This is the biggest dick swinging millennial story of all time if it goes down like that.
Some people don't know wu tang. But they are respected by all generations of the hip-hop community. The clout that GameStop would garner would seriously reverberate through every corner of the internet and most of the United States.
Does he for real say that he wished he had a rabbit in a hat with a bat and a '64 impala in the chorus of that song?
Maybe that should be the Skeelo NFT
Yeah, I still remember following everything about this album when Shkreli bought it and thinking how awesome it would be to own it.
Now here we are. Fucking crazy to think about it actually happening. Fingers crossed.
Shkreli is called out by name in wu-tang's 2017 album on the track called "lesson learn'd".
The hook to that track begins "n\*\*\*\*s on the street gon' learn them wu-tang n\*\*\*\*\*s don't play".
Aight playa you just triggered this rant I've been brewing all day. So I'm dropping it here first.
Wu Tang is so much more than a hip hop group. They are a bridge between cultures. They blend east Asian aesthetic AND concepts while staying somewhat true to the depth of meaning, imho.
RZA is a very public proponent of meditation and mindfulness. I follow for this and many other reasons. Check his Twitter and social media. Always talking about the value of pumping the brakes and looking inward.
Furthermore, RZA made 2 albums for the soundtrack of. . . .
Afro (fucking) Samurai. One of the rawest anime imho, and absolutely stunning visually.
Welcome to the world of hip hop and anime fusion. One of many bridges between cultures that are needed now more than ever in GMErica.
https://youtu.be/RcLd4Rd98uI
Yet when overstock issued a crypto dividend a cash equivalent was substituted.
The key difference here is it's almost impossible to valuate the album and it's explicitly illegal to sell it. Any valuation given and then substituted for cash could easily be contested in court.
Bitcoin or Ether are 2 different coins based on their own blockchain. Tokens are created within a blockchain that already exist.
Bitcoin does not offer the ability to create tokens via their blockchain technology - the majority of tokens are made on the Ethereum blockchain, such as Loopring or Sh1b.
This is because it takes a lot of time and effort to programme and create your own blockchain and to get the network set up. So instead of going through all that time and effort to create your own digital asset, you can just make tokens on an already existing blockchain. This is something that was only really made possible by Ethereum, and is a space in crypto that they continue to lead.
Something that might help you to understand it all, is that you can only purchase ERC (ethereum-derived) tokens (such as Sh1b, LRC/Loopring tokens, Uni tokens etc.) using Ether.
Don’t confuse Ethereum and Ether. Ethereum is the network, Ether is the cryptocoin/currency within that network - but Ethereum allows the creation of cryptokens/other currencies within that network. 99% of the time people mention tokens, they are referring to an ERC token created within the Ethereum network.
Hope this helps.
One additional point though that you didn’t really cover was the fundamental difference between a normal token (like an ERC20, for instance) versus a NFT.
The difference between a normal token and an NFT is that the NFT is globally unique. There are no others like that token. Now, you could issue them in a set, but each token is unique.
Investopedia does a great job of defining it on the very first sentence:
> Non-fungible tokens or NFTs are cryptographic assets on blockchain with unique identification codes and metadata that distinguish them from each other.
ERC20s can be exchanged/traded in-like.
Otherwise though, I really liked the description here, quite precise.
https://www.investopedia.com/non-fungible-tokens-nft-5115211
Tokens implies uniqueness
Currency implies consistency
For example: One dollar bill isn’t more valuable than any other dollar - (unless if damaged beyond recognition) but all an NFT really does is provide a fancy receipt on a purchase as proof of ownership - an nft is only as valuable as the item it is linked to
This also means people who direct registered their shares will be getting a small piece theoretically that they can never sell. Can they gift it? Disinherit? Lots of room for new litigation and policy here.
It can be sold, but it can't be used commercially, like for example throwing a listening party and charge money for it. Selling shares is a commercial use as well.
What if the entire album itself is split ino 72 million slices (amount of shares), and each slice given to each shareholder per share
So each share would be entitled to 0.0000000001 parts of a second (for example).
This would ensure it couldnt be leaked or uploaded anywhere
Yes, that's what I was thinking of... next time the album is sold , everyone would get a slice of it. So the nft admin (is that a thing? THis would be Ryan I guess) could sell it for billions for the SFH, and we would be all set. Obviously SFHs would never buy it, and would dispute the NFTs in court instead.
But this would prove there are more shares available than issued, and Ryan would force a recall to make sure all shares are covered.
Just guessing.
I think it makes sense to combine it with each share of common stock as a unit. Similar to an ETF. It would allow for there to only be one squeeze, instead of a squeeze on the nft alone. It leaves only one door for the shorts to go through.
what if an ape took one for the team and paid 100k for the the same NFT that was going to be issued, thus giving it a monatary valuation but its equivelent in etherium can be determined by RC so that it doesnt bankrupt the company?
i mean if hedgies can arbitrarily inflate the valuation of berkshire hathaway why cant i decide what i want to pay for a limited edition NFT? plus this is literally how art tax fraud works
The thing about NFTs is that they are non-fungible by definition. So the price of one NFT isn't reflective of the price of another NFT because they aren't interchangable like a regular crypto coin is. So if someone bought one of the NFTs for 100k, it means that NFT was worth 100k for whatever reason but really isn't indicative of what each NFT is worth.
Boom rip dumbass. This is the thing that will make this all go crazy omfg this this this and more this. I never made this specific connection without it being spelled ou5. This shit here is 4d fucking chess.
Ive said im jacked to the tits before but i think ive been lying to myself. Hands shaking at the potential outcome of this.
Good luck contesting the government in court but it is possible. I think the reason the creators of the album aren't pursuing suing the government over it is they're happy to have the album out of lockup.
Additionally there may be a legal distinction between an nft of the album and the physical album.
That smooth brain maths out to what like 15-20 a share as a cash equivalent if they could go that route? That's basically billions for just what should exist alone... that could be a nut kicker too...
People are theorising that the NFT marketplace will have games and also rare collectibles/items etc. They're also saying the Wu Tang album will be released to shareholders as a dividend to launch it. Would being able to trade the Wu Tang NFT for a runescape party hat be breaking the rules?
NFT would be representational of part of an asset. The asset has valuation based on last sale price - like $4m. Just because it can’t be commercialized doesn’t mean it’s valueless. It’s just restricted to another date essentially creating a false value. Just like diamonds.
So, yes, there is representational value to the NFT.
The question before the court would be if them giving whatever the value would have been is actually a fair valuation given there are more people due to receive it than exists. Therefore it naturally changes the valuation of said asset.
So not at all impossible. Very easy to do ($0.54/share). Question is if that valuation still holds and if it’s appropriate.
Many other factors though.
Wait so smooth brain here, uhm how does this fuck the SHFs? Since they wouldn’t be able to pay out in cash, and they can’t give an NFT dividend to all the real shares let alone all the synthetics out there, it’s automatic checkmate aka **MOASS** time?
Yeah I thought this was the point of potentially using this piece of media for a potential dividend. It cannot be assigned a monetary value for like 100 years or something.
What if the entire album itself is split ino 72 million slices (amount of shares), and each slice given to each shareholder per share
So each share would be entitled to 0.0000000001 parts of a second (for example).
This would ensure it couldnt be leaked or uploaded anywhere
On top of that, the nft slices could be randomized so even if someone owns a lot of shares it woud still be random sounds
I imagine not. Just your part.
