cracked out?
It's not real versus fake. It's new versus old. People hated slabs when they first came out also. People hated ebay and PayPal.
I won't mention CAC. Lol
It all just gets added to the blockchain. Unless the id is the cert number, then the chain dies. If the chain is linked to the coin image...
No... NFTs serve zero purpose. You either own the real thing or you dont.
People didn't hate Ebay or Paypal. Even slabs are "real".
Do people actually think others will "oh" and "ah" at their virtual coin collection?
There is nothing new about people dreaming they owned a rare coin. What is new is that they would be willing to fork over cash to own their dream. Dreams are personal. No one cares about your own dreams. If you think its important to own, then go for it. But dont expect others to see any value in it.
People absolutely hated eBAy and PayPal. The venom directed at eBay for incorporating PayPal at the beginning was tangible. I still know people who hate both.
Again, the point is that people hate change. It has nothing to do with real or fake. In fact, the line between "real" and "fake" isn't as obvious as you make it out. The vast majority of your assets are digital. There is not a pile of money at your bank with your name on it.
You are not understanding the NFT. Personally, I don't see the point for coins. BUT, the NFT represents ownership of the coin and comes WITH the coin. The same is true with prior applications of NFT's. They are really not much different than the deed to your house. It represents ownership along with the blockchain history of prior ownership. It is attached TO THE COIN, it is not in place of the coin.
What's to prevent someone owning a famous coin from creating more than one FTE's of that coin?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
All this talk about buying electrons makes me wonder if some folks are hoping they can be transported into the digital world. Makes a movie like Matrix come to mind.
What prevents someone from issuing more than one deed to your house?
A NFT is not tied to a physical object. The NFT asset itself is the non-fungible item as the name implies. For coins this would NOT be a picture of a coin. That already happens with a true-view.
For those that have kids that play video games, a NFT is like buying an add-on for a character in a game. It's not something you can physically possess, but something that you own, virtually, that has some value.
This is not actually true. The majority of NFT's are tied to digital assets. This is not a necessity. Some NFT's are tied to physical objects.
https://releaseyourdigitaltalent.com/invest-in-non-fungible-tokens/#:~:text=Non-fungible tokens can be tied to physical objects.,token. 2. Creates value for the tokenized asset
https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2021/02/26/what-is-an-nft-and-should-you-buy-one/?sh=6073a1af24b2
Pcgs would have to work that out
What happens when a digital “work” is deleted by accident?
Cars have VINs, perhaps they could NFT. Until they are scrapped?
Not for me. I like a tangible collection, but I can see how some might like to own the next best thing of the item if they can not afford the original.
Donato
Donato's Complete US Type Set ---- Donato's Dansco 7070 Modified Type Set ---- Donato's Basic U.S. Coin Design Set
Successful transactions: Shrub68 (Jim), MWallace (Mike)
As @ErrorsOnCoins has suggested, the collection would be tangible. It would just have an NFT attached to it as a certificate of ownership or even a provenance.
No I have no interest in that.> @jmlanzaf said:
This is what makes this idea a non starter for me, if I already have the item in my hand I see no use for the NFT. I get where the NFT is useful for digital items that you cannot hold in your hand, I just don't see the value for it in this application.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
It would be a "show piece" in a NFT portfolio for the rich.
At a cocktail party, one could show off their NFT portfolio (of all their various NFTs) on a digital device and say on this one, I also own the real coin.
A bragging contest does not impress me, I guess it does for some.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
PCGS Registry Sets
Top 20 Coins
Etc.
No thanks. Not for me.
Not everyone that participates in the registry or collects top grade coins does so to brag about it, possibly some do but not all. It is presumptuous for anyone to assume that a top ranked set in any registry is actually the very best set, not every collection is listed in a registry. And I've seen many coins at the under grade level that are (imo) nicer more appealing coins to view, registries are a numbers game which does not automatically equate to the nicest just the best number.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
It would be a non-starter in that context because that's not how it would work. A NFT can represent a physical asset, but that is just a ledger of ownership and creates no value as the NFT isn't the item owned itself. To have any stand alone value an NFT has to be a limited digital asset.
For coins it would be like the US mint selling 100 NFTs for each version of the 2021 Gold Eagles. It would be a digital version of the coin not tied to a physical asset. If the mint did this, and there was a registry, they would sell.
