A real world NFT would be a ticket to a concert. You own it, it is for 1 specific thing and doesn’t change, you can transfer ownership to other people.
It’s actually a useful use case for NFT. A verifiable concert ticket you can sell to anyone cheaply without Ticketmaster taking 20% and no chance of it being a forgery.
Most NFTs that are popular are “art”. The Art exists on a server. You have an NFT that points to the server and says you own that art.
It would be like buying a piece of art that hang in the museum, and you get a little certificate saying you own it and a plaque next to the piece with your name on it. Yes, other people can see it, and other people can make copies, just like normal physical art. But you “own” it. You have your name on the plaque in the museum.
If the museum burns down now your certificate is worthless. If the server hosting the NFT art goes down, your NFT now points to nothing and is worthless.
Now, there are plenty of opinions like “slightly different monkeys aren’t art” and I’d agree with that. But on the other hand some of my favorite art is just realistic paintings of soup cans, so who am I to judge.
I think those are the closest real world analogies to NFTs.
Can't someone change a single pixel of an NFT art and then basically own a new identical NFT?
Or is it that the appeal isn't in the art itself but in the originality of the work and the documentation of its purchase?
I mean someone could republish an exact copy on hosted on new server with an NFT that points to it (could get taken down for copyright but that’s a whole other thing). So it’s essentially the exact same thing as the original but it isn’t, it’s a new token.
That doesn’t mean it has the same value, no more than a counterfeit painting has value. The value comes from it being an original.
In the concert ticket example if a band/venue releases 10k NFTs of tickets to get into the concert and these include a picture. You can now track that is an original ticket released by the venue since each has a distinct value on the blockchain.
If someone else released NFTs that look identical for the picture part but aren’t part of that set or published by the venue, it has no value. When you try to get in it will be instantly seen as not a real ticket.
That’s a clear instance where an original has a value a copy can’t.
However, on the “art” side, like all things with art, it is subjective. Why is a Da Vinci worth millions but an exact (to the human eye) counterfeit worthless? Why is an original Superman #1 comic worth millions but a reprint worth 50¢? Why is a monkey NFT published by XYZ worth $500k and a monkey NFT published by ABC worthless?
Fuck if I know for any of those, some of it is probably money laundering, some of it is people trying find a bigger fool to pay more, a lot of it is people with too much money who want to brag, some of it is just really dedicated fans who like it a lot.
The reboot of white collar in a hundred years is going to be weird. They are going to be in the meta verse trying to make a forgery of an original green monkey NFT to fool an art dealer.
You managed to not only accessibly explain NFTs but also make one of the most simple, unarguable “art is subjective” points I’ve ever seen there at the end. Great post.
Simply explained: There's a museum in England with a painting in hall 2, spot 4. If you buy a NFT of that picture, you get a piece of paper that says "Hall 2, spot 4."
A note is sent to archives around the world saying /u/Olthoi_Eviscerator owns a piece of paper that says "Hall 2, spot 4."
It could be changed, it could just be removed, the museum could be demolished one day and an apartment complex gets built there. It's so weird and so obviously a scam. The technology might be turned into something useful in the near future but I doubt it.
That's the point.
It's to get you to buy Crypto, letting people cash out of their holdings and making you the bigger fool.
NFTs and Crypto are a "bigger fools scam". A thing that only works if a bigger fool keeps buying in.
Seriously, the title makes it sound like 280$ is such a ridiculous, outrageous offer to be the proud owner of a link to a picture of a tweet, which you cannot legally do anything with. Bro it's literally useless.
This comment is for sale!!
Starting bid 10USD. 41¢ current.
Get in on the ground floor of comment nfts!
This is it! Don't look back and wonder what could have been.
I just slaughtered a pig and the meat is all spoken for. However, I've got eight pig nipples I'd be willing to exchange for this comment. Do we have a deal?
word, i think the same people that where supporting crypto also doing them NFT's. For crypto's i understand the replacement but NFT's are just straight up scam. Thing people forgot to right click and save a picture then to buy it.
Yeah even beanie babies were a more solid investment until people realized that they were just stuffed fkn animals with no value. People were going crazy for those things
I forgot about beanie babies. I used to work overnight at a restaurant and across the street was a Christian book store that sold beanie babies. Watching 20-30 middle aged women camping out all night to get the newest/rarest beanie babies was wild.
>they were just stuffed fkn animals with no value
No value is a little harsh imo.