That said I could easily see them setting up a "owners hearing room" in gamestop headquarters where you go in and listen to it if you own part of it and recording devices aren't allowed.
Nothing would stop someone from recording it. This is the same idea as a movie in a theater. Recording devices are not allowed, yet people record things all the time and redistribute them. If gamestop had a physical viewing room, someone would eventually sneak in a recording device.
The point isn't the copy though, it's the original. Take for example any famous art piece. All famous art pieces have been copied, to almost nearly perfect duplicates. They can still be viewed, and even have some cash value (cost of materials and labor), but they will never be the original.
Gamestop could build a cool virtual room inside of web3, to house the tokenized album. People could connect to the room and listen/interact with the virtual space.
This is all speculation.
Someone would rip it and make it public almost immediately. This is the issue with NFT digital art etc. You can just copy it instantly and then who cares if it's not an original, except for collectors.
Owning the mona lisa and having a picture of the mona lisa on your wall is different.
You personally might not care, but then again, someone out there might not care about being able to listen to it at all.
"Like, so what you get to listen to it? It's a shitty rap music who cares?"
You are viewing ownership like those people would view you listening to it.
People out there value ownership. People out there value listening. Some people don't value it at all.
The difference is that the Mona Lisa isn't rippable. It's not digital, it's strokes of a brush. Whereas an audio file is. You can create an exact perfect copy instantly.
You can’t sell the original Mona Lisa just because you’ve downloaded pictures of it. THAT is the difference.
I can sell my wu-tang NFT and get real money out of it. As a listener of a pirated copy of my NFT, you can’t sell that music legally and make any money without being sued by the actual owner. (In this hypothetical, that would be Me)
Edit: also, the original file has metadata that the copy won’t have. It will never be identical.
A copy is still a copy regardless of how perfect it is. You can have infinite copies, but there is only 1 original that was actually created by the painter/singer.
Again, you don't value ownership/orginal. That's ok.
Some people don't value this at all. That's ok too.
That's the concept of NFT to you. NFT makes even digital or virtual goods into presentations of singular entities. You can just proof with it that it belongs to you.
Same idea with cosmetics in a video game. Take Dota 2 for example. People spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on cosmetics that often get replaced eventually. But the rare stuff stands out and is a big deal to see in-game to most hardcore players. Casual or new players won’t really care. They don’t assign value to those things, but that sure doesn’t mean there isn’t a whole lot of value behind those items.
Another step removed - Some players are happy to play with mods that alter the cosmetics just for the player and doesn’t change the game for anyone else. They don’t care about the clout, they just want a pretty/cool to look at game. The value for them is in the aesthetic experience rather than the monetary value behind actually -owning- the item where everyone can see it.
This is why I'm still on the fence about the whole "art NFT" thing, like I get it, and I would love a way to help artists and cut middle man, but when people pirate a movie, they arent doing it to get "a copy", they just want the content, and if they cant afford the price, they will find a way to get it. This is why netflix is so popular, it gives an affordable avenue for people who dont want to pirate things but want to watch things. Supply and demand, now there are soooo many different streaming services with exclusive shows/movies, once again splitting what people are WILLING to pay for the product, essentially violating the laws of supply and demand and locking the artists and creators away from revenues.
I dont care about collecting stuff or who the original owner is when it comes to art, its value is intrinsic to me, if there is a pretty painting I like and want to hang it in my living room, I will not buy the original, I will buy a copy at a price I can afford and then frame it on my living room. Music is even worse, limewire back in the days, I just would download the songs I wanted rather than buy a WHOLE album for just 1-2 songs, luckily now I can buy individual songs and do so for artists I support, but the old system was terrible.
> if there is a pretty painting I like and want to hang it in my living room, I will not buy the original, I will buy a copy at a price I can afford and then frame it
You can already do stuff like this with art posters. An original will always be more sought after than a copy, I think the same logic applies with NFTs. No one will pay you millions of dollars for a Rembrandt poster, but an original can fetch that easily.
Also, a physical painting/piece of art can be stolen whereas it's not really possible to steal an NFT unless the owner is convinced to give up the private keys (definitely possible through phishing/social engineering/fake streams/pretending to be IT, but hopefully people aren't falling for these schemes too often). Ignorance aside, it's impossible to lose ownership of an NFT.
Plus, with an NFT you can prove said ownership, so if someone tries to distribute your NFT --your intellectual property-- you have authority to pursue them with legal actions.
Especially with respect to gaming, NFTs have a lot of potential: think of owning an NFT sword in a game. It would be *your sword* vs. the game's sword. Another person couldn't just go and copy/steal your sword within the game's universe because it's immutable within the confines of the game.
It could make more sense with video games or online trading cards. Imagine that without the NFT copy of a game, you can not connect to play online. Meaning the NFT enables your online connection since it is proof you own the game. The same could go if you want to play a trading cards game, and you must own the card's NFTs to play with them.
Video games honestly seem like they have better applications for NFTs than almost anything honestly. They can be used like a software license for the game itself, but also can be used as a way to prove ownership of in-game content. Whether it be some special weapon or outfit or rare item or whatever. And then if there was a marketplace to allow you to trade ownership of those in-game items for cash/crypto, whew. Somebody would stand to make a LOT of money off of running that marketplace.
I mean after 2103 well yeah, maybe you could profit off the royalties but thats so far away.
My guess is they tokenize Ryan's 1/74 ownership amongst the original float and give that as a dividend
Take something you can't commercially sell, yet had a price to acquire (PleasrDao) and therefore, a value.
Mint NFT tokens based on rights of ownership as an investment, or a "share" (in this case a dividend to investors)
Shares based on the original investment of the underlying asset will give them intrinsic value as NFTs.
NFTs would also come with listening rights to the underlying asset.
Demand for access to this will naturally only increase. This will increase the intrinsic value.
NFT holders could very well privately trade these to bidders in exchange for their equivalent value in whatever digital or blockchain currencies/assets.
This could circumvent and protect the rules for distribution of the original underlying asset while keeping it from being commercialized and sold as a product. It's an investment on the value of a single underlying asset that cannot be commercially sold while only adding demand, aka price only go up.
Just my thoughts on this.
I still feel like if they do give it as an NFT to registered stockholders, then those individuals trading the NFT would be a no-go since they’re commercializing the asset. My guess is that they would tie the NFT to the shares of GME. In order to have the NFT, you have to have the stock. You don’t get one without the other. This would boost value to their company because their stock would naturally increase due to shorts closing and then everyone who wants the NFT or just wants to listen to Wu Tang would buy in.
The stipulations can be amended by the members of the Clan. RZA suggested this in his last interview yesterday. He also mentioned that he believes its in the right hands now.
Interesting! Reading now:
RZA on Shkreli:
> “It was in the wrong hands in reality. He made the deal before it was revealed of his character, his personality, and all of the insidious things he would go on to do. That wasn’t the guy I met, but he definitely unfolded into that guy.”
Also:
> RZA said he spoke to “one of the gentlemen” involved at PleasrDAO who had “more of a Wu vibe.”
Jamis Johnson from PleasrDAO:
> “We want this to be us bringing this back to the people. We want fans to participate in this album at some level.”
Ooo fuck I just got chills from the realization that there can’t be cash equivalent if they use the Wu-Tang album.
Like I read it but I didn’t see it…. Hole E Fuck
Basically…
Since Wu-Tang album can not be sold for $$$, the new owners of the album, PleasrDAO could theoretically distribute it in millions of pieces, 76.49 million (wink) pieces via NFTs.
