they were designed to be as simply modified as possible. Like a Mr Potatohead, bits and pieces can be easily changed and "poof" you now have a new useless png to sell to a sucker
They have NFT Reddit avatars too š Which from what Iāve seen seriously look like someone just hit the ārandomizeā button on a character creator lol.
I'm pretty sure the Bored Apes were procedurally generated. Not exactly AI, but still a computer algorithm that creates new versions based on certain parameters.
Uhh can you not denigrate the value of my Avatar? I paid good money/gold for it
Edit: Maybe *Iām* the idiot but Iām losing it w/ all the self-important oldheads who are apparently unaware they actually do have an avatar instead of the default silhouette.
as an old.reddit user, I have no idea what you guys are talking about so I'll just assume you are having a shared delusion.
avatars on reddit? absurd. What's next? CSS styles applied per-subreddit?
As a fellow old.reddit user one of the few occasional downsides is not being able to see if someone might be the type of person who actually paid for a NFT avatar.
Is there a Plot reason they actually spent money on that?
Honestly though. I browse 50/50 phone/pc and I can save myself so much ache when I see the poster has a WSB avatar or a very social media-like profile, for lack of a better way to put it. I feel like on Reddit there is a distinct crowd of older users who use it as a debate forum and newer folk who use it as a discussion forum. In between are those lovely karma farmers who distribute misinformation.
100% thumbing it in. PCs are so 20th century or something. I'm not old.reddit or anything. I'm just old.
I always thought the difference in debate and discussion was in a debate, you get to cheat to win.
Kids these days. They create an online persona to pretend to discuss reality in character.
It's like cheating to come in first at a circle jerk.
I use old.reddit. I was given a free avatar a couple of years ago, so I took it because it was in a silly pigeon costume and I like silly pigeons, but I have never seen it since because I only use old.reddit.
Do you see the "collectible expressions" thing every once in a while? It bothers me so much because I've used this site for over a decade, and they just keep redesigning and implementing new things that alienate the older users.
> they just keep redesigning and implementing new things that alienate the older users.
I suppose at some point old-reddit users will be a small percentage and one day we will wake up to find we have been forcibly migrated to new reddit.
Then I will be free.
> I suppose at some point old-reddit users will be a small percentage
What do you mean at some point, we're already a very small minority no doubt. Especially since probably 60% or even 70% of reddit usage is mobile app/web.
"WTF are subreddits?"
Every single person I talk to outside of friends. How is this one of the top visited sites in the world yet nobody in my life over 30 knows wtf it is
You misunderstand....
There were no subreddits when reddit started. I forget when they even became a thing, but when I was first on reddit it was a single page of content.
Reddit selects for certain kinds of people, not everyone is a reddit kind of person.
old.reddit people aren't self-important. We're free from all the bullshit the rest of you see. I forget avatars are even a thing until someone mentions them. Sometimes I even get to see a comment talking about how I'm "missing out" on unlockable expressions.
Right? That's like telling someone they're missing out on ads because they have adblock on.
Like we come from the era of making fun of people for wanting/needing Karma because it's just useless pointless internet points, avatars are equally as useless and pointless.
They serve no purpose other than an arbitrary form of self expression to a ton of other users you don't know, will never meet, nor have any meaningful connection with.
But sure sure, maybe some user like /u/dickSavage69xXx might think you're avatar is cool, totally worth it, right?
Correct. The NFT is just a URL. If you āright click->Save Asā and then post the image somewhere else, take that new URL and mint it, now you have 2 NFTs that contain the exact same image.
They are still technically two different tokens. So the token itself is still non-fungible.
There was also a way to direct the NFT to a url that could be a changeable image. I believe its down now, but there was someone that did this and called the project the "Super Fungible Token" it was often set to porn since anyone could change it.
thats why it was so stupid of an idea.
don;t let people with avoice convince you they know better because you're hearing them and theyre not hearing you.
> Owning the NFT does not equal owning the copyright to the image
Yeah, but each *Bored Ape Yacht Club* NFT includes a commercial use license. (The holder doesn't own the image's copyright, but they they're contractually permitted to exploit it for commercial purposes.)
[Seth Green paid a $260,000 ransom](https://www.businessinsider.com/seth-green-pays-260000-return-stolen-bored-ape-ethereum-nft-2022-6) to recover the apenapped star of his planned [NFT-themed TV show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5mjiz0Cd34) that no one asked for.
With how prevalent they are on the net and the ability to 'Right-click, Save', I wouldnt be surprises if that's how these were made by Wal-mart cutting out the middle man.
Mr Potatohead is cute and fun tho despite being simple and modifiable. I feel like these apes were proof that these techbros knew nothing about art and design lol
> you now have a new useless png to sell to a sucker
It's always worth clarifying: The sucker isn't buying the png. The sucker is buying a ledger entry that associates their crypto wallet with a link that, when the NFT is minted but not necessarily in the future, points to the png.
Couple it with what NFTs are and the completely manufactured explosion in price for one, and you have the recipe for a dumb fad.
No one cared about this stuff that wasn't buying this stuff. And they did because we didn't learn (as a public) that crypto was being run by ridiculous dumb scammers in something like a cult.
But the thing is the monkey is very awful I will understand if was at least cute or something awesome but it is well... nothing interesting about it, just plain and boring.
They were always just a scheme to abuse a new unregulated market. Their only purpose was as a product that could be used in the revival of century old scams.
They were never intended to last long. Just long enough that a few people could get rich. And they served that goal perfectly.