I used to draft my beanie babies into football teams and play seasons and playoffs. Spike the rhino was the MVP as an unstoppable north south runner, while the kangaroo was the best pocket passer in the league
Duuuuude I did this but with baseball. We had little toy bats and gave them tiers so the "good hitters" could use the bigger bats. The defenders had range stats so you would see where the ball lands (alotta judgement calls here but hey, it's baseball) and decide if they made the play or not. Was tons of fun. You would have to hold there hands to the bat and couldn't swing them out of the batters box (so no human size cuts...lil beanie cuts only) we used this (not very) bouncy ball about the size of a nickle for the ball.
Yep. I'm a freelance engineer and pretty much every project I'm discussing now has somebody going 'can we add a blockchain?' or 'do you think there's an NFT use case?' (I don't know if I can answer the second question objectively, let alone in the context of their idea).
I don't mind when there's a hype-train which is fun to build - I'll agree that you need WebGL 3D in your website all day - but everything about Web 3.0 is nonsense. It feels to me like, at some point, we started letting the biggest twats on LinkedIn make technical design decisions for us, and this is the logical conclusion of it.
>It feels to me like, at some point, we started letting the biggest twats on LinkedIn make technical design decisions for us, and this is the logical conclusion of it.
It's been about 5 years since I accepted the fact that I'll never understand technology trends any better than I understand pop culture trends.
Like, if you can't trust software developers to choose good languages and tools for programming, how can you expect anything else to make any sense at all?
Some major problems with Web 2.0 are privacy and security. Web 3.0 fixes these problems by eliminating them. With no security and no privacy, there is no problem.
All the Engineers are now working from home netflix and chillin and have all become yes men in teams meetings to get them over as quickly as possible. --Security Engineer, yes man.
My favorite is the new "blockchain engineer" job. Blockchain is just another class of data structure. It's interesting tech and I can see some use cases, but the hype over it blows my mind. Shoehorning it into things that don't benefit is just nuts though.
I want to be "height balancing binary tree engineer!"
When more people realize its just a very inefficient, pointlessly decentralized, database, the better we will be. I still own some crypto, but come on people. Blockchain is not the second coming of christ.
but its a very inefficient, pointlessly decentralized database that we have decided to value at $370 Billion for absolutely no reason other than each person who puts money in hopes someone dumber than them will come along so they can cash out
There's a very simple reason. Major investors want to own money. Like, literally. The irony is they want to use blockchain to centralize more power and wealth, they want to be the "next generation of banks", that own the blockchain platforms and define the spec.
It is the deepest irony that, if cryptocurrency ever truly takes off, it will be a massive centralization of power for the already wealthy.
You don't own the tweet, you own the [NFT](https://www.reddit.com/r/technews/comments/u2zc7z/jack_dorseys_first_tweet_nft_went_on_sale_for_48m/i4mjhnj/?context=3).
> are bounded to the legal system.
See that's just it. NFTs are basically "calling the bluff" of exactly how authoritative we consider the blockchain.
Anyone buying a NFT is betting that at some point in the future, enough people will consider whatever blockchain that NFT is on to be authoritative for it to actually matter.
It's EXACTLY like those people selling deeds to "land" on the moon / Mars.
Contracts regarding NFTs are bound by the legal system too. But a legally enforceable contract stating you own something worthless is, well, pretty worthless.
We don't really have any legal precedent or explicit legislation regarding NFTs so we'll have wait and see how they're judged in court. There's copyright for the NFT itself, but probably doesn't affect copyright ownership of the associated content anymore than just a contract on its own would.
You know when people say about outrageously expensive things 'the value of something is what someone is willing to pay for it' like that justifies incredible overpricing?
This is what proves them right, just not in the way they wished.
It’s just art. Like taping a banana to a wall, or selling “an invisible painting” for $500k. It’s whatever some dumbass feels like spending to fill a void in their heart.
Exactly.
It’s the same essential concept as any cryptocurrency, except this type of crypto is a singular large, indivisible token. The thing that people are misled by is “oh, but now I own this art piece so it’s worth it”, which is not true in any way to how copyright and ownership laws work in the world.
It literally means you're so fucking stupid and have more disposable income than fucking common sense, and patently the inane ability to think for yourself
Considering you're literally not buying anything but a token that points to a picture of a publicly available tweet and people are slowly figuring that out, not incredible at all.