Again, this isn't exactly true. The NFT, as a ledger of ownership, would be a complete provenance for a coin. This does create (potentially) value. Again, I personally don't see the need for NFT's on coins, however, I don't think you can definitively say it has no value. It only has no value if having "Eliasberg" or "Simpson" or "Pittman" on a slab has no value. The fact is some people value provenance.
You can try to make that case. However, the registry works because it appeals to people's vanity. Look how many people spend $35 to slab $5 coins to complete and/or compete in their registry.
And now you have custom registry sets for people to create their own idea of a collection.
Registry sets were brilliant marketing because of their appeal to vanity, not in spite of it.
I would not dismiss NFT's so definitively. I personally don't see the need. But, frankly, I also don't see the need for a lot of slabbing that goes on. I don't care that much about provenance. But as long as people care about either one, there is potentially a market for the NFT. It may take a while for old-timers to get with the program. But ask the old-timers how many people balked at slabs in 1980. How many people still balk at CAC?
I don't know that it really works as a show piece for an article you don't physically own. I do think you could make the case that it has value as provenance and as a certificate of ownership.
Although I do wonder if one could sell a limited number of NFT's on a coin like a 1913 "V" nickel that gave you ownership of a high res or 3-D image of the coin. Maybe Bruce @tradedollarnut wants to defer the cost of his recent addition by selling a limited edition of 500 NFT's for a 3-D image of the coin. Given the near impossibility of adding such an item to your physical collection, there might be a market for such a thing.
We already essentially have that now with cert numbers, auction history, and registries. To have any extra value it would have to be a stand-alone digital asset.
This has already happened with sports and pop culture collectibles. The NFTs with value are stand-alone digital assets. A Kobe digital card as an NFT can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars , not an NFT to show ownership of an existing physical card.
I don't think people will pay thousands for NFT's of physical assets alone. However, that is not the same as saying NFT's wouldn't have value as part of the physical asset.
Does a PCGS slab add value to a raw coin? Yes, even though it's the same coin.
Does a True View image add value to the PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
Does a CAC sticker add value to the PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
Does provenance add value to the CAC stickered PCGS slab? For many people, yes.
While I don't need or want NFT's myself, I would not be so quick to dismiss them.
Agree! I'm not at all interested in buying any NFTs.. but I'm very much looking forward to creating and selling lots and lots of them!
😉
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Gotta love wealth redistribution and capitalism. Quite ironic actually.
I agree that all those things add value. The NFT market is pretty clear as far as what is valuable and what isn't. There may be something out there, but I am not aware of any NFT being done for what you are suggesting. There is partial ownership of physical assets...
I'd be curious to see if a US mInt NFT would sell. If they issued a press release saying that for the next 10 years they are committed to selling 100 of each eagle released in the form of a NFT at the same issue price as the physical version.
I don't know about an eagle, since you could buy the physical. But what if they sold 100 (or 500 or 1000) 3-D models of rejected proposals for commemoratives. You would essentially be buying digital patterns. In that case, you could well have competition to complete a set of a scarce commodity.
[Dear Mr. Ryder, I'd like credit for the suggestion!]
So, copies?
And the inevitable copies and more copies of the copies?
What's to stop the reproductions and counterfeits?
Ohh, that digital construct is the real one?
😂
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
no thanks i'll stick with collecting coins not slabs
Aug 11th
Really? You do know that all of your coins are copies.
And some coins have "restrikes" which are later copies.
And look how much people pay in the coin world for bad copies where a mistake was made.
The bottom very well may fall out of the NFTs, bitcoin... but I definitely would not be shorting them.
I have an 18 yr old son that I was talking with him and a couple of his buddies about the NBA hotshots NFTs and those sorts of things. It's completely obvious to them, and preferable to physical objects.
I asked them if they would rather have $20 or a new jersey for their online NBA player. No hesitation, new jersey because it's worth way more and they value it more than $20.
I grew up in a tangible world, they are growing up in a digital world. Most of the value of collectibles is based on demand, not the intrinsic value of the physical item. A Michael Jordan rookie card is $.01 of cardboard. I'd prefer it in cardboard , my son would prefer it on his phone, or better yet, rotating above his online player's head to indicate he's a badass.
I'd go with the eagles. They could be included in the registry sets and collectors may want them to complete their sets. They would be the lowest minted eagles. My guess is there is more demand for eagles. It would be very similar to just another "finish" in the eagles.