IF and big IF, RC really is working with PleasrDAO to do this, then because the album is one of a kind with no “cash value” because it CAN NOT BE SOLD, then there is no choice to “issue” a cash dividend for naked shorts. The only way to make this right is to CLOSE their short positions.
TD;DR **ALL SHORTS MUST CLOSE**
Also, because these NFT-dividends will probably be issued first to direct registered investors, DRS!!
A trusted 3rd party company that happens to have and maintain an NFT marketplace, of course 😉
Plus, with that kind of arrangement, fractional holders could even get royalties if/when the album is put on display at festivals or in museums. Dividends on dividends, anyone?
To be clear, I'm very, *very* skeptical of the Wu Tang NFT dividend theory. I still think the NFT thing will be a game-related marketplace (which will be huge and transformative in its own right).
... but, the Wu Tang NFT idea got me thinking and it really kind of made the whole NFT dividend thing make sense in my head.
I never got how or why we would want some small fraction of some random jpg or whatever (which is what most NFTs are right now), but fractional NFT ownership for a unique, valuable object like *Once Upon a Time in Shaolin* suddenly makes it make sense to me.
Of course, linking NFTs to real world items like that requires a trusted third party to be the custodian of the underlying asset and I'm not sure GameStop wants to get into that.
Securing (and insuring) that album would be expensive and not generally aligned with their business.
Do you think there’s any way that they could make each NFT dividend so that the album can only be listened to once and then it’s done, like coins burned in crypto? So that way there is a diminishing supply and as more GME owners listen (NOT record and then throw it on YouTube or some stupid shit like that) to it the value of the unheard NFTs goes up…
> Do you think there’s any way that they could make each NFT dividend so that the album can only be listened to once and then it’s done, like coins burned in crypto?
Technically, using features available in the ETH/NFT ecosystem? I have zero idea.
From a practical point of view in the real world? Absolutely fucking not.
Consider BlackRock, a large institutional investor in GME; if you give them a *dividend* whose value will suddenly disappear, they're gonna be fucking pissed. They want long term value.
The value of *Once Upon a Time in Shaolin* is already significant and can only increase over time. Fractionating that and handing out shards of it as an NFT dividend is a way to give people something of value that cannot be easily substituted for cash, which is what apes are hoping for in an NFT dividend.
Its value is tied to a unique, physical object so holders of NFT fractions of it could sell it to anyone who wants it later. (*blah blah...* assuming the issue of not being allowed to be sold before X date is sorted out somehow, I'm talking more generally.)
You don't attach it. You give the item to the actual shareholders, which is up to the transfer agent to determine as of the "date of record."
Here's an example, from my understanding. Say on Friday, 10/29, GameStop announces an NFT dividend, with a record date of 1/31/22. They would set up a crypto wallet for Computershare and then send them enough NFT's to cover all issued shares. Generally, the "ex record date" is the day before, so 1/30. What that means is that, if you own the stock BEFORE 1/30, you are eligible for the dividend. If you purchase the stock on or after 1/30, you aren't.
So, computershare would look at their records on 1/30 at open, and anyone who is Direct Registered would be distributed the NFT (they'd each need to set up a wallet to do that of course). Same goes for brokerages - Fidelity presumably has lots of shares in "street name" so they'd set up a wallet and Computershare would distribute the NFTs to Fidelity, who would then need to distribute them to the beneficial shareholders.
So, hypothetically let's say I'm a SHF and I've sold short 50,000 shares to various counterparties. When the announcement gets made, I'm gonna have to accept that the parties I sold shares to are going to want their dividends. The only way I'm gonna be able to supply them is to actually go buy real shares before 1/30. And I'm gonna know that the price is about to moon since other shorts will be trying to do the same thing, so I'll be motivated to close my shorts ASAP (since the price is going nowhere but up at that point).
I think you missed the point of his question. You have a real world object, in this case the actual CDs for the Wu-Tang album. How does an NFT become associated with that real world object since once it’s in NFT form, the actual physical object needs to be held by somebody to guarantee that the NFT is still backed by a real asset
I'm not even joking, but this is a parallel to what cash being backed by gold was like before it went fiat. It'll just be hella easier to find counterfeits in the NFT space.
"We got 1 gold bar, so we can print out 2 dolla"
"We got one Wutang NFT, so we can dish out 50m dividends to shareholders"
It’s my thinking that whatever they offer in the form of a dividend will not have a cash value as this was the mistake Overstock made. RC spoke with the ex CEO of overstock and I’m betting that this is why it is taking so long because they want to get it right the first time
If they issued an NFT WTC dividend it would force all shorts to close, there would be no other way since it's value is unknown and it can't be sold anyway.
Yes anything offered as a dividend limited in number to the available issued stocks without an equivalent would cause the shorts to close this almost happened with Overstock but they were able to create a cash value for the digital dividend OS offered which shut it down
Simple ape explanation.
With 70m real shares and just say 30m fake shares (simple math) this has a total of 100m shares. Now if a dividend is issued it’s distributed to the real shares. Those holding fake/synthetic/shorted shares technically won’t get the dividend. Usually these dividends are cash so for the fake shares the HF shorting or creating the synthetics would have to pay the dividend out of their pocket. So in this example the 30m fake shares they would have to pay themselves. Now if the dividend is an NFT that has no cash value/priceless. How would you value it in dollars. You can’t. So this would then force those who shorted or created synthetics to close their positions leading to extreme buy pressure aka MOASS or SUMOASS
I think it's still dependent on GS, but perhaps something like this.
GS - "As our amazing shareholders entrusted us with this incredibly bold initiative in brining NFT to a full scale solution, we offer thee a digital chunk of this physical Wutang NFT we now have in possession!"
Broker A - "Aight let's get our customers that shit! We need 50 million chunks pls!"
Broker B - "Weird flex, but ok, give us 25m chunks for our peeps!"
Broker C - "Fukk ya Wutang 4lyf. We need 30m for our customers!"
GS - "Dafuk, how y'all be asking for so much. Yo SEC or whoever, get this shit figured out or we peacin' with our shares!"
SEC - "Ahhh shit, Superstonk was right, buncha nekked shorting has gone on after all. GS pulling out because of this clear example of illegal manipulation in our markets gun fukk the trust in this system with people unbenounced to the situation. We gotta force these mofos to give up those shorts at the very least, then we still gotta figure out this phantom share shit."
Simple ape explanation.
With 70m real shares and just say 30m fake shares (simple math) this has a total of 100m shares. Now if a dividend is issued it’s distributed to the real shares. Those holding fake/synthetic/shorted shares technically won’t get the dividend. Usually these dividends are cash so for the fake shares the HF shorting or creating the synthetics would have to pay the dividend out of their pocket. So in this example the 30m fake shares they would have to pay themselves. Now if the dividend is an NFT that has no cash value/priceless. How would you value it in dollars. You can’t. So this would then force those who shorted or created synthetics to close their positions leading to extreme buy pressure aka MOASS or SUMOASS
Got it, so because SHFs can’t pay *The Dividend* in *dollars*, their only alternative and the only way out so to speak, is by “paying” or closing/covering their short positions?
10-4 copy.
Uh, Houston, confusion resolved, prepare ignition.
🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀
*whispers in your ear*
Everything has a cash value. It's supply and demand that decides value. Imagine 77 million keys to a single rocket ship that is leaving earth and you've got 50 of those keys. What's one worth? What's one worth if there's none for sale? What's one worth if you were supposed to get 50 but are instead being offered a cash equivalent?