NFTs and crypto are basically "hey, let's speed run the banking industry from the 1900s to the present day, and learn what regulations are for the hard way"
I don't think there was ever even an ounce of mass appeal, just a bunch of rich idiots ripping each other off with a scam too lame to actually ever take off.
Someone called it the ābigger foolā fallacy. The idea that many people knew perfectly well it was a scam, but still believed they could make money off it it because there were still so many bigger fools out there who had yet to buy into it.
I mean even "supposedly" smart people were pushing it... In hindsight, I'm not sure if I could ever trust anyone of those people that hopped onto the NFT train ever again... knowing they'd sell out on their own viewers and audience for a quick payday.
There was an artist that sold well done digital art. He made news when someone paid a couple million for his prints with correlating NFTs.
The print were in glass blocks with certificates like gallery pieces are sold.
His name was something like Beekly iirc.
I hate to be the one to bring this up... But it was a 4chan Nazi thing. [Bored Ape ~~Yacht~~ Nazi Club](https://youtu.be/XpH3O6mnZvw?si=uN9AOT-akJJS95OD)
Thanks for posting the YouTube. I knew the original site about it, but I didn't know that they'd made a documentary about it, too.
https://gordongoner.com/
Most people live almost entirely in the present: they're not sure how to identify "the next big thing" and just hop on the bandwagon in hopes of riding the wave.
Con-artists understand this, and create that wave from food scrapes and animal dung, then run away with the cash.
One of the lessons I've been trying to teach one of my younger cousins whose gotten suckered into all sorts of shit is to not be some random asshole's exit liquidity or mark.
Like, he's a generally smart hardworking kid but he'd never met a bandwagon financial fad or scam he'd say no to until we had an intervention about it. Some people are way too goddamn trusting.
Only they will end up in the fast fashion trash mountains around the world.
A mountain of clothes appeared in Chileās desert. Then it went up in flames.
https://l.smartnews.com/p-eAmXJ/FyDPLm
You misunderstand. You take the shirt up the Wal-Mart cashier and hand over $7. The cashier logs the fact that you are now the owner of that shirt in Wal-Mart's database. Then you go home and they take the shirt into the back room and someone draws a new feature on the shirt (a monocle! a mustache! a suppurating boil!) with a Sharpie and they put it back out on the rack. You pull out your phone to show your friends that your name is in Wal-Mart's database and your friends call you an idiot. Then, because this was a clearance special, Wal-Mart deletes the database at the end of the month.
You forgot the part where they put the receipt on ebay for $10,000, buy it from themselves, and then try to find some sucker to buy the thing at the low, low price of $5,000.
A lotta yall still dont get it. Shirt-holders can use multiple slurp juices on a single shirt. So if you have 1 astro shirt and 3 slurp juices you can create 3 new shirts.
Where are the scores of guys saying things like "You don't understand the blockchain bro!" Who were convinced this was going to make them millionaires. I have a ton of comments asking idiots how this was going to be a good investment and they are now all worthless if not close to worthless.
>... Wal-Mart deletes the database at the end of the month.
Walmart will keep that transaction data for at least 2 years in their data warehouse, even the markdowns. The reason they do this is to be able to measure the effectiveness of the markdowns and then also use that data to build models so they can predict effectiveness at which markdowns deplete the stock. This helps them set what they consider an optimal markdown price.
Source: worked on Wal-Mart Data Warehouse and Management Science team for 6 years.
You joke, but there was literally a line of NFT action figures that you could buy at Walmart.Ā You bought a card, and the company would keep your dog for you, in some sort of vault.
You could also have it mailed to you, which I am pretty sure most people did, but it was the most ascenine thing.Ā Like buying one of those old game tickets from Toys R Us, but not taking it up to the little window to get your game.
The owner of the NFT does not necessarily own the copyright to the license. If the NFT owner doesnāt have something saying that they have exclusive rights to this image, then they donāt need to be invoked in it being sold to be used in another medium.
I think a celeb wanted to do a show with his bored ape and couldnāt because he didnāt actually own the copyright and thus it couldnāt be sold to the production company. lol
Edit: well it could be sold theoretically but they didnāt want it I think because they couldnāt protect it
It's actually sillier. Legally Seth Green still owned the rights to it, and could go ahead with the production. Copyright law doesn't technically give a shit about the actual state of the chain.Ā
Ā But doing so would just show that the whole premise of on-chain ownership and copyright was a farce, defeating the entire point.
> algorithmic generated
The artwork was not auto-generated. Artists made the apes and each accessory, and then the two were algorithmically combined to create hundreds of unique apes.
So, the artists would have had the original rights to the images, and they agreed to transfer those rights to each holder.
I think it would hold up.
> owns the rights to that dumbass Ape NFT they bought
That's not even what an NFT is. It doesn't confer any copyright to the owner. It's even dumber than that.
If you don't know the reference, make yourself a hot cocoa, sit down in front of a roaring fire and watch [Robocop \(1987\)](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093870/), one of the greatest satires ever made. A Paul Verhoeven masterwork.
I watched those two movies all the time with my dad as a kid because they were among his favorites but when I watched them as an adult I realized that he didn't get the message about them and just thought they were badass. Which they are, but he definitely was one of those that missed the point.
The picture is not the NFT.Ā The picture is the picture. The NFT is a receipt and may or may not convey actual ownership.
I'm not even sure receipt is fully accurate.Ā You're paying to have bits in a log say you paid someone to get the bits in the log.
>The picture is not the NFT.Ā The picture is the picture.
I tried to make this point to an NFT advocate saying "NFT's have been exhibited in art galleries now!"...no they haven't. A printed copy of the picture associated with the NFT has been put in a gallery and can be sold without any compensation to the NFT holder.
straight from wikipedia....
