> Crypto also has value as being able to create digital scarcity and ownership. For example, when you play games online today and you purchase cosmetic items or you play magic the gathering and buy cards, it's pretty silly that you only own a license to use those things for as long as the game exists and there is no way to trade them.
This is nonsensical. Unless two games support some agreed upon mesh/texture format you're never going to be able to transfer your SpongeBob NFT into Call of Duty. Games aren't going to import foreign mechanics into their engines, a fantasy RPG doesn't have a way to use your Laso-o-blast 5000. A Magic card is useless in a game of Pokémon. Your Magic card isn't an unbeatable poker hand.
Digital scarcity is a problem looking to insert itself where no problem needs to exist. The world doesn't need digital scarcity. There's enough scarcity in the world already.
The marginal cost of digital goods is effectively zero. It's an anti-feature to try to push the marginal cost above zero.
That is one perspective but I think people actually want digital scarcity. The rare pokemon card that someone owns makes them happy because it's rare, otherwise they could have just bought a high quality print of it and stuck it on the wall of their room.
I think scarcity is obviously terrible for things like food and housing but for entertainment like above I don't think it is.
The pokémon card is only valuable in the context of the pokémon game. Like the above comment said, a magic player doesn’t care about your pokémon card, so this isn’t a shareable asset.
On the other hand, if you have a rare pokémon card and another player sees it in game, that’s a cool moment, blockchain or not.
> That is one perspective but I think people actually want digital scarcity.
In the same way that a heroin addict wants heroin.