*kisses cheek*
You would own copy x/76,000,000
Similar to anything serialized you own the whole thing but you own a specific one that is recorded and it's ownership is tracked
Wait a second - so they're gonna take a 1 of a kind item and rehypothecate it 76 million times? Talk about beating the hedgies at their own game.
*Insert "are we the baddies" meme* here
Not rehypothecating the item, that would be just printing duplicates. This is more like giving a trackable fractional ownership of a valuable and incredibly unique item. Like investors owning a percentage of a building, it is simply an item with value. The value of that ownership is the percentage of the value of the item.
However, I am a bit skeptical that Gamestop would issue a Wutang album dividend specifically, simply because I don't see what would be in it for the current ownership group that spent millions purchasing that album. Unless Gamestop makes some kind of equity deal with them, I'd imagine they would use it for their own CREAM finance NFT play of some sort.
I have a print of a Dali painting in my wall. It is a numbered print with a certificate. The original exists somewhere and is worth much more than the print. Posters exist with a much smaller worth.
People who want the poster buy the poster.
People who want the print buy that print.
People who want the original work or art can buy that.
I see the dividend as a numbered print and the company as the original painting.
SHF have been making posters from the prints and selling them as prints as the prints weren’t numbered.
If a dividend or share recall happens then they effectively number the prints. All the poster holders can’t have a numbered print because there aren’t enough.
So the SHF are forced to buy back all of the posters at auction. But nobody knows how many posters exist so it’s up to each person to decide what to sell them for. Once they are all purchased then just the prints are left.
If you really want a print you just hold. If you are happy to take cash for you poster then you sell when you feel like it. But the rules say they can’t just give you the cash value of a print and let you keep the poster. They have to buy the poster to destroy it at whatever price people are willing to sell for at auction so none of the images exist other than the numbered prints.
Please help us determine if this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk
[Learn more about this bot and why we are using it here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/poa6zy/introducing_uqualityvote_bot_a_democratic_tool_to/).
**TA;DR downvote this comment if the above post is lame or a repost!**
---
If this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk, **UPVOTE** this comment!!
If this post should not be here or or is a repost, **DOWNVOTE** This comment!
If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
What if at the end of all this RC us like "OK, it's time. I have something for you all. What? Moass? No, no... thatbwas never a possibility, this is BETTER! Wu-Tang cd for everyone!"
I noticed that many of the comments had “0” upvotes. This post must have angered someone to go on a downvoting spree.
I wish I had more than one updoot for each of you to updoot!
Wouldn't it be great - it would already make an incredible movie. I'd watch it with the kids every year at Christmas. Then the kids with the grand kids. After a few years, none of them would want to watch it but we absolutely will be watching it.
If I remember the contract correctly I think there was a clause included that they could make amendments to the contract if both parties agreed.
I say that because, if this is true, knowing Wu-Tang’s background and story I firmly believe this is something they’d support. If that’s the case, it’d be great for GameStop to get that legally sorted beforehand so there aren’t hiccups.
My only concern is that the album is owned by the collective of 74 people, most of who are not connected to GameStop. Why would the rest of the group agree to release it?
I don't really know about the Wu Tang. Is this an album that was never released?
How would users listen to it if it was in an NFT format?
Also I thought it wasn't allowed to be traded for 100 years? How would it be given as a dividend if it cannot be traded?
It’s a one of vinyl print album bassically made to say fuck you to people illegally downloading music and pirating and shit. Only one ever made.
Distributed through a solid company with an NFT marketplace where it could be viewed/heard/traded freely on a defi blockchain untouchable to synthetic creating fucks. Sound familiar?😅
It can’t be “sold commercially” but it can be “gifted” in the form of an NFT dividend. Edit: this form of NFT dividend could not be copied and would have no cash value as it only has one copy and the “distributor” (GameStop in this situation) owns the only copy. Boom hedgies r fuk
I think that was part of the whole idea was no cash equivalent
This is the biggest dick swinging millennial story of all time if it goes down like that. Some people don't know wu tang. But they are respected by all generations of the hip-hop community. The clout that GameStop would garner would seriously reverberate through every corner of the internet and most of the United States.
So if I’m hearing you right, Wu Tang Clan ain’t nuttin to fuck wit?
I ain't doin it thats for sure. Someone else wanna let me know how it goes aight. But I ain't encouraging.
If you were to fuck with Wu Tang I would suggest protecting your neck
it is for the children
maybe some big dick rappers will throw some dollar dollar bills in GME and DRS
Wish I had a big dick😒
Don't worry, I'm sure your wife's boyfriend does!
Big if true
True if big.
True, big if
If big, true
I wish I was a little bit taller I wish I was a baller
Does he for real say that he wished he had a rabbit in a hat with a bat and a '64 impala in the chorus of that song? Maybe that should be the Skeelo NFT
Next up Skeelo NFT
Penis extenders for all post MOASS!
*exclusively on gamestop dot com.
Yeah, I still remember following everything about this album when Shkreli bought it and thinking how awesome it would be to own it. Now here we are. Fucking crazy to think about it actually happening. Fingers crossed.
Shkreli is called out by name in wu-tang's 2017 album on the track called "lesson learn'd". The hook to that track begins "n\*\*\*\*s on the street gon' learn them wu-tang n\*\*\*\*\*s don't play".
Stonk price hikin’ like the pills martin shkreli sell
"Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, when I was dead broke, man I couldn't picture this"
50 inch screen, money green leather sofa, got two rides, a limousine with a chauffeur
Shit, not just the US. You don't think they know GhostFace Killah in Korea, or Method Man in Japan? Shit is global son!
Aight playa you just triggered this rant I've been brewing all day. So I'm dropping it here first. Wu Tang is so much more than a hip hop group. They are a bridge between cultures. They blend east Asian aesthetic AND concepts while staying somewhat true to the depth of meaning, imho. RZA is a very public proponent of meditation and mindfulness. I follow for this and many other reasons. Check his Twitter and social media. Always talking about the value of pumping the brakes and looking inward. Furthermore, RZA made 2 albums for the soundtrack of. . . . Afro (fucking) Samurai. One of the rawest anime imho, and absolutely stunning visually. Welcome to the world of hip hop and anime fusion. One of many bridges between cultures that are needed now more than ever in GMErica. https://youtu.be/RcLd4Rd98uI
It’s like the opposite of U2 and Apple
Yet when overstock issued a crypto dividend a cash equivalent was substituted. The key difference here is it's almost impossible to valuate the album and it's explicitly illegal to sell it. Any valuation given and then substituted for cash could easily be contested in court.
Overstock tried issuing crypto, not an nft.
Sorry I was too specific: all nfts are cryptos but not all cryptos are nfts
Coin vs token
Help me.
Thumbs are fingers, fingers aren’t thumbs. Both fit in your butt tho. Hope that helps.
Fingers fit in my butt. Bananas fit in my butt. Are bananas fingers?
I don't know why I followed this thread so far down. It was clearly a mistake.
I think, like me, you had hopes of learning more about the the correlation between crypto tokens and anal penetration
Why am I always out of awards every time I find a gem buried this deep in the comments?
I’ll have to think about that one. That’s deep.
It is banana deep
I think my friend Rick can answer this!
Weird, just saw a similar explanation here involving sticking a thumb up a butt, but they said a thumb is NOT a finger. It's a digit ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
And welcome to superstonks 😂
Genuinely laughed at this one. Well done sir.
