Yes, I expected him to at least point out that a real Rolex has intrinsic differences regarding its functionality as a watch in terms of precision, durability, etc. that are superior to those of a fake Rolex. Of course, we all know that the cost a Rolex is not proportional to how good a watch it is, it is a status symbol. But it is also a damn good watch.
Not the point; a digital asset is not comparable to a physical asset; the image the nft points to is the same bytes as the image he gave that image to others to prove a point. There is nothing at all fake about the second image; it is the same image. And in this case it was even the actual same link from the nft I think which is even better. There is no notion of fake in digital; you copy something and you have it, identical to the what you copied it from. This does not apply to Rolexes and calling it fake makes no sense and it’s a bad example that doesn’t educate people; people who might have ‘invested’ into nfts but don’t know any tech might think ‘but I have the real Rolex, so it does work!’. And that would be a bad and wrong interpretation of the facts.
I think you misunderstood my comment as I was emphasising your point. I was saying that a real Rolex is, as a watch, materially different from a fake Rolex regardless of how much of a real Rolex's value comes from its image and recognition. The fact that a "real" NFT is, as a URL on a blockchain, no different from a "fake" NFT was implied.
