Follow the project on social media
Cryptocurrencies are all about this: empowering people to decide what is worthy, and what is not.
Creating a world that doesn’t need third trusted parties, with no one that has to guarantee for the value of something.
People own assets, they can’t actually touch them but they are indeed more real than any banknotes they have ever grabbed.
A technology, or better, a clever mix of technologies (hash, blockchain, distributed ledger) which allows mankind to leap over a centralized system that was taken for granted.
So NFTs should be the same: a way to guarantee uniqueness and authenticity without certification authorities, and this is clear to all.
But what about NFTs values?
Does it make sense the value of a NFT is linked to the name of its author? Is this a way to really establish democracy in the not fungible assets world?
In my humble opinion, the aim of crypto technology is not simply avoiding having an authority who guarantees for the authenticity of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre Museum, is to have a net of persons that every day can frankly ask themselves if the Mona Lisa is still worthy. A real masterpiece, like the Mona Lisa, could endurance this. It has quality, vision, history. Universality.
Most NFTs now trending, instead, are only copies of collectibles that proved to be worthy. CryptoPunks, Bored Apes are fresh ideas that can actually have potential, but right now I see tons of collectibles that can be defined only as ridiculous. No artistic values nor creative, only low-quality products to lure people exploiting an established brand: garbage.
And, even more important, the aim of the crypto ecosystem should be to have a net that doesn’t care if a certain NFT was minted by Leonardo Da Vinci or by the son of the neighbor: it looks directly to the NFT, free from preconceptions and the opinions of self-proclaimed authorities. If it strikes, it strikes.
Is it not scary? Could this lead to mediocracy? Can the average understand the excellence, or it will choose the average because it is more similar to itself?
In the end, it is scary but, at the same time, it is to believe or not in the spark at the bottom of human souls.
But there is no need to worry, it is also too late to stop: all started a long time ago, with social networks and, even before, with the World Wide Web. A chain of events which created more and more networks, stronger and stronger. As the waves of the ocean, sometimes this movement must retreat but, in the long run, the destination is clear.
Judge my NFTs for what they are, not for who I am. I am nothing more than a wallet starting with 0x.
All of you are in charge of this.
"Non mettetemi alle strette
Sono solo canzonette"
"Don't put me on the spot
They are just songs for fun"
Creating a world that doesn’t need third trusted parties, with no one that has to guarantee for the value of something.
People own assets, they can’t actually touch them but they are indeed more real than any banknotes they have ever grabbed.
A technology, or better, a clever mix of technologies (hash, blockchain, distributed ledger) which allows mankind to leap over a centralized system that was taken for granted.
So NFTs should be the same: a way to guarantee uniqueness and authenticity without certification authorities, and this is clear to all.
But what about NFTs values?
Does it make sense the value of a NFT is linked to the name of its author? Is this a way to really establish democracy in the not fungible assets world?
In my humble opinion, the aim of crypto technology is not simply avoiding having an authority who guarantees for the authenticity of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre Museum, is to have a net of persons that every day can frankly ask themselves if the Mona Lisa is still worthy. A real masterpiece, like the Mona Lisa, could endurance this. It has quality, vision, history. Universality.
Most NFTs now trending, instead, are only copies of collectibles that proved to be worthy. CryptoPunks, Bored Apes are fresh ideas that can actually have potential, but right now I see tons of collectibles that can be defined only as ridiculous. No artistic values nor creative, only low-quality products to lure people exploiting an established brand: garbage.
And, even more important, the aim of the crypto ecosystem should be to have a net that doesn’t care if a certain NFT was minted by Leonardo Da Vinci or by the son of the neighbor: it looks directly to the NFT, free from preconceptions and the opinions of self-proclaimed authorities. If it strikes, it strikes.
Is it not scary? Could this lead to mediocracy? Can the average understand the excellence, or it will choose the average because it is more similar to itself?
In the end, it is scary but, at the same time, it is to believe or not in the spark at the bottom of human souls.
But there is no need to worry, it is also too late to stop: all started a long time ago, with social networks and, even before, with the World Wide Web. A chain of events which created more and more networks, stronger and stronger. As the waves of the ocean, sometimes this movement must retreat but, in the long run, the destination is clear.
Judge my NFTs for what they are, not for who I am. I am nothing more than a wallet starting with 0x.
All of you are in charge of this.
"Non mettetemi alle strette
Sono solo canzonette"
"Don't put me on the spot
They are just songs for fun"