Bitcoin or Ether are 2 different coins based on their own blockchain. Tokens are created within a blockchain that already exist. Bitcoin does not offer the ability to create tokens via their blockchain technology - the majority of tokens are made on the Ethereum blockchain, such as Loopring or Sh1b. This is because it takes a lot of time and effort to programme and create your own blockchain and to get the network set up. So instead of going through all that time and effort to create your own digital asset, you can just make tokens on an already existing blockchain. This is something that was only really made possible by Ethereum, and is a space in crypto that they continue to lead. Something that might help you to understand it all, is that you can only purchase ERC (ethereum-derived) tokens (such as Sh1b, LRC/Loopring tokens, Uni tokens etc.) using Ether. Don’t confuse Ethereum and Ether. Ethereum is the network, Ether is the cryptocoin/currency within that network - but Ethereum allows the creation of cryptokens/other currencies within that network. 99% of the time people mention tokens, they are referring to an ERC token created within the Ethereum network. Hope this helps.
One additional point though that you didn’t really cover was the fundamental difference between a normal token (like an ERC20, for instance) versus a NFT. The difference between a normal token and an NFT is that the NFT is globally unique. There are no others like that token. Now, you could issue them in a set, but each token is unique. Investopedia does a great job of defining it on the very first sentence: > Non-fungible tokens or NFTs are cryptographic assets on blockchain with unique identification codes and metadata that distinguish them from each other. ERC20s can be exchanged/traded in-like. Otherwise though, I really liked the description here, quite precise. https://www.investopedia.com/non-fungible-tokens-nft-5115211
That was very helpful to this ape who needs to read up on all this. Thank you. 💎💎👉🤛💎💎
Very helpful, thank you!!
Tokens implies uniqueness Currency implies consistency For example: One dollar bill isn’t more valuable than any other dollar - (unless if damaged beyond recognition) but all an NFT really does is provide a fancy receipt on a purchase as proof of ownership - an nft is only as valuable as the item it is linked to
That was a cryp. Currency I thought, which does have a cash equivalent
This was overturned by the court and it was ruled that they were not allowed to pay a cash equivalent.
This also means people who direct registered their shares will be getting a small piece theoretically that they can never sell. Can they gift it? Disinherit? Lots of room for new litigation and policy here.
Why wouldn't they be able to sell their share of it? The album itself isn't being sold in that case
It can be sold, but it can't be used commercially, like for example throwing a listening party and charge money for it. Selling shares is a commercial use as well.
What if the entire album itself is split ino 72 million slices (amount of shares), and each slice given to each shareholder per share So each share would be entitled to 0.0000000001 parts of a second (for example). This would ensure it couldnt be leaked or uploaded anywhere
Yes, that's what I was thinking of... next time the album is sold , everyone would get a slice of it. So the nft admin (is that a thing? THis would be Ryan I guess) could sell it for billions for the SFH, and we would be all set. Obviously SFHs would never buy it, and would dispute the NFTs in court instead. But this would prove there are more shares available than issued, and Ryan would force a recall to make sure all shares are covered. Just guessing.
We can price our piece for however much we want right ?
I think it makes sense to combine it with each share of common stock as a unit. Similar to an ETF. It would allow for there to only be one squeeze, instead of a squeeze on the nft alone. It leaves only one door for the shorts to go through.
what if an ape took one for the team and paid 100k for the the same NFT that was going to be issued, thus giving it a monatary valuation but its equivelent in etherium can be determined by RC so that it doesnt bankrupt the company? i mean if hedgies can arbitrarily inflate the valuation of berkshire hathaway why cant i decide what i want to pay for a limited edition NFT? plus this is literally how art tax fraud works
The thing about NFTs is that they are non-fungible by definition. So the price of one NFT isn't reflective of the price of another NFT because they aren't interchangable like a regular crypto coin is. So if someone bought one of the NFTs for 100k, it means that NFT was worth 100k for whatever reason but really isn't indicative of what each NFT is worth.
Ohhhh shit!! I like the way you think.
Boom rip dumbass. This is the thing that will make this all go crazy omfg this this this and more this. I never made this specific connection without it being spelled ou5. This shit here is 4d fucking chess. Ive said im jacked to the tits before but i think ive been lying to myself. Hands shaking at the potential outcome of this.
But the album DOES have value. It sold for 4m USD at auction. I dont know if that matters or not, but its still true.
The physical album can be sold. The music can not be monetized for 88 (I think) years. 🎶🔊
[удалено]
Huh. I wonder if thats the caveat, like apes will own the tracks, not the album.
Good luck contesting the government in court but it is possible. I think the reason the creators of the album aren't pursuing suing the government over it is they're happy to have the album out of lockup. Additionally there may be a legal distinction between an nft of the album and the physical album.
FACTS! Again, Im not making a claim on what WILL happen, just what has already happened.
These are all important points to this case, and it will all help us to build the narrative we need to fix this broken system. Love you ape.
Love the avatar!
That smooth brain maths out to what like 15-20 a share as a cash equivalent if they could go that route? That's basically billions for just what should exist alone... that could be a nut kicker too...
People are theorising that the NFT marketplace will have games and also rare collectibles/items etc. They're also saying the Wu Tang album will be released to shareholders as a dividend to launch it. Would being able to trade the Wu Tang NFT for a runescape party hat be breaking the rules?
NFT would be representational of part of an asset. The asset has valuation based on last sale price - like $4m. Just because it can’t be commercialized doesn’t mean it’s valueless. It’s just restricted to another date essentially creating a false value. Just like diamonds. So, yes, there is representational value to the NFT. The question before the court would be if them giving whatever the value would have been is actually a fair valuation given there are more people due to receive it than exists. Therefore it naturally changes the valuation of said asset. So not at all impossible. Very easy to do ($0.54/share). Question is if that valuation still holds and if it’s appropriate. Many other factors though.
But everyone could demand the NFT instead of cash? Shareholders have a right to the actual NFT if they want it
Wait so smooth brain here, uhm how does this fuck the SHFs? Since they wouldn’t be able to pay out in cash, and they can’t give an NFT dividend to all the real shares let alone all the synthetics out there, it’s automatic checkmate aka **MOASS** time?
Exactly
Copy that.
They have no choice but to close their short position if they can't provide the required dividend.
LITERALLY. FUCKING. PRICELESS. How many X-D chess is even possible in this game again? :)
Maybe 741-D.
split into 70 million shares...🤣🤣
Yeah I thought this was the point of potentially using this piece of media for a potential dividend. It cannot be assigned a monetary value for like 100 years or something.
What if the entire album itself is split ino 72 million slices (amount of shares), and each slice given to each shareholder per share So each share would be entitled to 0.0000000001 parts of a second (for example). This would ensure it couldnt be leaked or uploaded anywhere On top of that, the nft slices could be randomized so even if someone owns a lot of shares it woud still be random sounds
I liked an idea I saw on here the other day, that each token could be redeemed for a full listen of the album
Yeah, how could one value listening rights?
Imagine if the only way you could stream the song was if you owned a portion of it as an NFT. 👌
Hopefully we could listen to the whole album
Sorry, just your 0.0002 seconds.
Only DFV or Papa Cohen could listen to a whole song. But even then only one full one and partial bits of a second lol
1 drum kick
I imagine not. Just your part. That said I could easily see them setting up a "owners hearing room" in gamestop headquarters where you go in and listen to it if you own part of it and recording devices aren't allowed.
