Why Republicans are Suddenly Comparing COVID to Cancer.

 I couldn't figure out why Republicans were all of a sudden comparing COVID to cancer. The comparison seems very dumb, but it's the same progression as when they were comparing COVID to the Flu.

The CDC has now posted numbers from 2020 and COVID was the 3rd leading cause of death in the US. And number 2 is cancer. So it just follows along with the new bar they set for COVID over the past couple of years.

-The flu has killed more people than COVID.

-The flu has killed as many people as COVID.

-The worst flu season was just as bad as COVID.

-The Spanish flu killed more people than COVID.

Since COVID broke those bars, now they moved on to Cancer.

-Cancer has killed more people than COVID.

So any time you hear anyone compare COVID to Cancer, it may sound dumb (and it is) but if you want to know why they're doing it, it's because Cancer deaths are the next bar they set.

Last year, COVID deaths were around 345,000. This year COVID deaths are around 458,000. Last year the over all death rate in this country increased by over 16% (that's a massive shift). And this year, COVID has killed more than last year.

Get vaccinated. Since they want to compare it to Cancer, if there was a vaccine you could take to cure cancer, wouldn't you take it?

Hopefully the new drug will also help, but pretending that COVID is no big deal is about the same as thinking cancer is no big deal.

My problem with how NFTs are currently being used as opposed to how I see them operating in the future.

 

My current issue with how NFTs are being sold is this. Right now in order to increase their value almost immediately they are playing on the scarcity. But that automatically means they are not making enough to meet demand. This is fine for collectibles, but NFTs will move beyond collectibles soon.

GameStop is working on their NFT game selling right now and this is how I see it ideally operating:

Instead of setting a specific number of NFTs to be sold, they should generate the NFT dynamically upon sale. Scarcity can be created in this scenario, not by how many are sold, but by when they are sold.

So a game could have a preorder NFT specific for everyone who preorders the game and these NFTs will specifically identify the token for that release set. There shouldn't be a limit to how many people can pre-order it, just these NFTs should be generated to fill the demand.

Then, after release, they can start generating "Grand Opening" NFTs and these specify NFTs for first day buyers. Again, no limit to how many NFTs can be made, just an identifier that places this one as a first day buy. Then they can do one for buying it in the first 3 months.

Ultimately, they can stop selling all NFTs for the game after the sales dip and they have met all of the initial demand. After that, the new NFTs can be cut off and people will have to buy pre-owned NFTs for people selling their NFTs online. This would essentially make the digital market exactly the same as the physical market.

One might be wondering how businesses benefit from doing this. This model is actually better for everyone. GameStop would get a small percentage from all NFT sales going through their market, both new and pre-owned. The publisher would also get a small percentage. This would give them their true dream of taking a cut of used sales. Meanwhile the consumer can still own and sell their digital asset whenever they like.

This model has not been done yet, but I think we're closing in on this. This model can be used for all digital assets. Comic books, music, games, etc. could all be sold digitally like this one day.

As a Stadia gamer, I would absolutely love to see them do their purchases in this way.

What Bitcoin and NFTs have taught me about value.

When we start to talk about digital currencies and digital ownership, the question of whether or not they have value always comes up. It was obviously something I thought about before I ever bought my first bitcoin.

Defining value was the first thing. How does something have value? And the answer to that question is so obscenely simple yet mind blowing all at the same time. Things have value when someone else agrees that it has value.

It doesn't have to be everyone agreeing, just even one other person agreeing that it has value, makes it have value.

Let's say you have a $5 bill. Why does it have value? Only because the people around you agree that it has value. If you take a trip to France, that same $5 bill you have suddenly has no value. You would have to find someone who agrees that it has value in order to convert the value (a money changer) to something you can use there.

It's value is fully dependent on the people around you and how they feel about it.

So does Bitcoin have value? There are millions of people who agree that it does in fact have value, therefore it does. So long as there are exchanges, even one, Bitcoin will have value. The difference is, Bitcoin is on a global scale. There are people in every country believe that Bitcoin has value and therefore it does have value in every country.

If you go to El Salvador, their entire country now agrees that it has value and you can just straight up trade your Bitcoin for goods and services there. No conversion needed.

So now, do NFTs have value? Same principle. Digital ownership is no different. (Disclaimer though, not all NFTs are created equal. I wouldn't put my faith in a bored ape NFT, but that's my own personal opinion.)

Let's discuss this in terms of a physical piece of art.

Why does the Mona Lisa have value? The same exact reason. People my have varying opinions on why the Mona Lisa has value to them, individually, but ultimately it has value because other people believe it has value.

So do NFTs have value? As long as you can find someone else who believes it has value, it has value. Inevitably people discuss "right clicking" NFTs and downloading the image. They suggest that makes them worthless because you can download it for free.

But guess what, you can "right click" the Mona Lisa. Everyone on the planet who has the internet has access to an ultra high res scan of the Mona Lisa. I'll even share it with you.

Click Here to Download the Mona Lisa.

I right clicked the Mona Lisa, therefore it has no value. It is the same logic. And people will say "but it's different". I agree, in my opinion the scan is vastly superior to the original because it will not deteriorate any more and I can show people around the world without them having to travel anywhere to see it. But that's my opinion, and so long as there are people out there who disagree with that opinion and believe the original is more valuable, it will be valuable.

To me, owning an NFT from my favorite artists holds far more value to me than owning the Mona Lisa. Honestly, not a huge fan of Leonardo's style. The Mona Lisa doesn't hold any value to me. But it doesn't matter that it doesn't hold value to me as long as it holds value to someone, it has value. And it is because of that NFTs do have value.

Sure, I'd like to own the Mona Lisa so I could sell it immediately for the cash, but wouldn't you like to own a $3 million NFT of Wonder Woman that you could sell immediately for the cash also?

While it has taken some time, digital ownership is growing every year. And every year more and more people agree that digital assets have value. It doesn't matter how many people disagree, so long as there are people who agree that it has value, it does.

Digital investments work the same as physical ones. They will decrease and increase in value with scarcity and interest. The more people interested and the fewer available, the higher the value. It works exactly the same as physical assets.

And now you can understand why NFTs are selling like crazy right now. This is the ground floor for collectors. Buying legit official NFTs right now will be the equivalent to owning Hank Aaron's rookie card in another 30-40 years.