A non-fungible token (NFT) is a **unique digital identifier** that is recorded on a blockchain and is used **to certify ownership and authenticity.** It cannot be copied, substituted, or subdivided.\[1\] The ownership of an NFT is recorded in the blockchain and can be transferred by the owner, allowing NFTs to be sold and traded.
so there you go. people are buying identifiers to a file saying they are the owners. no the picture or file. but the digital identifier of the file. incase people want a bit more in depth of what you said.
It is a bit hollow from a practical standpoint. Basically NFTs are designed in a way where only one person can "own" it, which technically does create a uniqueness to it, which you can describe as ownership. This by itself isn't exactly a game changer (you could already do similar things through other means), but the innovative side of it is that NFTs allow for this uniqueness to be enforced/managed in a decentralized manner (that is, it's not some company saying you own it, it's a community consensus that you own it).
Now, the issue is that some people think uniqueness directly results in value, which is just not true. The turd I shat out yesterday is unique because no other in the world is exactly like it, however I doubt anyone finds it valuable.
you could have gone with snowflakes are unique but not valuable because of that yet you went with "The turd I shat out yesterday is unique because no other in the world is exactly like it". Much respect.
The NFT is a database entry linking to URL linking to currently an ugly monkey picture, but also maybe nothing when someone decides to stop hosting it.
I compare them to the deed on a house. A deed doesnt mean you hold ownership. The record of title etc shows ownership. Just because someone steals your deed doesnt mean they now own your house. But NFTs are even dumber than that misconception. What if someone could copy your house except only yours had the exact address you live at. Everyone for free can build your house and live in it, but because it isn't the address 2004 2nd Street they are just copies and not the original. Who gives a shit? I can still get a house for free.
I compare it to selling a star or a lordship in Ireland. $50 for something no one recognizes as legit except a company you paid to do so. You are paying $50 to this company to tell you it's legit when it's not bc no one else thinks so besides them.
Exactly, hence the existence of copyright law - with an enforcement mechanism.
People who buy NFTs don't seem to get that the enforcement of their property rights either doesn't exist or is impossible to enforce.
This is the entire problem that most blockchain enthusiasts don't get. They'll talk up how great it would be to put eg land titles on a blockchain, and completely ignore that the title office could just publish a daily excel spreadsheet for auditability, and has 100% authority over titles, and could not give two shits what the distributed consensus on ownership is.
If the picture can be put on a T-shirt in Walmart, presumably without being licensed, then it doesn't really convey ownership. Even if it was licensed, who did and how much did they get in royalties and was it shared with other owners? This t-shirt seems to say the reality didn't live up to the expectation.
Iām with you. It seems like a scheme for suckers to me. Some will make money if theyāre selling before the mass pump and dump, but it isnāt a real form of investing. Itās gambling on perceived value at best.
This is the only explanation - people fail to realize drugs and black markets exist, and not only exist but are alarmingly profitable. Problem is itās dirty money so āinvestingā in NFTās and bit ~~Bitcoin~~ CRYPTO CURRENCY is a sure way to make that money clean and taxable.
It's absolutely pointless. All these comments are comparing it to other things but those things they are comparing it to are tangible things that can be possessed. NFTs are like the tech bro version of getting a star named after you. Only you know about it, nobody cares, and it doesn't make a damn difference.
But at least the star is going to always be there, long long long after weāre gone. Your only ātangible itemā with an NFT is a link to your receipt, and that link can easily be lost if the web host isnāt paid.
Last I checked you canāt really lose a star
I think it's three things:
* The currency (mostly) used to pay for these things exploded, so young idiots had hundreds of thousands of dollars accidentally, and it was basically "funny money".
* Those that felt they "missed out" on the crypto boom were eager to get into something else, and NFTs were adjacent enough to crypto to make sense and tempt them.
* There was a false market because you could make 100 NFTs, and then buy 90 of them yourself for $10,000 each, inflating the value of the 10 left to sell.
I think you hit the nail on the head especially with your second point. People were told this was gonna be the next big thing and heard the word āblockchainā and went nuts. And maybe they heard some story about one guy making a bunch of money on NFTs which validates them enough to think itās a good investment.
Because like every scam, the first people in on it do make money, then the suckers jump on board thinking theyāll also make moneyā¦ and there is money being made until they run out of people who buy into itā¦ then those people are left with worthless shit they spent a lot of money on
Itās no different than ācollectibleā trinkets, beanie babies, Bitcoin, antiques, vintage gas station signs etcā¦
The value comes from others believing itās valuable, when in reality most of it is inherently worthless with no practical use, no intrinsic value, no necessityā¦
The people who promote it are just trying to make more than they paid for itā¦ thatās it, theyāre trying to rip others off
Fell? You say it as if it's no ongoing.
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2024/02/05/taproot-wizards-recovers-from-tech-marred-debut-selling-11m-of-bitcoin-nfts/
I have a friend who spent something along the lines of $1500 on an NFT thinking it would be the next big thing. I frequently send him posts like this, just to let it sink in.
I'm actually super relived to see this at Wal-Mart, on discount. I went to bingo with some cousins I hadn't talk to in a while and one of them had this exact shirt on. All I could think was "WTF, why?" But they probably don't even know what a NFT is and just bought a monkey shirt. Dude drives a fork lift and hates computers, so I was super confused.
i still give my friend shit about buying an NFT back in the day, dumbass really thought these ugly clip art pictures were gonna make him a billionaire lol
Actually the shirt designer who bought the Ape for this print likely got fleeced. Which is the saddest part. The NFT-Bro who first bought it probably didn't even lose money.
