Will Rolex use NFT

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by beshannon

Blockchain is very useful and largely misunderstood.

Did Breitling do this for theft/ownership issues? Or did Breitling do it for parts, manufacture and assembly verification?

https://www.breitling.com/us-en/service/blockchain/

[airchitect]

I don’t know but this thread really got me thinking about how the vast majority of us spend our days doing nothing that contributes to anything of real value…..

On a lighter note…..there’s Top Golf!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by rambo99

https://www.breitling.com/us-en/service/blockchain/

Thanks, so it is ownership based

[77T]

Originally Posted by rambo99

blockchain certificate seems to have no use in preventing fraudulent/stolen watches as you have explained, then why breitling implemented it in the first place? do you think you know more than breitling? if breitling can implement it without affecting too much the total cost, I cannot see why rolex will be hurt doing it.

Please re-read my post.

I only commented on how NFT wouldn’t affect grey marketers.

I specifically stayed away from the items you mentioned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by beshannon

Blockchain is … largely misunderstood …

I admit, I’m in this camp Brian

[Sgooter]

What is the problem that NFT would solve for the Rolex company?

[DonRickles]

Agreeing with 77…. Like the title to a car…. Anyone can “skip” transferring it, and then resell it to the next buyer….

But NFT’s would be very helpful with the authenticity of each and every single piece/part of any product forever.

[upsidedownbelt]

NFT blockchain technology is 100% the future of ownership for luxury items.

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by upsidedownbelt

NFT blockchain technology is 100% the future of ownership for luxury items.

Kind of like a warranty certificate? Or a plastic card? Or a plastic card with a hologram?

There will always be a way to defeat authenticity verification.

[upsidedownbelt]

Originally Posted by beshannon

Kind of like a warranty certificate? Or a plastic card? Or a plastic card with a hologram?

There will always be a way to defeat authenticity verification.

A plastic card with a hologram? Blockchain technology is infinitely harder to fake and establishes a digital chain of ownership. If acquired the correct way its extremely safe.

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by upsidedownbelt

A plastic card with a hologram? Blockchain technology is infinitely harder to fake and establishes a digital chain of ownership. If acquired the correct way its extremely safe.

Failures and counterfeiting of blockchain and NFT's are already documented and easy to find with a sdimple search.

99.99% of watch owners do not care nor even understand how this would be of any benefit to them.

Blockchain as a tool for manufacture and parts inventory makes sense as it can be kept in house.

[Yachtyy]

Originally Posted by liberalclown

Eventually the history of all valuable items will be tracked in blockchain, thats inevitable. This will stop the counterfeit industry. But I don't see this happening soon as the blockchain is not mature yet to be adopted by Rolex and Rolex' core target market doesn't see a value in it yet.

This

[pegaxy]

we’ll give a brief introduction to pegaxy, the distributed exchange, which recently went live on the Avalanche main net. Penguin uses the same automated marketmaking model as Uniswap and is able to trade any token on either the Ethereum or the Avalanche network.

pegaxy, pegaxy nft,

[VonSomething]

An NFT can't possibly guarantee authenticity for a watch.

The only thing it can do is over-complicate the buying process. Do you even know how many steps are involved to setup a wallet and trade an NFT? Needing to pay for GAS fees etc. I can guarantee you that 97% of Rolex buyers aren't interested in doing that just for buying a watch.

More importantly, the certificate is completely useless and here is why:

How can it possibly guarantee authenticity? Just because you have a digital token, that's no guarantee that parts haven't been replaced? You know that fake watch manufacturers also put fake serial numbers on watches? You can basically end up with an entire fake watch - but with a real certificate.

It has no benefits, beyond just further complicating things, than the good ol' warranty card has. (Which is also kind of useless)

[rambo99]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

An NFT can't possibly guarantee authenticity for a watch.

The only thing it can do is over-complicate the buying process. Do you even know how many steps are involved to setup a wallet and trade an NFT? Needing to pay for GAS fees etc. I can guarantee you that 97% of Rolex buyers aren't interested in doing that just for buying a watch.

More importantly, the certificate is completely useless and here is why:

How can it possibly guarantee authenticity? Just because you have a digital token, that's no guarantee that parts haven't been replaced? You know that fake watch manufacturers also put fake serial numbers on watches? You can basically end up with an entire fake watch - but with a real certificate.

It has no benefits, beyond just further complicating things, than the good ol' warranty card has. (Which is also kind of useless)

I think you really have no idea how blockchain or even warranty cards work, that's why you think they're useless.

