4.7 Article

Money, possessions, and ownership in the Metaverse: NFTs, cryptocurrencies, Web3 and Wild Markets

期刊

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH
卷 153, 期 -, 页码 198-205

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.08.031

关键词

Ownership; Property rights; Metaverse; Extended reality (XR); NFTs; Intellectual property (IP)

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As consumption becomes digital and virtual, our perspectives on money, possessions, and ownership are undergoing significant transformations. The Metaverse represents an imagined future space where the foundations of neoliberal production and consumption are redefined. By studying cryptocurrencies, algorithmic collectibles, and NFTs, we can gain insights into these changes and the impact of online auctions and speculation on artists, art institutions, buyers, and investors. Additionally, we explore new forms of ownership, such as fractional ownership and fractionalized property rights, in order to understand why some consumers are willing to pay astronomical prices for digital art.
Our understandings of money, possessions, and ownership are all changing dramatically as consumption becomes digital and virtual. The Metaverse is an imagined future space where these building blocks of neoliberal production and consumption are delinked. We examine these changes through the affordances of cryptocurrencies, algorithmic collectibles, and NFTs. We seek to disambiguate these efforts at disintermediation through online auctions and speculation. We present practical implications for artists, art institutions, buyers, and investors. We theorize new forms of ownership with fractional ownership and fractionalized property rights. And we seek to understand why some consumers pay astronomical prices for digital art that includes simple and often silly artwork with limited property rights. To do so we distinguish alternate, but sometimes overlapping, buyer motivations in the wild world of crypto art as we purportedly move toward the Metaverse.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据