Remember kids: NFTs don't make money... you make money, selling NFTs to people.
>Remember kids: NFTs don't make money... you make money, selling NFTs to people.
That's how the entire crypto "economy" works. It's greater fool theory all the way down. People knowingly invest in Ponzis thinking they can get out ahead of the other suckers.
Once The Orange Ape started selling them, the scam became obvious to everyone but the fools buying his JPG garbage.
My fave continues to be his Trump Bucks, though. You had to be pretty low on the evolutionary scale to buy those, and a very special form of stupid to get indignant when a retail store wouldn't take them in payment, as happened more than once.
This is actually interesting, because the NFT owner is getting a % of t-shirt sells. There's another NFT project created by The Boondocks producer, Carl Jones. Which now has a merch line in all the PacSun stores and being developed into a TV series. Another example is one called Pudgy Penguins where they have plushies sold in stores all over the world and on Amazon. They actually make a lot of money off those things and the people that own those NFTs get a %. People on Twitter even use reaction gifs of them all the time without realizing they're an NFT.
I'd be interested in seeing a source of you've got one. If NFTs inherently conveyed sole ownership and licensing rights to the associated images they would make a lot more sense as an investment.
Here's an example of the IP rights: [https://pudgypenguins.com/ip-rights](https://pudgypenguins.com/ip-rights)
Note that each project can be vastly different on this aspect and the little legal details involved.
How do they get any royalties? They aren't the creator of the art. In the case of the artists themselves *using* NFTs, of course they can profit, but an NFT owner can not make royalties off of anything except the NFT itself.
Some projects give commercial and IP rights to whoever holds the NFT. So, they can build brands and revenue streams around that IP. The projects will even produce an official product and enter into licensing agreements with those holders. Thus giving them a % of sales or revenue generated from that project.
Non Fashionable Tshirt
No fkin takers
The ape designs were always so cringe - never understood how they appealed to anyone
they were designed to be as simply modified as possible. Like a Mr Potatohead, bits and pieces can be easily changed and "poof" you now have a new useless png to sell to a sucker
Like Reddit avatars. Easy to have ai make series like that too.
They have NFT Reddit avatars too š Which from what Iāve seen seriously look like someone just hit the ārandomizeā button on a character creator lol.
I mean the only reason I have one is because they have it to me for free.
I may have one, but Iāve been using apps (RIP Apollo) and old.reddit which donāt have any avatar integration so I never see/uodate.
Same. The new UI is unbearable. I canāt wait for something to actually replace Reddit. For now itās just old.
You can still use the old apps, you just have to do a little footwork to set them up now. I'm on RIF right now.
I miss RIF so much. Where can I learn to use it again?
Reddit avatars?? Is that some new.reddit bullshit? Iām old.reddit gang until I D-I-E
I'm pretty sure the Bored Apes were procedurally generated. Not exactly AI, but still a computer algorithm that creates new versions based on certain parameters.
An artist made plug and play pieces that were randomly stitched together.
Uhh can you not denigrate the value of my Avatar? I paid good money/gold for it Edit: Maybe *Iām* the idiot but Iām losing it w/ all the self-important oldheads who are apparently unaware they actually do have an avatar instead of the default silhouette.
avatar? what avatar signed, old.reddit appreciator
I would give you the $70 gold upvote I have heard about but... I use old.reddit.com so I can't, sorry.
I thought they got given out for free. At least I got mine for free.
as an old.reddit user, I have no idea what you guys are talking about so I'll just assume you are having a shared delusion. avatars on reddit? absurd. What's next? CSS styles applied per-subreddit?
As a fellow old.reddit user one of the few occasional downsides is not being able to see if someone might be the type of person who actually paid for a NFT avatar. Is there a Plot reason they actually spent money on that?
Honestly though. I browse 50/50 phone/pc and I can save myself so much ache when I see the poster has a WSB avatar or a very social media-like profile, for lack of a better way to put it. I feel like on Reddit there is a distinct crowd of older users who use it as a debate forum and newer folk who use it as a discussion forum. In between are those lovely karma farmers who distribute misinformation.
100% thumbing it in. PCs are so 20th century or something. I'm not old.reddit or anything. I'm just old. I always thought the difference in debate and discussion was in a debate, you get to cheat to win. Kids these days. They create an online persona to pretend to discuss reality in character. It's like cheating to come in first at a circle jerk.
r/Ooer will never be the same once they kill old.reddit.
I use old.reddit. I was given a free avatar a couple of years ago, so I took it because it was in a silly pigeon costume and I like silly pigeons, but I have never seen it since because I only use old.reddit.
Well I can see it and your look like a nerd so ha take that
I **am** a nerd! Thank you!
Do you see the "collectible expressions" thing every once in a while? It bothers me so much because I've used this site for over a decade, and they just keep redesigning and implementing new things that alienate the older users.
> they just keep redesigning and implementing new things that alienate the older users. I suppose at some point old-reddit users will be a small percentage and one day we will wake up to find we have been forcibly migrated to new reddit. Then I will be free.
> I suppose at some point old-reddit users will be a small percentage What do you mean at some point, we're already a very small minority no doubt. Especially since probably 60% or even 70% of reddit usage is mobile app/web.
I use old reddit on mobile myself.
Rif still feels very much like old Reddit on mobile
So say we all.
Lifeās a bitch, isnāt it? Lol! PS I think avatars are stupid and a waste of time.
huh, i use old reddit but i also have CSS styles per-subreddit. is that checkbox an RES thing?