[VonSomething]

Originally Posted by rambo99

I think you really have no idea how blockchain or even warranty cards work, that's why you think they're useless.

I know exactly how both work and I never said blockchain was useless, it's just not a technology that has a useful place in the world of watches.

Or maybe you can give me 3 examples where blockchain would be useful compared to the systems that are already in place?

[avidflyer]

Originally Posted by TunaTuna

Not sure Rolex cares about that. They won't spend money for something not necessary for them

You beat me to it....on the larger scale its a cheap watch and mass produced.

[Gab27]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

I know exactly how both work and I never said blockchain was useless, it's just not a technology that has a useful place in the world of watches.

Or maybe you can give me 3 examples where blockchain would be useful compared to the systems that are already in place?

Currently, a plastic warranty card can be pretty easily lost or forged (and there are all sorts of issues with RFID chips in physical cards). Service papers with the watch can also be lost, misplaced, or forged pretty easily. It also may not be easy to establish legal ownership, in some cases, nor is there necessarily a universal way to establish that and/or communicate information on watches that are stolen. There is also a relatively new concern of authentic Rolex watches being illegally modified with illegal parts (e.g., turning a black OP 41 into a turquoise OP 41 with a forged dial).



Blockchain potentially provides a tool to authenticate, document the watch's legitimate OE factory configuration/specs, verify warranty status, log service history, and transfer ownership (some caveats there for sure, though). For that matter, it could also potentially be used to identify and locate stolen watches (and blacklist service to them).

Some makers have already begun using it:
https://www.breitling.com/us-en/blockchain/

Blockchain isn't going to solve all of the world's problems, there are certainly some major hurdles, and it obviously would have some limits to its ability to provide authentication, but it definitely has a lot of potential value here, in my personal opinion.

[JuraDrinker]

Originally Posted by boogiebot

You’re digitalizing the papers but the ownership Is always linked to a person. Inside the blockchain Rolex would be able to instantly see how many watches an individual owns and sold and when this happened. You guys will say I’m nuts, but, I have a serious feeling this will be something they implement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Retail will go more and more digital every day. It's inevitable that in the future anything collectible, rare, etc will implement some kind of digital aspect which includes blockchain technology. A lot of people today won't like it, nor believe it, but it will come whether they like it or not.

However, this problem for Rolex is not quite perfected yet. (I work in this industry)
The problem is linking the physical item to the NFT. For example, yes you can have an NFT certificate of authenticity, with a serial number matching the watch, maybe a laser engraved Qcode. However this doesn't stop a fake watch being produced to match the NFT.

Will Rolex use it? Yes, in house, mainly for internal tracking of parts and QC purposes. Will they use it in conjunction with the end consumer? Not yet, not for a long time yet, until someone solves the physical/NFT link.

First post for me btw, hi folks. As i say this is my industry so it peaked my interest enough to want to post :)

[VonSomething]

Originally Posted by Gab27

Currently, a plastic warranty card can be pretty easily lost or forged (and there are all sorts of issues with RFID chips in physical cards). Service papers with the watch can also be lost, misplaced, or forged pretty easily. It also may not be easy to establish legal ownership, in some cases, nor is there necessarily a universal way to establish that and/or communicate information on watches that are stolen. There is also a relatively new concern of authentic Rolex watches being illegally modified with illegal parts (e.g., turning a black OP 41 into a turquoise OP 41 with a forged dial).



Blockchain potentially provides a tool to authenticate, document the watch's legitimate OE factory configuration/specs, verify warranty status, log service history, and transfer ownership (some caveats there for sure, though). For that matter, it could also potentially be used to identify and locate stolen watches (and blacklist service to them).

Some makers have already begun using it:
https://www.breitling.com/us-en/blockchain/

Blockchain isn't going to solve all of the world's problems, there are certainly some major hurdles, and it obviously would have some limits to its ability to provide authentication, but it definitely has a lot of potential value here, in my personal opinion.

All reasons you gave are all surrounding the pre-owned market.

The only thing an NFT can do, is publicly document details about a watch - that at a monetary cost of GAS fees and further complications for the buyers.

It's in no company's best interest to make a buying process more complicated than it needs to be.

Rolex doesn't need an NFT to make a public database. They could simply host one on their own servers. Add a QR code to the warranty-card, or a field on the website where you can enter your serial number to get more information. But honestly, why should they?

The only ones that might find this useful would be the pre-owned market, but even then there's no guarantee you're getting original parts.