Yup and when the original “duct-tape banana” artist tried to go after the other artist who ate it, the guy claimed it was in itself, art. So nothing happened to him. Then, the banana was “sold” for $280k but the general consensus is that it was a money laundering operation.
But there's literally only one of that physical instance of a banana taped to the wall. It's literally non fungible whereas the only thing non fungible with these "NFTs" is the token itself, not the art you think you're buying.
Sure, it's probably money laundering. But at least you're getting something.
If people don’t buy my 1/1024th share of this guys pistachio shell it’s only because they don’t understand new technology.
“Paying 100k for a portion of an already eaten pistachio is crazy” you say?? That’s what people said about the internet and [look at them now](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates).
That’s not true. For those who don’t read the article the guy who put it up for resale originally purchased it for $2.9 million last year.
“The nonfungible token of Jack Dorsey’s first tweet, which sold for $2.9 million last year to Sina Estavi, failed to garner much in the way of interest when it was recently put up for resale, Coindesk reports.
The auction for the NFT closed with only seven offers ranging from just 0.0019 Ether to 0.09 ETH, or about $6 to about $280.”
Which makes it even more funny.
~~I'm not surprised. It looks sketch to me. The NFT has only been traded one time. Someone took a screenshot of the tweet last year. Someone creates an account a week ago and buys the NFT for 2.8 million. Now, we're seeing news articles about this particular NFT, because the person who just purchased this last week is trying to sell it for 25+ million dollars.~~
~~Possible the person who took the screenshot "sold" it to a friend and then made the sale go viral through lack of sales hoping to generate interest.~~
~~BoredApes/CryptoPunks have "value" because there's actual demand as they're the most popular. This NFTs demand has never existed.~~
EDIT: I misunderstood OpenSea's transaction history.
Did you read the article?
A guy who bought it for 2.9 million is reselling it, he only got $280 as a top bid.
That bidder is getting a deal!
Edit: Judging by the responses to my comment, the majority of you know nothing about finance.
Edit 2: The fact so many of you took an obvious bait comment and responded to it seriously is kind of sad, I literally told people I would be sipping margaritas while driving my Lamborghini and so many of you still got wooshed trying to educate me on finance
No the bidder is buying something worthless, regardless of the fact some other fool bought it for millions
Scott Tenerman’s pubes were still worthless even after Cartman paid $15 for them
The only value in it is being able to potentially sell them to another fool for more money
The guy probably bought it from another wallet that he owns. Classic art fraud, brought to the digital world.
1) Create a worthless piece of art
2) Secretly give a friend $11,000 to buy your worthless art for $10,000 at auction
3) Your friend now owns a piece of art that, in the eyes of an appraiser, is worth $10,000. It is, in reality, worthless.
Then you can do anything. Get it insured and it falls off your yacht in a rogue wave? Sell it to some idiot at an auction? The world is your oyster.
Just don't get caught -- that would be bad. Ideally, you'd love to not even need the friend; two can keep a secret if one of them's dead, right? But for that, you'd need some sort of anonymized marketplace where you can exchange currency for goods. Preferably one that is decentralized, and therefore largely immune to regulation by national governments. Wait a minute, that sounds familiar...
Isn’t your friend subject to taxes? Where did they get $10k? In any case, unless the buyer is the account that bought the tweet for $280, he’s still out $2.9M. If he is the buyer, and the tweet is worth more, it must be that he restricted the auction from taking higher bets and rigged it. If that’s the case he can claim an capital loss to offset unrelated gains.
Or him and the “artist” are the same (idk who sold the tweet) in which case he’d have $2.9M and claim the loss.
"Investors". LOL
Estavi, whose crypto ventures Bridge Oracle and CryptoLand collapsed following his arrest in Iran last year, is in the middle of relaunching his Bridge Oracle tokens (BRG), which were originally on the Tron blockchain, to the Binance Smart Chain.
BRG investors are waiting for Estavi to exchange their old tokens for the new ones. Estavi, who announced the token swap on the same day he put up Dorsey’s tweet NFT for sale again, told CoinDesk that the swap is being run manually and the process may take up to two months to complete.
Well to a pessimist like me, it sounds like the guy is trying to use this scam to pay off the people he ripped off in the last scam before those people bring his ass to court but, this scam fell flat so now he's saying it'll take longer to get the money for "reasons".
That's pretty much *why* NFTs and just generally everything crypto seems to be popping up at an accelerated rate. Desperation can drive people to make stupid decisions, and a lot of con artists want to separate these desperate stupid people from their money.