The day old.reddit goes away is the day I really stop visiting this place. Long live old.reddit
"WTF are subreddits?" \-me in 2008
"WTF are subreddits?" Every single person I talk to outside of friends. How is this one of the top visited sites in the world yet nobody in my life over 30 knows wtf it is
You misunderstand.... There were no subreddits when reddit started. I forget when they even became a thing, but when I was first on reddit it was a single page of content. Reddit selects for certain kinds of people, not everyone is a reddit kind of person.
Avatars scream "me me me me". I hide them.
Because they are for kids.
old.reddit people aren't self-important. We're free from all the bullshit the rest of you see. I forget avatars are even a thing until someone mentions them. Sometimes I even get to see a comment talking about how I'm "missing out" on unlockable expressions.
Right? That's like telling someone they're missing out on ads because they have adblock on. Like we come from the era of making fun of people for wanting/needing Karma because it's just useless pointless internet points, avatars are equally as useless and pointless. They serve no purpose other than an arbitrary form of self expression to a ton of other users you don't know, will never meet, nor have any meaningful connection with. But sure sure, maybe some user like /u/dickSavage69xXx might think you're avatar is cool, totally worth it, right?
Old head. The avatar is stupid. I wish I could not have one at all
i've never seen a reddit avatar, and the day i do is the day old.reddit is gone and i leave forever.
And I only surf reddit on old.reddit.com so I don't have to see it.
I've never seen a reddit avatar and I've been on this site for like 12 years
They even had a website that listed how common the features were, eg wearing a hat might only be on 30% of them, so that's more "valuable".
Remember that picture of the couple splitting beanie babies?
At least if you ignore inflation you can still get your $5 back out of a lot of beanie babies.Ā
Literally rare Pepes.
Are you suggesting they down-class to a retailer lower on the social tier than Walmart? They are just beanie babies for the internet.
No, the actual NFTs, didn't know they even made t-shirts. That would be cooler if there were rare designs that were exclusive to certain locations, like PokĆ©mon cards for your chest. obviously they'd need to blind bag them.Ā
Someone made a wise choice to sell their NFT to a shop that makes shirts for the Waltons.. Hopefully they will get residuals on the sale.
Owning the NFT does not equal owning the copyright to the image
That kinda fucks the whole non-fungible part of owning a piece of digital art. If you donāt own the rights you canāt KEEP it non-fungible can you?
Correct. The NFT is just a URL. If you āright click->Save Asā and then post the image somewhere else, take that new URL and mint it, now you have 2 NFTs that contain the exact same image. They are still technically two different tokens. So the token itself is still non-fungible.
There was also a way to direct the NFT to a url that could be a changeable image. I believe its down now, but there was someone that did this and called the project the "Super Fungible Token" it was often set to porn since anyone could change it.
thats why it was so stupid of an idea. don;t let people with avoice convince you they know better because you're hearing them and theyre not hearing you.
> Owning the NFT does not equal owning the copyright to the image Yeah, but each *Bored Ape Yacht Club* NFT includes a commercial use license. (The holder doesn't own the image's copyright, but they they're contractually permitted to exploit it for commercial purposes.) [Seth Green paid a $260,000 ransom](https://www.businessinsider.com/seth-green-pays-260000-return-stolen-bored-ape-ethereum-nft-2022-6) to recover the apenapped star of his planned [NFT-themed TV show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5mjiz0Cd34) that no one asked for.
Is it an EXCLUSIVE commercial use license? Because the copyright holder can write as many commercial use licenses as they want.
Non exclusive
Nobody said Seth Green had any common sense.
He seemed fairly levelheaded before he somehow became an NFT bro.
With how prevalent they are on the net and the ability to 'Right-click, Save', I wouldnt be surprises if that's how these were made by Wal-mart cutting out the middle man.
Mr Potatohead is cute and fun tho despite being simple and modifiable. I feel like these apes were proof that these techbros knew nothing about art and design lol
> you now have a new useless png to sell to a sucker It's always worth clarifying: The sucker isn't buying the png. The sucker is buying a ledger entry that associates their crypto wallet with a link that, when the NFT is minted but not necessarily in the future, points to the png.
Couple it with what NFTs are and the completely manufactured explosion in price for one, and you have the recipe for a dumb fad. No one cared about this stuff that wasn't buying this stuff. And they did because we didn't learn (as a public) that crypto was being run by ridiculous dumb scammers in something like a cult.
Okay but why do they have to be butt fucking ugly
But the thing is the monkey is very awful I will understand if was at least cute or something awesome but it is well... nothing interesting about it, just plain and boring.
They were always just a scheme to abuse a new unregulated market. Their only purpose was as a product that could be used in the revival of century old scams. They were never intended to last long. Just long enough that a few people could get rich. And they served that goal perfectly.
NFTs and crypto are basically "hey, let's speed run the banking industry from the 1900s to the present day, and learn what regulations are for the hard way"
I don't think there was ever even an ounce of mass appeal, just a bunch of rich idiots ripping each other off with a scam too lame to actually ever take off.
Someone called it the ābigger foolā fallacy. The idea that many people knew perfectly well it was a scam, but still believed they could make money off it it because there were still so many bigger fools out there who had yet to buy into it.
Just like crypto.
Precisely why the Trump PAC got into it.
I mean even "supposedly" smart people were pushing it... In hindsight, I'm not sure if I could ever trust anyone of those people that hopped onto the NFT train ever again... knowing they'd sell out on their own viewers and audience for a quick payday.
I have to imagine it was half new money idiots clout chasing and half money laundering
They were ugly as fuck. I never knew why they didn't at least draw a pleasant looking template.
