It's mostly to be a decentralized system. Something it will do that a simple database/ledger doesn't is if you get flooded and lose the only running Database with all the data on hand, you won't lose it. (Some games, Sims i think being one had to start over from scratch from a flood. Backups can be an option but you first have to do it regularly, and you have to be able to store it preferably in another state to prevent local disasters from affecting both copies at once. Making a backup and say putting it in your safe wouldn't help much in a number of scenarios, like fire flood, etc)

So Nine Billion dollars and burning and counting wasn't enough of a flash of the blinding obvious that Web3 is just stupid?

This is nothing that a 3-2-1 backup couldn't solve.

Did you even read the page or take a moment to scroll down it?

It's all related to the "Venture capitalists high off their own supply try to make thing" problem that the third web is all about.

Web 3.0 is about the Semantic Web

Many/most people believe that things which have no inherent value actually do. That's why, for example, they think bitcoin and/or other crypto scams are actually real legitimate money, and their delusions have made such things become massively popular.

That will probably happen with NFTs too sooner or later, even if it takes few rebrandings of them before they eventually become acceptable to the deluded general public (like, for example, how Bethesda's first attempt at implementing paid mods via horse armor failed, but then their second attempt some years later did not fail, via the "Creation Club" paid mod scam that the public did accept).

NFT are just glorified Ponzi schemes.

Yes, I'm aware. This is about Web3, the evolution of the IoS.

(No, not that IoS.)

While the thing itself is stupid and useless and is only generating useless content around it, that requires people's time, money, brainwashing and electricity to be sustained, you have to agree on one thing. Some very smart and opportunistic people made a lot of money in a short time by simply selling a captivating idea to not so smart people, who measure their ego's in money or look to gain quick income without understanding what they are getting themselves into.

Smart people should apply their skills for realizing better ideas. Not so smart people should be educated.

Can't fault the person who came up with those Monkey NFT's and made a small fortune on em... however the people who bought them.. more money than sense.

my view have always been that no one has the rights to dictate how they want to spend their own money, it is completely up to them. the thing about NFT's, though, is that there should be no illusions about what they actually are.

I typically have no issue with what people decide to do, but if it ends up forcing the hand of others who don't go along with them, then i take issue with it.

Steam, i didn't want it, but if i wanted to continue to play games, i didn't have a choice, that was taken away from me by everyone else, the choices i was left with was accept Steam, or just don't game anymore.


Thats when i take issue, when everyone jumps on the same damn bandwagon and then everyone else is just dragged along for the ride wether they like it or not... get enough people making bad decisions and thats what happens.

Much as I advocate people spending their money on vices they enjoy, I really have difficulty understanding the appeal of NFTs. They aren't recreational substances, hours of fun won't be gained from play, no exploration of distant lands, a lack of conquest, no sexual satisfaction. NFTs simply lack...anything, really.

i just came here to hit the "like" button for this

Respectfully, what kind of argument is this? By your logic, one could argue that something like "microtransactions to speed up timers" aren't anti-consumer, they're actually a symptom of hyper-consumerism. And maybe you would agree with that, at which point I would say this is a definitional issue. I am not locked in to the term "anti-consumer" necessarily, but what I mean by it is to point out a practice that is bad for some or all consumers, if not in the short term then at least certainly in the long term. In fact my comment that you replied to gave an example of this:
We have seen various gaming companies go down such paths to where they now: only make mobile games, or only make DRMed games, or only make online DRMed games, or only make pachinko machines, etc.