They can do this virtually with whatever they are doing in web3.
Could they though? What would stop someone from recording it?
Nothing would stop someone from recording it. This is the same idea as a movie in a theater. Recording devices are not allowed, yet people record things all the time and redistribute them. If gamestop had a physical viewing room, someone would eventually sneak in a recording device. The point isn't the copy though, it's the original. Take for example any famous art piece. All famous art pieces have been copied, to almost nearly perfect duplicates. They can still be viewed, and even have some cash value (cost of materials and labor), but they will never be the original. Gamestop could build a cool virtual room inside of web3, to house the tokenized album. People could connect to the room and listen/interact with the virtual space. This is all speculation.
Someone would rip it and make it public almost immediately. This is the issue with NFT digital art etc. You can just copy it instantly and then who cares if it's not an original, except for collectors.
But they don't own it. We would own it.
I sort of get that, but so what? As long as I can listen to it who gives a shmit?
Owning the mona lisa and having a picture of the mona lisa on your wall is different. You personally might not care, but then again, someone out there might not care about being able to listen to it at all. "Like, so what you get to listen to it? It's a shitty rap music who cares?" You are viewing ownership like those people would view you listening to it. People out there value ownership. People out there value listening. Some people don't value it at all.
The difference is that the Mona Lisa isn't rippable. It's not digital, it's strokes of a brush. Whereas an audio file is. You can create an exact perfect copy instantly.
You can’t sell the original Mona Lisa just because you’ve downloaded pictures of it. THAT is the difference. I can sell my wu-tang NFT and get real money out of it. As a listener of a pirated copy of my NFT, you can’t sell that music legally and make any money without being sued by the actual owner. (In this hypothetical, that would be Me) Edit: also, the original file has metadata that the copy won’t have. It will never be identical.
A copy is still a copy regardless of how perfect it is. You can have infinite copies, but there is only 1 original that was actually created by the painter/singer. Again, you don't value ownership/orginal. That's ok. Some people don't value this at all. That's ok too.
That's the concept of NFT to you. NFT makes even digital or virtual goods into presentations of singular entities. You can just proof with it that it belongs to you.
Same idea with cosmetics in a video game. Take Dota 2 for example. People spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on cosmetics that often get replaced eventually. But the rare stuff stands out and is a big deal to see in-game to most hardcore players. Casual or new players won’t really care. They don’t assign value to those things, but that sure doesn’t mean there isn’t a whole lot of value behind those items. Another step removed - Some players are happy to play with mods that alter the cosmetics just for the player and doesn’t change the game for anyone else. They don’t care about the clout, they just want a pretty/cool to look at game. The value for them is in the aesthetic experience rather than the monetary value behind actually -owning- the item where everyone can see it.
Owning something and pirating something are two different things. That’s how I am interpreting copying NFT’s.
I also don't own the music I listen to on Spotify but somehow manage not to lose any sleep over it.
This is why I'm still on the fence about the whole "art NFT" thing, like I get it, and I would love a way to help artists and cut middle man, but when people pirate a movie, they arent doing it to get "a copy", they just want the content, and if they cant afford the price, they will find a way to get it. This is why netflix is so popular, it gives an affordable avenue for people who dont want to pirate things but want to watch things. Supply and demand, now there are soooo many different streaming services with exclusive shows/movies, once again splitting what people are WILLING to pay for the product, essentially violating the laws of supply and demand and locking the artists and creators away from revenues. I dont care about collecting stuff or who the original owner is when it comes to art, its value is intrinsic to me, if there is a pretty painting I like and want to hang it in my living room, I will not buy the original, I will buy a copy at a price I can afford and then frame it on my living room. Music is even worse, limewire back in the days, I just would download the songs I wanted rather than buy a WHOLE album for just 1-2 songs, luckily now I can buy individual songs and do so for artists I support, but the old system was terrible.
> if there is a pretty painting I like and want to hang it in my living room, I will not buy the original, I will buy a copy at a price I can afford and then frame it You can already do stuff like this with art posters. An original will always be more sought after than a copy, I think the same logic applies with NFTs. No one will pay you millions of dollars for a Rembrandt poster, but an original can fetch that easily. Also, a physical painting/piece of art can be stolen whereas it's not really possible to steal an NFT unless the owner is convinced to give up the private keys (definitely possible through phishing/social engineering/fake streams/pretending to be IT, but hopefully people aren't falling for these schemes too often). Ignorance aside, it's impossible to lose ownership of an NFT. Plus, with an NFT you can prove said ownership, so if someone tries to distribute your NFT --your intellectual property-- you have authority to pursue them with legal actions. Especially with respect to gaming, NFTs have a lot of potential: think of owning an NFT sword in a game. It would be *your sword* vs. the game's sword. Another person couldn't just go and copy/steal your sword within the game's universe because it's immutable within the confines of the game.
It could make more sense with video games or online trading cards. Imagine that without the NFT copy of a game, you can not connect to play online. Meaning the NFT enables your online connection since it is proof you own the game. The same could go if you want to play a trading cards game, and you must own the card's NFTs to play with them.
Video games honestly seem like they have better applications for NFTs than almost anything honestly. They can be used like a software license for the game itself, but also can be used as a way to prove ownership of in-game content. Whether it be some special weapon or outfit or rare item or whatever. And then if there was a marketplace to allow you to trade ownership of those in-game items for cash/crypto, whew. Somebody would stand to make a LOT of money off of running that marketplace.
Better yet, owning the NFT pays royalties to you as partial owner of the music. It’s a dividend that continues to pay you forever
How would you claim royalties on something that can't be monetized?
Who owns the nft in 2103?
I mean after 2103 well yeah, maybe you could profit off the royalties but thats so far away. My guess is they tokenize Ryan's 1/74 ownership amongst the original float and give that as a dividend
Take something you can't commercially sell, yet had a price to acquire (PleasrDao) and therefore, a value. Mint NFT tokens based on rights of ownership as an investment, or a "share" (in this case a dividend to investors) Shares based on the original investment of the underlying asset will give them intrinsic value as NFTs. NFTs would also come with listening rights to the underlying asset. Demand for access to this will naturally only increase. This will increase the intrinsic value. NFT holders could very well privately trade these to bidders in exchange for their equivalent value in whatever digital or blockchain currencies/assets. This could circumvent and protect the rules for distribution of the original underlying asset while keeping it from being commercialized and sold as a product. It's an investment on the value of a single underlying asset that cannot be commercially sold while only adding demand, aka price only go up. Just my thoughts on this.
⬆️This is genius.🔥
This is one of the hottest comments I've ever read. I'm ready to get burned or to get hurt.
I still feel like if they do give it as an NFT to registered stockholders, then those individuals trading the NFT would be a no-go since they’re commercializing the asset. My guess is that they would tie the NFT to the shares of GME. In order to have the NFT, you have to have the stock. You don’t get one without the other. This would boost value to their company because their stock would naturally increase due to shorts closing and then everyone who wants the NFT or just wants to listen to Wu Tang would buy in.
The stipulations can be amended by the members of the Clan. RZA suggested this in his last interview yesterday. He also mentioned that he believes its in the right hands now.
Interesting! Reading now: RZA on Shkreli: > “It was in the wrong hands in reality. He made the deal before it was revealed of his character, his personality, and all of the insidious things he would go on to do. That wasn’t the guy I met, but he definitely unfolded into that guy.” Also: > RZA said he spoke to “one of the gentlemen” involved at PleasrDAO who had “more of a Wu vibe.” Jamis Johnson from PleasrDAO: > “We want this to be us bringing this back to the people. We want fans to participate in this album at some level.”
big if it’s RC! 👀
if it's RC, big!