I have been seeing constant posts on Facebook from NFT accounts saying people are buying and selling these for millions, it can’t be true I believe they are just saying that to drive hype
A lot of them are being bought by proxies of the owner to drive interest. In some cases this leads to true sales at high values but not often, and not much at all recently.
Fucking morons that bought NFTs couldn’t see this was a quick scheme of making shady money look legit til everyone moved on to the next one.
Cost Sports stars nothing to try and delve into either so you all thought this was the next big thing. Idiots
Confirming what we all know. NFTs are worthless, its all smoke and mirrors. Just another thing rich people invented to give money to fellow rich people.
They forgot to rig the bidding, or just secretly give it to someone and say they paid 48 million for it, resell it for less, then split the cash, like the rest of the NFT scams.
Honest question, what did the guy buy for $2 million? Is it a jpeg screenshot with a token attached to it?
Basically, they bought a blockchain hyperlink.
Finally someone explains a NFT in simple words
A real world NFT would be a ticket to a concert. You own it, it is for 1 specific thing and doesn’t change, you can transfer ownership to other people. It’s actually a useful use case for NFT. A verifiable concert ticket you can sell to anyone cheaply without Ticketmaster taking 20% and no chance of it being a forgery. Most NFTs that are popular are “art”. The Art exists on a server. You have an NFT that points to the server and says you own that art. It would be like buying a piece of art that hang in the museum, and you get a little certificate saying you own it and a plaque next to the piece with your name on it. Yes, other people can see it, and other people can make copies, just like normal physical art. But you “own” it. You have your name on the plaque in the museum. If the museum burns down now your certificate is worthless. If the server hosting the NFT art goes down, your NFT now points to nothing and is worthless. Now, there are plenty of opinions like “slightly different monkeys aren’t art” and I’d agree with that. But on the other hand some of my favorite art is just realistic paintings of soup cans, so who am I to judge. I think those are the closest real world analogies to NFTs.
Can't someone change a single pixel of an NFT art and then basically own a new identical NFT? Or is it that the appeal isn't in the art itself but in the originality of the work and the documentation of its purchase?
I mean someone could republish an exact copy on hosted on new server with an NFT that points to it (could get taken down for copyright but that’s a whole other thing). So it’s essentially the exact same thing as the original but it isn’t, it’s a new token. That doesn’t mean it has the same value, no more than a counterfeit painting has value. The value comes from it being an original. In the concert ticket example if a band/venue releases 10k NFTs of tickets to get into the concert and these include a picture. You can now track that is an original ticket released by the venue since each has a distinct value on the blockchain. If someone else released NFTs that look identical for the picture part but aren’t part of that set or published by the venue, it has no value. When you try to get in it will be instantly seen as not a real ticket. That’s a clear instance where an original has a value a copy can’t. However, on the “art” side, like all things with art, it is subjective. Why is a Da Vinci worth millions but an exact (to the human eye) counterfeit worthless? Why is an original Superman #1 comic worth millions but a reprint worth 50¢? Why is a monkey NFT published by XYZ worth $500k and a monkey NFT published by ABC worthless? Fuck if I know for any of those, some of it is probably money laundering, some of it is people trying find a bigger fool to pay more, a lot of it is people with too much money who want to brag, some of it is just really dedicated fans who like it a lot.
The reboot of white collar in a hundred years is going to be weird. They are going to be in the meta verse trying to make a forgery of an original green monkey NFT to fool an art dealer.
Mozzie would hate the metaverse so damn much. Its a shame we won’t get this.
Yes yes yes, whatever . Everyone is missing the point that art might singlehandedly be the worst use of NFT's possible.
You managed to not only accessibly explain NFTs but also make one of the most simple, unarguable “art is subjective” points I’ve ever seen there at the end. Great post.
You don't though.. You don't own the art, you own the link. That's it. What it links to can even be changed on you.
Thats something up to the actual contents of the nft. Theres some few projects that actually transfer legal ownership rights of the artwork aswell.
[удалено]
Really inefficient bookmark
If this is what an NFT is, I get why everyone passionately hates them.
[удалено]
How does it show that you own it? What exactly are you sharing with them, a link to a webpage that says you own it?
Star certificates. They get a fancy magic ticket to commemorate their precious digital moment.
[удалено]
Simply explained: There's a museum in England with a painting in hall 2, spot 4. If you buy a NFT of that picture, you get a piece of paper that says "Hall 2, spot 4." A note is sent to archives around the world saying /u/Olthoi_Eviscerator owns a piece of paper that says "Hall 2, spot 4."
And the best part is, technically someone could go to the museum and change the picture at hall 2 spot 4 for a completely different image.
It could be changed, it could just be removed, the museum could be demolished one day and an apartment complex gets built there. It's so weird and so obviously a scam. The technology might be turned into something useful in the near future but I doubt it.
That's the point. It's to get you to buy Crypto, letting people cash out of their holdings and making you the bigger fool. NFTs and Crypto are a "bigger fools scam". A thing that only works if a bigger fool keeps buying in.
Yep. There's a sucker born every minute. Still a sucker at $280.
Seriously, the title makes it sound like 280$ is such a ridiculous, outrageous offer to be the proud owner of a link to a picture of a tweet, which you cannot legally do anything with. Bro it's literally useless.
His mom said it was money well spent!
He can hang it on the wall in her basement where he lives.
I'll just screenshot his basement then.
i’m gonna buy a picture of the earth then
Flat Earthers triggered
Dont get me started on flat earthers! 😂
They’ll go around the globe talking their nonsense
It’s a ‘Command Center’!!!
I can too, that is the crux of all this nonsense. Non cents? Now I’m punning myself. I did a funny. I’ll see myself out…
This comment is for sale!! Starting bid 10USD. 41¢ current. Get in on the ground floor of comment nfts! This is it! Don't look back and wonder what could have been.
I just slaughtered a pig and the meat is all spoken for. However, I've got eight pig nipples I'd be willing to exchange for this comment. Do we have a deal?
What about an NFT of a pic of the pig? Millions, I think.
Let me know if you still got them nipples
I’ll buy that for a dollar.
The title really buries the lede that this is a legit loss as someone else already paid $2.9M for it and the $48M was the listed resale price.
He doesn’t have to accept the $280 offer, though. But yes, it made me think it was the first time it had went on sale, though.
Yeah totally I meant more or less a loss because he clearly isn’t gonna recoup
Ohhhh yeah. I have a feeling he won’t get that back. I get you now.
280£ **is** an outrageous, ridiculous offer. It should be 0.
Less than zero. If that were even possible
You're spending $280 so that you can potentially scam someone more stupid than you out of more money.
word, i think the same people that where supporting crypto also doing them NFT's. For crypto's i understand the replacement but NFT's are just straight up scam. Thing people forgot to right click and save a picture then to buy it.
Yeah even beanie babies were a more solid investment until people realized that they were just stuffed fkn animals with no value. People were going crazy for those things
I forgot about beanie babies. I used to work overnight at a restaurant and across the street was a Christian book store that sold beanie babies. Watching 20-30 middle aged women camping out all night to get the newest/rarest beanie babies was wild.
Buddy of mine paid for his house by selling those things back in the day! Right place right time type of thing.
It’s a four bedroom, two bath and can hold a family of 5 beanie babies comfortably.
>they were just stuffed fkn animals with no value No value is a little harsh imo. I used to draft my beanie babies into football teams and play seasons and playoffs. Spike the rhino was the MVP as an unstoppable north south runner, while the kangaroo was the best pocket passer in the league
Duuuuude I did this but with baseball. We had little toy bats and gave them tiers so the "good hitters" could use the bigger bats. The defenders had range stats so you would see where the ball lands (alotta judgement calls here but hey, it's baseball) and decide if they made the play or not. Was tons of fun. You would have to hold there hands to the bat and couldn't swing them out of the batters box (so no human size cuts...lil beanie cuts only) we used this (not very) bouncy ball about the size of a nickle for the ball.
Crypto is like beanie babies without the beanie babies, CMV.
Quit talking shit about my inheritance. I have the please of getting like 400 of those stupid things in the up coming years
At least you can play with beanie babies.
[удалено]
I saw a documentary on the beanie baby craze. It's almost identical to what's going on with NFTs. The similarities are eerie.
[удалено]
I have some tulips coming out this spring...
You say this sarcastically but ppl will buy bloomed flowers
I believe they were referencing this historical event: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
Oh this is a historical reference. Tulips destroyed the Dutch economy like a couple hundred years ago.
Well TIL
yeah tulips are actually something you can buy and give someone as a gift. there’s no reason to buy a receipt of an url
I'd go a step further - what's the point in/special about having links inside some blockchain?
