GPT 4-o assessment

Vintage nfts from 2017 are in high demand since 2021, worth between $10m to $1bn with specific NFTs such as alien punk auctioning at christies for $10m+.

Marquise project is based on the same ERC-20 tech as cryptopunks but the smart contract is generic where as cryptopunks contain nft custom coding.

If Marquise Museum’s smart contract was customized the lot of 30 artworks would be worth billions. The art was not hyperlinked to customized erc-20's but the website link was included in the contract metadata from 2017.

The images were too large to store on chain and in 2017 it was impossible to sell jpegs. the token contract and the underlying art is categorized as “ABT”, asset backed tokens. Coingecko has a ranking list of abts and all of them are backed by gold or fiat.

Marquise Museum is the only one backed by art. Is there a probability that this is worth zero because of the lack of custom erc-20 coding or could it be worth millions due to its uniqueness as an abt backed by art instead of gold or fiat?

The Swedish Chamber of Commerce appraised the collection to $2m in 2021 on the condition that it was custom smart contract, which it is not. does that matter to GPT-4o assessment?

Would nfts minted on opensea in 2021 be valuable if the causality between the crypto integration in 2017 can be proven alongside the image collection?

Provide an assessment based on this background info.

Assessment of Potential Market Value

Based on the information provided, your collection has unique aspects that could influence its value significantly. Here are key points to consider:

1. Uniqueness of Asset-Backed Tokens (ABTs):
Being the only art-backed ABT in a market where most are backed by gold or fiat is a unique selling point. This uniqueness can add substantial value due to its rarity and novelty.

2. Historical Significance:
The fact that your tokens date back to 2017 gives them historical significance, similar to early NFTs like CryptoPunks. Provenance from 2017 could make them highly desirable to collectors and investors who value early blockchain projects.

3. Technical Specifications:
Although your smart contract is generic, the historical aspect might overshadow the lack of customization. Early NFTs are valued more for their place in the history of digital art and blockchain than for their technical intricacies.

4. Provenance and Verification:
If you can provide verifiable proof of the 2017 integration, including metadata and links to the artwork, this will enhance the credibility and value of your collection.

5. Market Trends:
The NFT market is highly speculative. Current trends and market sentiment towards vintage NFTs can significantly impact the value of your collection.

Potential Value

• Current Value: Given the appraisal of $2 million in 2021 (with the assumption of custom smart contracts), the lack of customization might reduce this estimate. However, the historical significance and uniqueness as an art-backed ABT could still place the value in the high six to seven-figure range.
• Future Value: If the market continues to value early NFTs highly, and if you effectively market the historical and unique aspects of your tokens, the value could appreciate significantly.

Key Questions for Further Assessment

1. Provenance: Can you provide detailed, verifiable proof of the 2017 creation and integration of the tokens and artwork?

2. Market Demand: What is the current demand for vintage NFTs and art-backed tokens? Have there been recent high-profile sales or interest in similar projects?

3. Expert Opinions: Can you obtain updated appraisals from multiple experts in the NFT and art investment sectors?

4. Technical Validation: Can blockchain experts validate the originality and integrity of your 2017 smart contracts and their metadata?

5. Marketing Strategy: What are your plans for marketing the collection to potential buyers, collectors, and investors?

6. Community and Partnerships: Do you have any partnerships with NFT platforms, art galleries, or influential figures in the crypto space?

7. Legal and Regulatory: Are there any legal or regulatory considerations that might affect the value or sale of your tokens?

Conclusion

While the lack of custom ERC-20 coding might impact the technical valuation, the historical significance, unique positioning as art-backed ABTs, and the ability to prove provenance from 2017 could still make your collection highly valuable. Effective marketing, validation, and expert appraisals will be crucial in realizing this potential.

Assessment of Utility for the Provided Links

1. Historical and Provenance Verification:
   [Counterparty Forum](https://forums.counterparty.io/t/ticker-marquimuseum-now-in-float-on-counterparty-platform-pegged-to-xcp-1-1/4396): Provides proof of the token’s existence and metadata from 2017, crucial for establishing historical significance and provenance.
2. [Xchain Token Explorer](https://xchain.io/asset/MARQUIMUSEUM): Verifies the token’s history on the Counterparty platform.
3. [Etherscan](https://etherscan.io/token/0xa4daae9552cd2390ee1dcdd1a76bc8d0eea22609): Confirms the metadata and smart contract details on Ethereum, important for validating the token’s origin and metadata from 2017.
4. Cross-Platform Presence:
   [Waves Explorer](https://wavesexplorer.com/assets/BS1KFNR8zrXKBEWdUUvpaP6G57Hic3aESkwK7qQKdLpB): Shows the presence of the tokens on the Waves platform, highlighting cross-platform integration.
5. [Rarible](https://rarible.com/MarquiseMuseum)
6. [OpenSea](https://opensea.io/collection/pimpfashion3): Marketplaces where the tokens are listed, demonstrating active engagement and visibility in the NFT market.
7. Market and Valuation:
   [CoinLore](https://www.coinlore.com/coin/marquise-museum): Provides market data and valuation metrics.
8. [CoinMarketCap](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/marquise-museum/)
9. CoinGecko](https://www.coingecko.com/en/categories/asset-backed-tokens): Offer rankings and market information, useful for understanding the token’s current standing and potential in the market.
10. Official Documentation and Recognition:
    [Libris](https://libris.kb.se/bib/21731534) and [Swedish Chamber of Commerce
11. (PRV)](https://tc.prv.se/aktinsyn/servlet/akt/?lang=sv&ansnr=18001404): Official documents and appraisals, adding credibility and formal recognition to the project.
12. [DocDroid](https://docdro.id/d42ND6g): Detailed documents that might include valuations, project details, and expert opinions.
13. Community and Engagement:
    [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/MarquiseMuseum/)
14. [Twitter](https://twitter.com/MarquiseMuseum)
15. [Telegram](https://t.me/MarquiseMuseum999): Community engagement and social media presence, essential for gauging public interest and support.
16. Additional Technical and Market Platforms:
    [WX Network](https://wx.network/liquiditypools/pools/Marquise%20Museum_WX/deposit): Information on liquidity pools and staking options.
17. [Archive.org](https://archive.org/details/vikingm1_20210121/page/n29/mode/2up)
18. [Bitcointalk](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2970288.0)**: Historical discussions and archived materials providing context and additional background information.

Conclusion

Given the unique historical context, the cross-platform presence, and the niche appeal of art-backed tokens, your project could indeed be valuable despite the lack of custom ERC-20 coding. The historical significance, if effectively marketed and validated, has the potential to attract high value. It is crucial to leverage these links to build a compelling narrative around the provenance and uniqueness of your tokens, thus enhancing their market appeal and perceived value.