Except if it is not "another finish", you bump up against all the people on here who would prefer the physical object. To YOUR earlier point, if there is no physical alternative, you might have a lot more interest.
Or very likely, none at all.
You say because you don't embrace digital. Given the $70 million NFT that sold recently, you do not necessarily represent the market.
Nor does a convoluted transaction by a crypto promoter.
Some may say the Mona Lisa is priceless, while others may say its worthless. IMO, its quite easy to argue a 1/2 inch wrench is more valuable.
A 1/2 inch wrench is useless if I'm feeding a baby.
You are allowed to stay out of any market you want. You can consider coins to be worthless trinkets. You can reject old U.S. silver and gold coins as being debased bullion. Totally you're right. HOWEVER, your opinion is not a market analysis. Objectivity is required.
Personally, I have no interest in NFTs. However, I do recognize that it could well be a vibrant market and am not willing to dismiss it out of hand.
There is a lot of misconception about blockchain, cyrpto, NFTs, only because they have only been used for what seems silly. NFTs can represent both physical and digital things, so we are talking about real coins here. Basically an NFT is like a digital certificate of authenticity. When PCGS, NGC etc. certifies a coin, they would create an NFT. Think of it like a standardized form that would be filled out by the grading service. The appeal to this system is in the technology behind NFT's and blockchain. Currently grading companies keep a database of all the coins they certify, and the serial numbers on the slabs are used to reference the information in their database. A blockchain is just a way to store information, like a spreadsheet or a database. When you're talking about crypto currency it is a ledger of transactions that records a transfer of value between two people. When you're talking about NFTs it's a database of information about unique objects that have value.
When a grading service issues an NFT, this information is entered into the blockchain (just a simple example):
NFT address: 12345
Date: 7/27/2021
Coin information: 1954 US Quarter
Grade: MS 64+
A unique certification number: 987654321
Grading service information: PCGS
Owner address: 112233 (PCGS is the owner)
Then PCGS will transfer that NFT to the owner of the coin, John Doe. When that happens, this information is entered into the ledger.
NTF address: 12345
Sender address: 112233 (PCGS)
Receiver address: 445566 (John Doe -- names are not used)
Value: $100
If you sell your coin to someone, this information is entered:
NTF address: 12345
Sender address: 445566 (John Doe)
Receiver address: 778899 (Fred Buyer)
Value: $120 (agreed upon amount)
Blockchains are decentralized. Instead of a company having all this information on a server, thousands of people have a copy on their computers. Every time a transition takes place, one of those computers is chosen at random to verify and add the new information, and then every other computer is updated. It's important to note that no information is ever removed from a blockchain, all new information about an NFT is just added to the end of the chain, and all previous information about an NFT remains linked to it.
Blockchains are incredibly secure. It is virtually impossible to change information on it or enter faulty information into it. This is made possible by highly complex cryptographic mathematics. You can think of it as etching information in digital stone. Additionally, blockchains are not owned by anyone which means you don't have to trust anyone with that information. In a world where facebook and Google have our information and do what they want with it, many would find this appealing as it takes away their ownership of us.
There are a few reasons I think this would be valuable to the coin collecting community:
It standardizes record keeping information. Regardless of who is grading the coin, they fill out the same "form."
Transferring NFTs kills two birds with one stone: Its a transaction that transfers money and information at the same time.
Standardized information leads to compatibility because everyone is using the same system, the same form. This creates the possible to remove intermediaries, anyone that exists between you and the person you are buying a coin from. For example, when you buy a coin online there are at least two entities between you and the seller: the marketplace you are purchasing from (ebay) and the financial institution that exchanges the money (bank, Visa, PayPal, etc). All of those entities take money out of the community. With blockchain and NFTs, no one gets a cut.
I'm writing this because there are projects currently being developed to enable the utility of NFTs in ways that are actually useful, and I am interested in exploring the possibility of an NFT platform for coin collecting. I understand why there is resistance to this because the current main stream explanation about NFTs revolves around people selling strange digital art for crazy amounts of money. I'm wondering if the explanation I just gave changes anyone's idea of what an NFT is, and if so is it something anyone thinks might be useful? I'm happy to answer any questions, and I thank you for your time.
To answer the original question, I would say no
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
No interest in Digital coins/NFT's or whatever.....I do love TrueView's however, but that's just nice photography. Hell, I actually had the idea that I wanted all of my slabbed coins cracked out, and raw, so I could really inspect them. Gotta be able to HOLD stuff!