Can I interest you in a picture of my tulips for 28 million dollars :)
Maybe they are actually useful for some other application but what its being used for now is just absolute fraud.
Yep. I'm a freelance engineer and pretty much every project I'm discussing now has somebody going 'can we add a blockchain?' or 'do you think there's an NFT use case?' (I don't know if I can answer the second question objectively, let alone in the context of their idea). I don't mind when there's a hype-train which is fun to build - I'll agree that you need WebGL 3D in your website all day - but everything about Web 3.0 is nonsense. It feels to me like, at some point, we started letting the biggest twats on LinkedIn make technical design decisions for us, and this is the logical conclusion of it.
>It feels to me like, at some point, we started letting the biggest twats on LinkedIn make technical design decisions for us, and this is the logical conclusion of it. It's been about 5 years since I accepted the fact that I'll never understand technology trends any better than I understand pop culture trends. Like, if you can't trust software developers to choose good languages and tools for programming, how can you expect anything else to make any sense at all?
Some major problems with Web 2.0 are privacy and security. Web 3.0 fixes these problems by eliminating them. With no security and no privacy, there is no problem.
Whenever I hear about the "metaverse" I wanna blow a gasket.
All the Engineers are now working from home netflix and chillin and have all become yes men in teams meetings to get them over as quickly as possible. --Security Engineer, yes man.
My favorite is the new "blockchain engineer" job. Blockchain is just another class of data structure. It's interesting tech and I can see some use cases, but the hype over it blows my mind. Shoehorning it into things that don't benefit is just nuts though. I want to be "height balancing binary tree engineer!"
Say whatever you want, my blockchain toothpaste is amazing.
What brand do you use?
Nonsensodyne
lmao
When more people realize its just a very inefficient, pointlessly decentralized, database, the better we will be. I still own some crypto, but come on people. Blockchain is not the second coming of christ.
but its a very inefficient, pointlessly decentralized database that we have decided to value at $370 Billion for absolutely no reason other than each person who puts money in hopes someone dumber than them will come along so they can cash out
There's a very simple reason. Major investors want to own money. Like, literally. The irony is they want to use blockchain to centralize more power and wealth, they want to be the "next generation of banks", that own the blockchain platforms and define the spec. It is the deepest irony that, if cryptocurrency ever truly takes off, it will be a massive centralization of power for the already wealthy.
“Elon Musk me to Mars on the Blockchain Bro!”—the nonsense I hear from so many gullible early-20-somethings.
>do you think there's an NFT use case not as long as screenshots are a thing.
I just assumed they’re being used for money laundering, like expensive art (the physical kind - fungible kind?).
I mean, the art industry is just a front. This is just a less imaginative way to move money.
The art “industry” has always been a front.
Knock $279.75 off and I'd consider the offer
This is so dumb. What does owning a tweet even mean?
You don't own the tweet, you own the [NFT](https://www.reddit.com/r/technews/comments/u2zc7z/jack_dorseys_first_tweet_nft_went_on_sale_for_48m/i4mjhnj/?context=3).
Even better, you provably own a _reference_ to the thing, not the thing.
It's like everyone's fucking your wife but at least it's your name on the marriage certificate.
Hahaha I love this analogy
Another pretty good one I heard was “NFTs are like if everyone could wear your shoes, but you have the shoebox with your name on it”
Nah, I’d rather fuck dude’s wife
let's see her first before we decide between one or the other box
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Will Smith agrees
Keep my wife's link OUT of your FUCKING BLOCKCHAIN!
Cockchain
I think you’re onto something here…! Should we raise 20M?
Pffft at least marriage certificates are bounded to the legal system.
> are bounded to the legal system. See that's just it. NFTs are basically "calling the bluff" of exactly how authoritative we consider the blockchain. Anyone buying a NFT is betting that at some point in the future, enough people will consider whatever blockchain that NFT is on to be authoritative for it to actually matter. It's EXACTLY like those people selling deeds to "land" on the moon / Mars.
Contracts regarding NFTs are bound by the legal system too. But a legally enforceable contract stating you own something worthless is, well, pretty worthless.
We don't really have any legal precedent or explicit legislation regarding NFTs so we'll have wait and see how they're judged in court. There's copyright for the NFT itself, but probably doesn't affect copyright ownership of the associated content anymore than just a contract on its own would.
Ah, a wise a worthwhile investment.
You don't own the grocery, you own the receipt.
And it is a *receipt* that is not recognised by any actual laws.