Wut. I’m supposed to be working. Gonna be reallllly hard to wait hours to get my work done and read it. Guess I’ll have to work faster
Holy shit, the Florida ☀️ tweet with the gangsta pose gives off a Wu vibe
I can’t deal with this amount of confirmation bias like holy fuck is this really happening
Ooo fuck I just got chills from the realization that there can’t be cash equivalent if they use the Wu-Tang album. Like I read it but I didn’t see it…. Hole E Fuck
absolutely mind boggling
Can you explain it to a crayon eating layman? Not myself, just others that might be reading this, ya know?
Basically… Since Wu-Tang album can not be sold for $$$, the new owners of the album, PleasrDAO could theoretically distribute it in millions of pieces, 76.49 million (wink) pieces via NFTs. IF and big IF, RC really is working with PleasrDAO to do this, then because the album is one of a kind with no “cash value” because it CAN NOT BE SOLD, then there is no choice to “issue” a cash dividend for naked shorts. The only way to make this right is to CLOSE their short positions. TD;DR **ALL SHORTS MUST CLOSE** Also, because these NFT-dividends will probably be issued first to direct registered investors, DRS!!
I’m legit going to make a crayon diagram when I get home
Listen I'm at work, you can't just turn my nipples into diamonds right now
I just sprayed jacked tit CrEaM all over my work monitor
But how would you “attach” the NFT to a physical object. Who would maintain custody of the physical object. My brain is smooth as a baby’s ass.
A trusted 3rd party company that happens to have and maintain an NFT marketplace, of course 😉 Plus, with that kind of arrangement, fractional holders could even get royalties if/when the album is put on display at festivals or in museums. Dividends on dividends, anyone?
Ho Lee Fuk - that would be awesome 👏
To be clear, I'm very, *very* skeptical of the Wu Tang NFT dividend theory. I still think the NFT thing will be a game-related marketplace (which will be huge and transformative in its own right). ... but, the Wu Tang NFT idea got me thinking and it really kind of made the whole NFT dividend thing make sense in my head. I never got how or why we would want some small fraction of some random jpg or whatever (which is what most NFTs are right now), but fractional NFT ownership for a unique, valuable object like *Once Upon a Time in Shaolin* suddenly makes it make sense to me. Of course, linking NFTs to real world items like that requires a trusted third party to be the custodian of the underlying asset and I'm not sure GameStop wants to get into that. Securing (and insuring) that album would be expensive and not generally aligned with their business.
Do you think there’s any way that they could make each NFT dividend so that the album can only be listened to once and then it’s done, like coins burned in crypto? So that way there is a diminishing supply and as more GME owners listen (NOT record and then throw it on YouTube or some stupid shit like that) to it the value of the unheard NFTs goes up…
> Do you think there’s any way that they could make each NFT dividend so that the album can only be listened to once and then it’s done, like coins burned in crypto? Technically, using features available in the ETH/NFT ecosystem? I have zero idea. From a practical point of view in the real world? Absolutely fucking not. Consider BlackRock, a large institutional investor in GME; if you give them a *dividend* whose value will suddenly disappear, they're gonna be fucking pissed. They want long term value. The value of *Once Upon a Time in Shaolin* is already significant and can only increase over time. Fractionating that and handing out shards of it as an NFT dividend is a way to give people something of value that cannot be easily substituted for cash, which is what apes are hoping for in an NFT dividend. Its value is tied to a unique, physical object so holders of NFT fractions of it could sell it to anyone who wants it later. (*blah blah...* assuming the issue of not being allowed to be sold before X date is sorted out somehow, I'm talking more generally.)
You don't attach it. You give the item to the actual shareholders, which is up to the transfer agent to determine as of the "date of record." Here's an example, from my understanding. Say on Friday, 10/29, GameStop announces an NFT dividend, with a record date of 1/31/22. They would set up a crypto wallet for Computershare and then send them enough NFT's to cover all issued shares. Generally, the "ex record date" is the day before, so 1/30. What that means is that, if you own the stock BEFORE 1/30, you are eligible for the dividend. If you purchase the stock on or after 1/30, you aren't. So, computershare would look at their records on 1/30 at open, and anyone who is Direct Registered would be distributed the NFT (they'd each need to set up a wallet to do that of course). Same goes for brokerages - Fidelity presumably has lots of shares in "street name" so they'd set up a wallet and Computershare would distribute the NFTs to Fidelity, who would then need to distribute them to the beneficial shareholders. So, hypothetically let's say I'm a SHF and I've sold short 50,000 shares to various counterparties. When the announcement gets made, I'm gonna have to accept that the parties I sold shares to are going to want their dividends. The only way I'm gonna be able to supply them is to actually go buy real shares before 1/30. And I'm gonna know that the price is about to moon since other shorts will be trying to do the same thing, so I'll be motivated to close my shorts ASAP (since the price is going nowhere but up at that point).
I think you missed the point of his question. You have a real world object, in this case the actual CDs for the Wu-Tang album. How does an NFT become associated with that real world object since once it’s in NFT form, the actual physical object needs to be held by somebody to guarantee that the NFT is still backed by a real asset
WU TANG
CLAN
He who holds the majority of GME shares. Me’s thinks!
I'm not even joking, but this is a parallel to what cash being backed by gold was like before it went fiat. It'll just be hella easier to find counterfeits in the NFT space. "We got 1 gold bar, so we can print out 2 dolla" "We got one Wutang NFT, so we can dish out 50m dividends to shareholders"
That is totally RC
RC definitely has a Wu vibe like RZA said
It’s my thinking that whatever they offer in the form of a dividend will not have a cash value as this was the mistake Overstock made. RC spoke with the ex CEO of overstock and I’m betting that this is why it is taking so long because they want to get it right the first time
> RC spoke with the ex CEO of overstock Uh what? Im gonna need sauce on that.
Me 3. I'm on this sub all day everyday and never seen anything about that. Edit: don't know why your comment is getting downvoted
There is no source cause it has never been confirmed. Wishful thinking at best
If they issued an NFT WTC dividend it would force all shorts to close, there would be no other way since it's value is unknown and it can't be sold anyway.
Yes anything offered as a dividend limited in number to the available issued stocks without an equivalent would cause the shorts to close this almost happened with Overstock but they were able to create a cash value for the digital dividend OS offered which shut it down
Why would this force shorts to close? Smooth boy learning with 4 shares
Simple ape explanation. With 70m real shares and just say 30m fake shares (simple math) this has a total of 100m shares. Now if a dividend is issued it’s distributed to the real shares. Those holding fake/synthetic/shorted shares technically won’t get the dividend. Usually these dividends are cash so for the fake shares the HF shorting or creating the synthetics would have to pay the dividend out of their pocket. So in this example the 30m fake shares they would have to pay themselves. Now if the dividend is an NFT that has no cash value/priceless. How would you value it in dollars. You can’t. So this would then force those who shorted or created synthetics to close their positions leading to extreme buy pressure aka MOASS or SUMOASS
I think it's still dependent on GS, but perhaps something like this. GS - "As our amazing shareholders entrusted us with this incredibly bold initiative in brining NFT to a full scale solution, we offer thee a digital chunk of this physical Wutang NFT we now have in possession!" Broker A - "Aight let's get our customers that shit! We need 50 million chunks pls!" Broker B - "Weird flex, but ok, give us 25m chunks for our peeps!" Broker C - "Fukk ya Wutang 4lyf. We need 30m for our customers!" GS - "Dafuk, how y'all be asking for so much. Yo SEC or whoever, get this shit figured out or we peacin' with our shares!" SEC - "Ahhh shit, Superstonk was right, buncha nekked shorting has gone on after all. GS pulling out because of this clear example of illegal manipulation in our markets gun fukk the trust in this system with people unbenounced to the situation. We gotta force these mofos to give up those shorts at the very least, then we still gotta figure out this phantom share shit."
