NFTs, a tool for authors or scammers?

I understand that it is a novelty and that many are obtaining important profits thanks to this particular form of digital business called Non Fungible Token (NFT), but the truth is that this type of business seems to me to be another form of scam like binary options, Ponzi schemes or even money laundering.

Recently the world came to a standstill when Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced that the auction for his first published tweet closed with an amount of US$ 2.9 million, which was acquired by Oracle Chief Executive Sina Stevi, who became the brand new owner of one of the most valuable NFTs (at least that's what the world press says) in the cryptosphere.

Looking at Stevi's brand new purchase there are details in this acquisition that nobody dares to notice and questions that do not get answers either. For example, along with the purchase of NFT are the author's rights also included. As Mr. Dorsey shouts to the world that he sold his Twitter micro-post in parallel he hides the fact that he is still in control of the intellectual property (IP) of his work.

So, for authors NFTs can be presented as allies by dispensing with intermediaries who sell their creations, likewise for buyers these types of tokens represent other forms of investment that propitiate the increase of their earnings as any work of art, but the fact that these do not guarantee situations such as copying or resale of these unique intangible items.

On the other hand, what guarantees that these NFTs are not acquired with non sancto money, because I must say, judging by the exorbitant tons of money mobilized by this intangible art business on Blockchain it is not surprising that this is a great method to clean capitals. Also, so far there is no guarantee that NFTs cannot be copied and offered to other buyers on a different blockchain, even if they claim that they are unique and impossible to reproduce.

Certainly there is a risk that anyone can use a digital work and upload it to a blockchain through one of the many platforms that make NFTs, basically without any restrictions, the risk is that this technology brings implicit copyright infringement when people who do not have those rights to make those NFTs upload, copy, communicate and publish such content. This is the first challenge to overcome implicit in this plot.

Is this technology a bad thing? Obviously not, from my perspective this technology is neutral because it is available to those who use it for legal matters as outside the law, for that reason it attracts those who express immoral behavior to generate profits or hide shady business. It seems a situation where technology is blamed for the way in which humans use it, so it is necessary to establish rules in which the NFT can only be available to people who have the rights over them, as long as it implies the session of intellectual property of the work, thus avoiding the duality of criteria in this world. Somehow it is necessary to begin to establish the criteria of use before the problem behind the TFNs grows like an avalanche.

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta