This is a poignant statement in regards to NFTs. A main problem of NFTs is that its oversupply exposes the lack of market as well as market value.

The NFT of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey's first tweet (and the first tweet ever) "just setting up my twittr" was purchased by Sina Estavi for $2.9 million. To that, Estavi proclaimed, "This is not just a tweet! I think years later people will realize the true value of this tweet, like the Mona Lisa painting."

While that assessment of Dorsey's tweet may prove true in theory, the Mona Lisa, in contrast, was painted over 500 years ago and is a tangible asset that is guarded behind bulletproof glass at the Louvre Museum in Paris. The painting's worth is attributed to the "chance circumstances" surrounding the work as well as the symbolic "change in styles" as it relates to the "development of the arts in general," and it's physical worth could top $2.7 billion if sold today.

But the main point of the Mona Lisa's worth? It is agreed upon, among a general consensus.

As far as Dorsey's tweet? For now, the worth of its ownership is nothing more than a bragging right. Who else would buy it? There is no viable museum, stage or practical display (yet?) for NFTs. More specifically, there is no agreeable consensus on the worth of Dorsey's digital "art" past NFT speculators banking (or gambling or hoping) on some "unicornical" public adoption, whereby the general public somehow understands the concept of NFTs first, and then collectively agrees that the token is valuable enough to create a market.

Former writer for several professional athletes’ digital properties, currently crafting political, social and pop culture pieces.

Former writer for several professional athletes’ digital properties, currently crafting political, social and pop culture pieces.