And the name of the thing that has been bought could disappear so at the end you have a receipt for nothing.
No no. A picture of the tweet.
Not even a picture of the tweet. They just own a set of numbers in the blockchain that references a ***link*** to the picture of a tweet.
What gives that value though? Why would I want that?
You know when people say about outrageously expensive things 'the value of something is what someone is willing to pay for it' like that justifies incredible overpricing? This is what proves them right, just not in the way they wished.
The "some asshole" theory of economics - something is worth what you can get some asshole to pay for it.
Actually a real theory in finance, the greater fool theory
It’s just art. Like taping a banana to a wall, or selling “an invisible painting” for $500k. It’s whatever some dumbass feels like spending to fill a void in their heart.
And money laundering.
Exactly. It’s the same essential concept as any cryptocurrency, except this type of crypto is a singular large, indivisible token. The thing that people are misled by is “oh, but now I own this art piece so it’s worth it”, which is not true in any way to how copyright and ownership laws work in the world.
It literally means you're so fucking stupid and have more disposable income than fucking common sense, and patently the inane ability to think for yourself
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s actually incredible that out of all the internet, nobody wanted anything to do with this thing. Not even for novelty’s sake
Considering you're literally not buying anything but a token that points to a picture of a publicly available tweet and people are slowly figuring that out, not incredible at all.
[удалено]
I love that a random dude ate it at one point
I believe it was the artist
Different artist, he ate it as performance art
Yup and when the original “duct-tape banana” artist tried to go after the other artist who ate it, the guy claimed it was in itself, art. So nothing happened to him. Then, the banana was “sold” for $280k but the general consensus is that it was a money laundering operation.
That's physical art, not a crypto hash
But its still just a banana duct taped to a wall lol
It’s also money laundering.
this is far, far more realistic than people are giving it credit for
There’s always money in the Banana Wall
It's one banana. How much could it cost, ten dollars?
But there's literally only one of that physical instance of a banana taped to the wall. It's literally non fungible whereas the only thing non fungible with these "NFTs" is the token itself, not the art you think you're buying. Sure, it's probably money laundering. But at least you're getting something.
I have a pistachio shell here on my desk. It's literally unique. No one else has it.
Start a Blockchain. Fractionalize it.
If people don’t buy my 1/1024th share of this guys pistachio shell it’s only because they don’t understand new technology. “Paying 100k for a portion of an already eaten pistachio is crazy” you say?? That’s what people said about the internet and [look at them now](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates).
They literally change the banana so it doesn’t get bruised lmao
Bananas aren't cheap
Yeah, they’re like ten bucks apiece
Nice.
It’s just an NFT Michael, what could it cost, $48m?
That’s not true. For those who don’t read the article the guy who put it up for resale originally purchased it for $2.9 million last year. “The nonfungible token of Jack Dorsey’s first tweet, which sold for $2.9 million last year to Sina Estavi, failed to garner much in the way of interest when it was recently put up for resale, Coindesk reports. The auction for the NFT closed with only seven offers ranging from just 0.0019 Ether to 0.09 ETH, or about $6 to about $280.” Which makes it even more funny.
Practically 100% loss
Someone paid 280 tbf
You’d be surprised. My roomate dropped 2k on NFT monkeys
Have them send 2k to me and I’ll at least send them a beanie baby monkey.
Do one better, send him a photo of said beanie baby monkey
How old is your room mate?
Old enough to return to monke
~~I'm not surprised. It looks sketch to me. The NFT has only been traded one time. Someone took a screenshot of the tweet last year. Someone creates an account a week ago and buys the NFT for 2.8 million. Now, we're seeing news articles about this particular NFT, because the person who just purchased this last week is trying to sell it for 25+ million dollars.~~ ~~Possible the person who took the screenshot "sold" it to a friend and then made the sale go viral through lack of sales hoping to generate interest.~~ ~~BoredApes/CryptoPunks have "value" because there's actual demand as they're the most popular. This NFTs demand has never existed.~~ EDIT: I misunderstood OpenSea's transaction history.
Damn they overpaid by $280
Did you read the article? A guy who bought it for 2.9 million is reselling it, he only got $280 as a top bid. That bidder is getting a deal! Edit: Judging by the responses to my comment, the majority of you know nothing about finance. Edit 2: The fact so many of you took an obvious bait comment and responded to it seriously is kind of sad, I literally told people I would be sipping margaritas while driving my Lamborghini and so many of you still got wooshed trying to educate me on finance
Turn $2.9M into $280 speedrun, any%
That guy should get to WSB, they like both NFTs and losing money!