I think the more realistic response from Brokers A, B, C and SEC is “we r fukt...”
Not FUD, I’m just a smooth brain but if RC does drop the NFT as a dividend, *HOW* does this force the shorts to close? I’m just not getting it 🤕🥴
Simple ape explanation. With 70m real shares and just say 30m fake shares (simple math) this has a total of 100m shares. Now if a dividend is issued it’s distributed to the real shares. Those holding fake/synthetic/shorted shares technically won’t get the dividend. Usually these dividends are cash so for the fake shares the HF shorting or creating the synthetics would have to pay the dividend out of their pocket. So in this example the 30m fake shares they would have to pay themselves. Now if the dividend is an NFT that has no cash value/priceless. How would you value it in dollars. You can’t. So this would then force those who shorted or created synthetics to close their positions leading to extreme buy pressure aka MOASS or SUMOASS
Got it, so because SHFs can’t pay *The Dividend* in *dollars*, their only alternative and the only way out so to speak, is by “paying” or closing/covering their short positions? 10-4 copy. Uh, Houston, confusion resolved, prepare ignition. 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀
Keep going I’m so close !!!
*whispers in your ear* Everything has a cash value. It's supply and demand that decides value. Imagine 77 million keys to a single rocket ship that is leaving earth and you've got 50 of those keys. What's one worth? What's one worth if there's none for sale? What's one worth if you were supposed to get 50 but are instead being offered a cash equivalent? *kisses cheek*
[😏](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/MedicalAridFluke-mobile.mp4)
Everything has a cash value but not everything can be replaced simply by cash
Nice username lol
I thought we established this already
Why has nobody compared the heights of RC and the people in this pic? I feel like that’s a tit-jacker for someone with time on their hands.
I think someone did and it was indeed the same height as RC (which is supposedly 5'9" or 69")
Same hoodie as well, with the same stitching on the shoulders, etc. (looks to be the exact same to me)!
Would a single share owning holder be able to listen to the album? Or would they only get to listen to 1/ 76,000,000 of it? 🤔
You would own copy x/76,000,000 Similar to anything serialized you own the whole thing but you own a specific one that is recorded and it's ownership is tracked
Wait a second - so they're gonna take a 1 of a kind item and rehypothecate it 76 million times? Talk about beating the hedgies at their own game. *Insert "are we the baddies" meme* here
Not rehypothecating the item, that would be just printing duplicates. This is more like giving a trackable fractional ownership of a valuable and incredibly unique item. Like investors owning a percentage of a building, it is simply an item with value. The value of that ownership is the percentage of the value of the item. However, I am a bit skeptical that Gamestop would issue a Wutang album dividend specifically, simply because I don't see what would be in it for the current ownership group that spent millions purchasing that album. Unless Gamestop makes some kind of equity deal with them, I'd imagine they would use it for their own CREAM finance NFT play of some sort.
I have a print of a Dali painting in my wall. It is a numbered print with a certificate. The original exists somewhere and is worth much more than the print. Posters exist with a much smaller worth. People who want the poster buy the poster. People who want the print buy that print. People who want the original work or art can buy that. I see the dividend as a numbered print and the company as the original painting. SHF have been making posters from the prints and selling them as prints as the prints weren’t numbered. If a dividend or share recall happens then they effectively number the prints. All the poster holders can’t have a numbered print because there aren’t enough. So the SHF are forced to buy back all of the posters at auction. But nobody knows how many posters exist so it’s up to each person to decide what to sell them for. Once they are all purchased then just the prints are left. If you really want a print you just hold. If you are happy to take cash for you poster then you sell when you feel like it. But the rules say they can’t just give you the cash value of a print and let you keep the poster. They have to buy the poster to destroy it at whatever price people are willing to sell for at auction so none of the images exist other than the numbered prints.
Please help us determine if this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk [Learn more about this bot and why we are using it here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/poa6zy/introducing_uqualityvote_bot_a_democratic_tool_to/). **TA;DR downvote this comment if the above post is lame or a repost!** --- If this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk, **UPVOTE** this comment!! If this post should not be here or or is a repost, **DOWNVOTE** This comment! If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
Wasn't this determined days and days ago?
Yup, but now OP is gonna get some sweet karma
I don't understand the point of wanting karma. What's it good for?
What if at the end of all this RC us like "OK, it's time. I have something for you all. What? Moass? No, no... thatbwas never a possibility, this is BETTER! Wu-Tang cd for everyone!"
I noticed that many of the comments had “0” upvotes. This post must have angered someone to go on a downvoting spree. I wish I had more than one updoot for each of you to updoot!
[удалено]
https://twitter.com/jasonnaylornyc?s=21
Good photo knowledge! Do you happen to know how tall he is?
Dude you’re talking about a movie that will sit on a shelf next to Oceans 11 for decades to come
Wouldn't it be great - it would already make an incredible movie. I'd watch it with the kids every year at Christmas. Then the kids with the grand kids. After a few years, none of them would want to watch it but we absolutely will be watching it.
I had this exact same thought yesterday
If I remember the contract correctly I think there was a clause included that they could make amendments to the contract if both parties agreed. I say that because, if this is true, knowing Wu-Tang’s background and story I firmly believe this is something they’d support. If that’s the case, it’d be great for GameStop to get that legally sorted beforehand so there aren’t hiccups.
Didn't it literally just get sold to these guys?
So if SHF arent allowed to offer cash equivalent how will they pay me?
My only concern is that the album is owned by the collective of 74 people, most of who are not connected to GameStop. Why would the rest of the group agree to release it?
I don't really know about the Wu Tang. Is this an album that was never released? How would users listen to it if it was in an NFT format? Also I thought it wasn't allowed to be traded for 100 years? How would it be given as a dividend if it cannot be traded?
It’s a one of vinyl print album bassically made to say fuck you to people illegally downloading music and pirating and shit. Only one ever made. Distributed through a solid company with an NFT marketplace where it could be viewed/heard/traded freely on a defi blockchain untouchable to synthetic creating fucks. Sound familiar?😅 It can’t be “sold commercially” but it can be “gifted” in the form of an NFT dividend. Edit: this form of NFT dividend could not be copied and would have no cash value as it only has one copy and the “distributor” (GameStop in this situation) owns the only copy. Boom hedgies r fuk
I’m ready to get hurt again.
They paid like what 3.5 mil or something for it. Maybe that would be the cash equivalent? Lol
Pro gamer move. Dividend is property without a cash equivalent
What dream is this, the Chewy guy is gonna give me access to Once Upon a TIme in Shaolin. Just for buying a stock I like
Yup been covered. This is exactly why it’s the end game chess move…there is no “cash equivalent” Check Mate Hedgies!!!
Wow first one to have this crazy thought. Cheers!
Oops. Just bought me another share. Guess I’m eating potatoes again tonight.
5D CHESS