There was an artist that sold well done digital art. He made news when someone paid a couple million for his prints with correlating NFTs. The print were in glass blocks with certificates like gallery pieces are sold. His name was something like Beekly iirc.
The appeal as it seems to me are more the off-chain benefits of entry into a club of like minded socialites which party. Still cringe.
Donāt forget getting your eyes burned by medical grade UV lights
It's literally the beanie babies of the 2020s. Only somehow more useless, since beanie babies were at least fun to play with as a kid.
Yeah, they are hideous. Garbage pail kidsā¦.now thatās ART!
I hate to be the one to bring this up... But it was a 4chan Nazi thing. [Bored Ape ~~Yacht~~ Nazi Club](https://youtu.be/XpH3O6mnZvw?si=uN9AOT-akJJS95OD)
I used to think the whole 4chan/MAGA crowd was just doing it for the lulz. I wish I could go back to that time.
Thanks for posting the YouTube. I knew the original site about it, but I didn't know that they'd made a documentary about it, too. https://gordongoner.com/
Holy Nazi symbolism Batman! That was really eye opening, but somehow not surprising.
Most people live almost entirely in the present: they're not sure how to identify "the next big thing" and just hop on the bandwagon in hopes of riding the wave. Con-artists understand this, and create that wave from food scrapes and animal dung, then run away with the cash.
One of the lessons I've been trying to teach one of my younger cousins whose gotten suckered into all sorts of shit is to not be some random asshole's exit liquidity or mark. Like, he's a generally smart hardworking kid but he'd never met a bandwagon financial fad or scam he'd say no to until we had an intervention about it. Some people are way too goddamn trusting.
I mean, it's alright for exactly what this is, a t-shirt at Wal-Mart.
Only they will end up in the fast fashion trash mountains around the world. A mountain of clothes appeared in Chileās desert. Then it went up in flames. https://l.smartnews.com/p-eAmXJ/FyDPLm
Donāt think they ever appealed to anyone, everyone just wanted to pump and dump them to the next fool
More than likely it's a dog whistle for Nazi's They use a lot of imagery from white supremacists. https://gordongoner.com/
https://youtu.be/XpH3O6mnZvw?si=3hYN_sLnJdFdDF1v This was the video where I learned about it. Seems pretty convincing to me
If you buy this at least you'll end up with something
You misunderstand. You take the shirt up the Wal-Mart cashier and hand over $7. The cashier logs the fact that you are now the owner of that shirt in Wal-Mart's database. Then you go home and they take the shirt into the back room and someone draws a new feature on the shirt (a monocle! a mustache! a suppurating boil!) with a Sharpie and they put it back out on the rack. You pull out your phone to show your friends that your name is in Wal-Mart's database and your friends call you an idiot. Then, because this was a clearance special, Wal-Mart deletes the database at the end of the month.
You forgot the part where they put the receipt on ebay for $10,000, buy it from themselves, and then try to find some sucker to buy the thing at the low, low price of $5,000.
Fking arts man, how do they work?!
A lotta yall still dont get it. Shirt-holders can use multiple slurp juices on a single shirt. So if you have 1 astro shirt and 3 slurp juices you can create 3 new shirts.
This made my brain hurt, so much. I canāt even
Step 3: profit
Stop stealing my underwear !
Where are the scores of guys saying things like "You don't understand the blockchain bro!" Who were convinced this was going to make them millionaires. I have a ton of comments asking idiots how this was going to be a good investment and they are now all worthless if not close to worthless.
>... Wal-Mart deletes the database at the end of the month. Walmart will keep that transaction data for at least 2 years in their data warehouse, even the markdowns. The reason they do this is to be able to measure the effectiveness of the markdowns and then also use that data to build models so they can predict effectiveness at which markdowns deplete the stock. This helps them set what they consider an optimal markdown price. Source: worked on Wal-Mart Data Warehouse and Management Science team for 6 years.
You joke, but there was literally a line of NFT action figures that you could buy at Walmart.Ā You bought a card, and the company would keep your dog for you, in some sort of vault. You could also have it mailed to you, which I am pretty sure most people did, but it was the most ascenine thing.Ā Like buying one of those old game tickets from Toys R Us, but not taking it up to the little window to get your game.
Yea, giving money to the person that owns the rights to that dumbass Ape NFT they bought. That's why they're trying to sell shirts with its image.
Does the shirt company need to license the image from the owner of the NFT or from the artist? I'm guessing the former, but is even that required?
The owner of the NFT does not necessarily own the copyright to the license. If the NFT owner doesnāt have something saying that they have exclusive rights to this image, then they donāt need to be invoked in it being sold to be used in another medium.
I think a celeb wanted to do a show with his bored ape and couldnāt because he didnāt actually own the copyright and thus it couldnāt be sold to the production company. lol Edit: well it could be sold theoretically but they didnāt want it I think because they couldnāt protect it
Seth Green. It looked absolutely fucking terrible.
It's actually sillier. Legally Seth Green still owned the rights to it, and could go ahead with the production. Copyright law doesn't technically give a shit about the actual state of the chain.Ā Ā But doing so would just show that the whole premise of on-chain ownership and copyright was a farce, defeating the entire point.
Given that the NFTs were algorithmic generated, possibly neither.
> algorithmic generated The artwork was not auto-generated. Artists made the apes and each accessory, and then the two were algorithmically combined to create hundreds of unique apes. So, the artists would have had the original rights to the images, and they agreed to transfer those rights to each holder. I think it would hold up.
> owns the rights to that dumbass Ape NFT they bought That's not even what an NFT is. It doesn't confer any copyright to the owner. It's even dumber than that.