Someone could easily buy a genuine Rolex, swap the bezel, bracelet, clasp to an aftermarket one. If you'd look up the serial, or if you'd transfer the NFT, there would still be no way of knowing parts were swapped.

Taking the 'Tiffany' OP dial as an example. Someone could take out an original dial (to sell as part), swap in a fake tiffany dial and the buyer would be none the wiser.

Again, nothing against NFT's, but for luxury watches they just don't make any sense.

Everything that Breitling is doing with an NFT, they could do exactly the same, only much easier, on their own server-end. 99% of the stuff they offer with their "NFT" is actually hosted and run from their own servers already. It's used as nothing but a 'gimmick' to connect with the crypto-bro's.

[psya]

They could seem as though everyone is turning that way

[JuraDrinker]

Originally Posted by VonSomething

All reasons you gave are all surrounding the pre-owned market

Nono you're missing my point - I agree - and this is why it's a problem that has not yet been solved. Nevertheless, there's no point ignoring the secondary market, it's very real and widely used.

Originally Posted by VonSomething

The only thing an NFT can do, is publicly document details about a watch - that at a monetary cost of GAS fees and further complications for the buyers.

Not true - an NFT proves digital ownership of that NFT, if you own the NFT technically you own the item associated and documented to it, be it a house, car, watch etc.
Secondly, the tech is in its infancy, hence where there are some gas fees involved on some chains. However there are chains/platforms in heavy use already which provide gasless transactions

Originally Posted by VonSomething

It's in no company's best interest to make a buying process more complicated than it needs to be.

Yep, I agree - again, its complex because it's new and clunky. It won't stay that way. Think how PC's from the 90's work compared to Macs from today, from a user perspective. Just because it's not ideal now, doesn't mean it wont be in the near future.

Originally Posted by VonSomething

Rolex doesn't need an NFT to make a public database. They could simply host one on their own servers. Add a QR code to the warranty-card, or a field on the website where you can enter your serial number to get more information. But honestly, why should they?

I guess my only argument for this, is why not? There are a number of benefits of a system like this to a wide audience, perhaps as an example think of a scenario where you have to claim on insurance for a watch, this would be a great way to prove without any doubt at all (automated) that you own that asset.
If you wanted to sell the watch, you can transfer ownership to the buyer and there is a full, immutable record of that transaction occurring. This has many benefits for individuals and businesses.

Originally Posted by VonSomething

The only ones that might find this useful would be the pre-owned market, but even then there's no guarantee you're getting original parts.

Not if Rolex used a similar system for parts too. There would be a full record of all items on the blockchain. (Again - the issue of linking the physical part to that NFT is an as yet unsolved problem)

Originally Posted by VonSomething

Someone could easily buy a genuine Rolex, swap the bezel, bracelet, clasp to an aftermarket one. If you'd look up the serial, or if you'd transfer the NFT, there would still be no way of knowing parts were swapped.

Taking the 'Tiffany' OP dial as an example. Someone could take out an original dial (to sell as part), swap in a fake tiffany dial and the buyer would be none the wiser.

Again, nothing against NFT's, but for luxury watches they just don't make any sense.

Yep, I totally, 100% agree, and this needs thrashing out over time by people a lot cleverer than I. However I'm in no doubt that something will appear. There's already nano-technology embedded in surface coatings which can store information - so perhaps this is an early solution.

Originally Posted by VonSomething

Everything that Breitling is doing with an NFT, they could do exactly the same, only much easier, on their own server-end. 99% of the stuff they offer with their "NFT" is actually hosted and run from their own servers already. It's used as nothing but a 'gimmick' to connect with the crypto-bro's.

Not quite - the blockchain is absolute and cannot be duplicated or illegitimately changed. It is a common misconception that it's a "crypto-bro" thing. They are simply jumping on one part of all this, which is what gets put into the news and media.
You only need to look into how some of the biggest brands/companies in the world are developing teams and systems all around this - you've had web1 and web2, this is web3. Its all about bridging the gap between physical life and digital life - something which digital ownership is very much needed for it to work. NFT's make that possible.


Overall I definitely believe it has a place in modern retail. How it works, and how we as consumers benefit is unclear and in its infancy, but as digital life develops, digital ownership will become more and more important. Then things like important documentation (which can be forged) can exist in an immutable system, for example car logbooks, house deeds, identification, certificates of authenticity (for things like artwork etc) can all take a leap forward and remove nasty things like being scammed for a fake watch.
Think of it now, you're buying a watch from the for sale section on the forum, "No Rolex NFT CoA" - easy walk away. "Includes Rolex NFT CoA" - this means you're one step closer to having a bit more piece of mind.

