For the newbies and those who don't fall for scams like this, I recommend listening to this episode by Guy Swann @TheGuySwann:
Ordinals Are Fiat, Inscriptions Aren't Rare
Nothing in the ordinal logic requires inscriptions to be linked to the “first” sat. So why is it the first sat of the first output? Why not the second sat of the first output? Why not the last, or one of the other hundreds, thousands, or millions of other satoshis which were also present in that same transaction? The answer is, well, because we are pretending that it is so. In other words, we say a sat is inscribed by fiat.
this territory is moderated
Bitcoin itself is entirely made up. Therefore Bitcoin is fiat too.
You run a business?
Ah right, the only way you can run a profitable business is by scamming people.
Can you explain the scam? Who is being misled?
Read the articles below. They answer your weak arguments.
There are no arguments - just software, opinions, and human action
Everything about ordinals is very transparent and we are not misleading anybody in any way
You are misleading people. Read the article again.
250 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 12 Mar
Why does bitcoin have value? Because people believe in it? So bitcoin is fiat?
Did I summarize the depth of your logic well enough?
Nothing in the ordinal logic requires inscriptions to be linked to the “first” sat. So why is it the first sat of the first output?
The answer would be obvious if you wouldn't want to label everything you don't like as fiat. Being the first of something is unique and special. Everything else feels too arbitrary.
Fiat lives rent-free in the head of a lot of bitcoiners.
I explain the difference in the episode very simply. With or without the "belief" of those around you, your control of a bitcoin balance via the keys remains absolute. It isn't make believe or pretend. Your control (ownership) over that entry in the ledger isn't affected by the group's opinions. It's as certain as cryptography. Whether someone values it is the only part that is subjective (which all value is anyway).
With ordinals there is nothing consequential about any of it. It's subjective value on top of subjective ownership. It is only consequential to the little club of people who arbitrarily decide to point at this particular place in the blockchain and say, "this means you own it" and there is nothing else at all to defend this claim.
Now, if you WANT to do that, it is fine. But to claim it's the same as Bitcoin ownership is not at all true. It's either dishonest, or ignorant, imo.