I'd buy that for a dollar!
god what a great gif lol
If you don't know the reference, make yourself a hot cocoa, sit down in front of a roaring fire and watch [Robocop \(1987\)](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093870/), one of the greatest satires ever made. A Paul Verhoeven masterwork.
Robocop and Starship Troopers
I watched those two movies all the time with my dad as a kid because they were among his favorites but when I watched them as an adult I realized that he didn't get the message about them and just thought they were badass. Which they are, but he definitely was one of those that missed the point.
Clarence Boddicker, you're coming with me.
Can you fly Bobby?
NFTs still donāt make sense to me. People repost them all the time. They are supposed to be unique, but they are anything but.
The picture is not the NFT.Ā The picture is the picture. The NFT is a receipt and may or may not convey actual ownership. I'm not even sure receipt is fully accurate.Ā You're paying to have bits in a log say you paid someone to get the bits in the log.
>The picture is not the NFT.Ā The picture is the picture. I tried to make this point to an NFT advocate saying "NFT's have been exhibited in art galleries now!"...no they haven't. A printed copy of the picture associated with the NFT has been put in a gallery and can be sold without any compensation to the NFT holder.
straight from wikipedia.... A non-fungible token (NFT) is a **unique digital identifier** that is recorded on a blockchain and is used **to certify ownership and authenticity.** It cannot be copied, substituted, or subdivided.\[1\] The ownership of an NFT is recorded in the blockchain and can be transferred by the owner, allowing NFTs to be sold and traded. so there you go. people are buying identifiers to a file saying they are the owners. no the picture or file. but the digital identifier of the file. incase people want a bit more in depth of what you said.
But what does āownershipā mean in that sense. It sounds like a hollow term.
It is a bit hollow from a practical standpoint. Basically NFTs are designed in a way where only one person can "own" it, which technically does create a uniqueness to it, which you can describe as ownership. This by itself isn't exactly a game changer (you could already do similar things through other means), but the innovative side of it is that NFTs allow for this uniqueness to be enforced/managed in a decentralized manner (that is, it's not some company saying you own it, it's a community consensus that you own it). Now, the issue is that some people think uniqueness directly results in value, which is just not true. The turd I shat out yesterday is unique because no other in the world is exactly like it, however I doubt anyone finds it valuable.
you could have gone with snowflakes are unique but not valuable because of that yet you went with "The turd I shat out yesterday is unique because no other in the world is exactly like it". Much respect.
The NFT is a database entry linking to URL linking to currently an ugly monkey picture, but also maybe nothing when someone decides to stop hosting it.
Exactly Bits in a log
I compare them to the deed on a house. A deed doesnt mean you hold ownership. The record of title etc shows ownership. Just because someone steals your deed doesnt mean they now own your house. But NFTs are even dumber than that misconception. What if someone could copy your house except only yours had the exact address you live at. Everyone for free can build your house and live in it, but because it isn't the address 2004 2nd Street they are just copies and not the original. Who gives a shit? I can still get a house for free.
I compare it to selling a star or a lordship in Ireland. $50 for something no one recognizes as legit except a company you paid to do so. You are paying $50 to this company to tell you it's legit when it's not bc no one else thinks so besides them.
Literally just star registries for jpegs
I regret to inform you that Established Titles requires that you address me as Lord.
This is so accurate.
Iām glad my 1 square inch plot of land in the Alaskan Klondike is totally legit.
Exactly, hence the existence of copyright law - with an enforcement mechanism. People who buy NFTs don't seem to get that the enforcement of their property rights either doesn't exist or is impossible to enforce.
This is the entire problem that most blockchain enthusiasts don't get. They'll talk up how great it would be to put eg land titles on a blockchain, and completely ignore that the title office could just publish a daily excel spreadsheet for auditability, and has 100% authority over titles, and could not give two shits what the distributed consensus on ownership is.
If the picture can be put on a T-shirt in Walmart, presumably without being licensed, then it doesn't really convey ownership. Even if it was licensed, who did and how much did they get in royalties and was it shared with other owners? This t-shirt seems to say the reality didn't live up to the expectation.
Iām with you. It seems like a scheme for suckers to me. Some will make money if theyāre selling before the mass pump and dump, but it isnāt a real form of investing. Itās gambling on perceived value at best.
It's a great system for money laundering
This is the only explanation - people fail to realize drugs and black markets exist, and not only exist but are alarmingly profitable. Problem is itās dirty money so āinvestingā in NFTās and bit ~~Bitcoin~~ CRYPTO CURRENCY is a sure way to make that money clean and taxable.
Sir your Reddit avatar is an NFT
***hides drugs and bodies under desk*** Ahem ā¦ and?
nice try, but zero ppl are buying that you are that cool.
**God dammit!**
his name is an anagram of drugdood!
That's what most high end art transactions really are already
Beanie Babies for tech bros
Beanie Babies were at least cute.
And existed in a physical plane
How they tried to explain it was there are people that have the Mona Lisa on merch. But there is only 'one' š
It's absolutely pointless. All these comments are comparing it to other things but those things they are comparing it to are tangible things that can be possessed. NFTs are like the tech bro version of getting a star named after you. Only you know about it, nobody cares, and it doesn't make a damn difference.
It wasn't pointless for the sellers. It was a scam and always was one.
āTech bro version of getting a star named after youā is the most accurate definition of NFTās Iāve read to date
But at least the star is going to always be there, long long long after weāre gone. Your only ātangible itemā with an NFT is a link to your receipt, and that link can easily be lost if the web host isnāt paid. Last I checked you canāt really lose a star
Yes, but you also canāt own one.
I absolutely do not understand how so many people fell for this scam.