Either way, it excites me!

[433]

So, what in the watch guarantees the nft goes with it, that the movement isn’t fake, etc.?

Seems like the nft can’t be faked but the watch certainly can.

[JuraDrinker]

Originally Posted by 433

So, what in the watch guarantees the nft goes with it, that the movement isn’t fake, etc.?

Seems like the nft can’t be faked but the watch certainly can.

Yep therein lies the problem. It (in some ways) solves a few problems, but certainly not all, yet. Especially externally from a consumer point of view.

Here's another thing too - holding NFT's enable brands to give you token-gated access to benefits, events, merchandise etc. So it wouldn't necessarily just sit within an authentication setting.
That said, we don't get that now and I don't see that we would in the future anyway
That definitely works with other brands though for sure.

[ajw45]

I hate this. I don't see how an nft or other digital cert authenticates a physical good. A digital transfer can be validated but it does not assure you have recieved an authentic matching watch in the real world. Qr codes are easily copied, nfc chips cost pennies and I can burn one with whatever I want at home, there is a huge difference between using digital for digital transactions and using digital for things in the real world. Maybe you won't want to buy a watch without the matching nft but many people won't care and once the 1:1 match is corrupted when someone superfakes a bunch of rolexes with the same qr/nfc/other code, it's all fubared.

People need to understand tracking and logging digital chain of custody is not at all the same as physical authentication.

[Njkdog]

Originally Posted by boogiebot

The NFT is a token that would be created by Rolex only. This would be transferred to the original buyer. It would then be kept in their krypto wallets. If the original seller was to sell the item, that nft would be transferred to the new buyer. This would also limit so called flippers and grey dealers.

If Rolex implemented it, this would be ground breaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can’t shake the feeling that eventually nfts will be counterfeited and stolen. I mean, money makes the world go round, and you could be the richest human to ever live if you cracked that code.

[VonSomething]

Originally Posted by JuraDrinker

Yep therein lies the problem. It (in some ways) solves a few problems, but certainly not all, yet. Especially externally from a consumer point of view.

Here's another thing too - holding NFT's enable brands to give you token-gated access to benefits, events, merchandise etc. So it wouldn't necessarily just sit within an authentication setting.
That said, we don't get that now and I don't see that we would in the future anyway
That definitely works with other brands though for sure.

People don't need an NFT in order to get access to events, benefits and merchandise :-)

And here's another thing, someone talked about losing their 'warranty card' vs having an NFT that you can't lose.

What happens if you lose your crypto-wallet details? You're out of luck getting access back to that and I think the risk of someone losing their crypto wallet is much higher than of someone losing a physical card.

I dont know man.. I think the cons heavily outweigh the pros

[JuraDrinker]

To the people saying "I hate this" "this wont work" etc. Yep companies will try, and fail. Companies will also try and succeed with it too.

Doesn't necessarily mean Rolex will or wont, in fact, I'm in the "won't" camp, because I agree there are too many issues with linking the physical and the digital asset. Rolex are not trend followers, they like to appear to set trends.

Nevertheless, don't worry, it will happen whether you like it or not - institutional money and the biggest companies in the world are pushing things this way with billions of dollars on the line. All aimed towards us, the consumers to spend more and more and moaaaaar money.

Strap in. It's one of those things that if you resist, you lose out. There's a wealth of opportunity in this industry, much like there was back in the early 2000's with the dot com boom. Those that ignored it then, well, what can I say.

Originally Posted by VonSomething

People don't need an NFT in order to get access to events, benefits and merchandise :-)

No you're right, they don't. However take this for an example.
Your favourite musician releases an NFT, which gives you backstage VIP access at shows. You can use it yourself at your local event, then you can rent it out to other fans around the world at other events, for a small (lol) fee. This can be programmed to be automatically returned to you, along with the money. And the event organisers have no doubts that passes for this are genuine.
There's even a Music NFT that I own in fact, it gives the owner a share of the royalties from streaming, which is pretty cool!

Originally Posted by VonSomething

And here's another thing, someone talked about losing their 'warranty card' vs having an NFT that you can't lose.

What happens if you lose your crypto-wallet details? You're out of luck getting access back to that and I think the risk of someone losing their crypto wallet is much higher than of someone losing a physical card.

I dont know man.. I think the cons heavily outweigh the pros

Losing access to these things is no more risky than losing your actual wallet, you just take sensible precautions, as you would do with any other item of property. The reason why it appears lackadaisical, is because people do not follow the things you should do.