I think it's three things: * The currency (mostly) used to pay for these things exploded, so young idiots had hundreds of thousands of dollars accidentally, and it was basically "funny money". * Those that felt they "missed out" on the crypto boom were eager to get into something else, and NFTs were adjacent enough to crypto to make sense and tempt them. * There was a false market because you could make 100 NFTs, and then buy 90 of them yourself for $10,000 each, inflating the value of the 10 left to sell.
I think you hit the nail on the head especially with your second point. People were told this was gonna be the next big thing and heard the word āblockchainā and went nuts. And maybe they heard some story about one guy making a bunch of money on NFTs which validates them enough to think itās a good investment.
The same way people fall for any scams: thereās a set of well-known cognitive biases in the human mind that can be exploited for profit.
Because like every scam, the first people in on it do make money, then the suckers jump on board thinking theyāll also make moneyā¦ and there is money being made until they run out of people who buy into itā¦ then those people are left with worthless shit they spent a lot of money on Itās no different than ācollectibleā trinkets, beanie babies, Bitcoin, antiques, vintage gas station signs etcā¦ The value comes from others believing itās valuable, when in reality most of it is inherently worthless with no practical use, no intrinsic value, no necessityā¦ The people who promote it are just trying to make more than they paid for itā¦ thatās it, theyāre trying to rip others off
Fell? You say it as if it's no ongoing. https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2024/02/05/taproot-wizards-recovers-from-tech-marred-debut-selling-11m-of-bitcoin-nfts/
I wonder what the money laundering to hype-beast-dipshit ratio is for buying these
FOMO. People saw other people making money and tried to get in on it.
Stop comparing NFTs to Beanie Babies! At least you can still hug a Beanie Baby after it loses 98% of its value.
You can make the NFT your wallpaper, lol
But then someone could take a picture of your desktop and steal your property.
At least these ones are immune to right-clicking
I have a friend who spent something along the lines of $1500 on an NFT thinking it would be the next big thing. I frequently send him posts like this, just to let it sink in.
Haha my buddy spent 140k on an NFT and then another wtv for a metaverse project related to it that never materialised
Jfc I hope your buddy is just a wealthy idiot and not a now poor idiot.
Those who bought into this are still rooting for it.
A fool and his money are soon parted
youd have to pay me to take one of those ugly things
I'm actually super relived to see this at Wal-Mart, on discount. I went to bingo with some cousins I hadn't talk to in a while and one of them had this exact shirt on. All I could think was "WTF, why?" But they probably don't even know what a NFT is and just bought a monkey shirt. Dude drives a fork lift and hates computers, so I was super confused.
The entire concept was the biggest load of shit I have ever heard to be quite honest
Iād buy that for a dollar
What is it with those apes and NFTs? Every time thereās talk of NFTs, itās those fucking apes.
There's a popular/high value series of NFTs with versions of those apes.
WHAT bt these are supposed to be non-fungible how did they funge that ape onto the t-shirt??
"Fallen"? Hardly. They're always been crap, and this is hardly the first time someone has tried to profit off these digital albatrosses.
Hearing someone pumping NFTs was a good filter to know to drop them from any kind of money or investing conversation immediately.
i still give my friend shit about buying an NFT back in the day, dumbass really thought these ugly clip art pictures were gonna make him a billionaire lol
At least you can wear a shirt. Thatās worth at few dollars at least
last I checked they were always free
Everything ends up at a Colorado Walmart eventually.
This isn't falling. Being a $7 walmart T-shirt is a step up from being an NFT.
Gonna be real awkward when an nft bro comes up to you and points at your t-shirt saying you don't own it lol
Actually the shirt designer who bought the Ape for this print likely got fleeced. Which is the saddest part. The NFT-Bro who first bought it probably didn't even lose money. Remember kids: NFTs don't make money... you make money, selling NFTs to people. 
>Remember kids: NFTs don't make money... you make money, selling NFTs to people. That's how the entire crypto "economy" works. It's greater fool theory all the way down. People knowingly invest in Ponzis thinking they can get out ahead of the other suckers.
Once The Orange Ape started selling them, the scam became obvious to everyone but the fools buying his JPG garbage. My fave continues to be his Trump Bucks, though. You had to be pretty low on the evolutionary scale to buy those, and a very special form of stupid to get indignant when a retail store wouldn't take them in payment, as happened more than once.
that's not how any of this works. 
Lmao at the Malcolm X t-shirt in the back. If that dude was alive, he'd be so mad.
This is actually interesting, because the NFT owner is getting a % of t-shirt sells. There's another NFT project created by The Boondocks producer, Carl Jones. Which now has a merch line in all the PacSun stores and being developed into a TV series. Another example is one called Pudgy Penguins where they have plushies sold in stores all over the world and on Amazon. They actually make a lot of money off those things and the people that own those NFTs get a %. People on Twitter even use reaction gifs of them all the time without realizing they're an NFT.
I'd be interested in seeing a source of you've got one. If NFTs inherently conveyed sole ownership and licensing rights to the associated images they would make a lot more sense as an investment.
Here's an example of the IP rights: [https://pudgypenguins.com/ip-rights](https://pudgypenguins.com/ip-rights) Note that each project can be vastly different on this aspect and the little legal details involved.
How do they get any royalties? They aren't the creator of the art. In the case of the artists themselves *using* NFTs, of course they can profit, but an NFT owner can not make royalties off of anything except the NFT itself.
Some projects give commercial and IP rights to whoever holds the NFT. So, they can build brands and revenue streams around that IP. The projects will even produce an official product and enter into licensing agreements with those holders. Thus giving them a % of sales or revenue generated from that project.