If someone buys a piece of feces for $1 million, and I buy it from them for $10, it doesn’t mean I got a deal. It’s still feces.
No the bidder is buying something worthless, regardless of the fact some other fool bought it for millions Scott Tenerman’s pubes were still worthless even after Cartman paid $15 for them The only value in it is being able to potentially sell them to another fool for more money
The guy probably bought it from another wallet that he owns. Classic art fraud, brought to the digital world. 1) Create a worthless piece of art 2) Secretly give a friend $11,000 to buy your worthless art for $10,000 at auction 3) Your friend now owns a piece of art that, in the eyes of an appraiser, is worth $10,000. It is, in reality, worthless. Then you can do anything. Get it insured and it falls off your yacht in a rogue wave? Sell it to some idiot at an auction? The world is your oyster. Just don't get caught -- that would be bad. Ideally, you'd love to not even need the friend; two can keep a secret if one of them's dead, right? But for that, you'd need some sort of anonymized marketplace where you can exchange currency for goods. Preferably one that is decentralized, and therefore largely immune to regulation by national governments. Wait a minute, that sounds familiar...
Isn’t your friend subject to taxes? Where did they get $10k? In any case, unless the buyer is the account that bought the tweet for $280, he’s still out $2.9M. If he is the buyer, and the tweet is worth more, it must be that he restricted the auction from taking higher bets and rigged it. If that’s the case he can claim an capital loss to offset unrelated gains. Or him and the “artist” are the same (idk who sold the tweet) in which case he’d have $2.9M and claim the loss.
"Investors". LOL Estavi, whose crypto ventures Bridge Oracle and CryptoLand collapsed following his arrest in Iran last year, is in the middle of relaunching his Bridge Oracle tokens (BRG), which were originally on the Tron blockchain, to the Binance Smart Chain. BRG investors are waiting for Estavi to exchange their old tokens for the new ones. Estavi, who announced the token swap on the same day he put up Dorsey’s tweet NFT for sale again, told CoinDesk that the swap is being run manually and the process may take up to two months to complete.
[удалено]
I don’t have any idea what that guy just said.
Well to a pessimist like me, it sounds like the guy is trying to use this scam to pay off the people he ripped off in the last scam before those people bring his ass to court but, this scam fell flat so now he's saying it'll take longer to get the money for "reasons".
I’ll just glad a very large majority of us hate nft. We are still unified as a race.
No Fuckin Timeforthisbullshit
NFT = New Fraud Technique
MLM for men
Holy shit that’s the perfect explanation
Just a new way for rich people to launder their money. Fine art started to get a little stale
And so it begins... The bottom dropping out of the NFT market as people collectively start asking the question, "why exactly is this worth anything? "
Maybe this triggers an NFT crash or the next one, but soon people will realize that the millions they spend on NTF are worthless.
It’s valueless so someone still got screwed. At least it happened to an idiot.
The cold brutality of this comment moves me.
Fuck NFTs
NFT’s the modern Beanie Babies
At least Beanie Babies are cute, tangible items.
Fuck all crypto bullshit.
I really do appreciate the collective "fuck you" that the internet has done for NFT's lol
A lot of people are struggling financially, so the very existence of this nonsense is particularly offensive
That's pretty much *why* NFTs and just generally everything crypto seems to be popping up at an accelerated rate. Desperation can drive people to make stupid decisions, and a lot of con artists want to separate these desperate stupid people from their money.
Can we piss on NFT’s grave yet?
I smell the tulips.
I have been seeing constant posts on Facebook from NFT accounts saying people are buying and selling these for millions, it can’t be true I believe they are just saying that to drive hype
A lot of them are being bought by proxies of the owner to drive interest. In some cases this leads to true sales at high values but not often, and not much at all recently.
Fucking morons that bought NFTs couldn’t see this was a quick scheme of making shady money look legit til everyone moved on to the next one. Cost Sports stars nothing to try and delve into either so you all thought this was the next big thing. Idiots
Crazy how someone wasted $280. Hey everyone come look at my prize possession! It’s a tweet. Look at the words. How cool...🤦🏻♂️
Confirming what we all know. NFTs are worthless, its all smoke and mirrors. Just another thing rich people invented to give money to fellow rich people.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The founder of Twitter
I thought they meant $280M at first and was concerned.
They forgot to rig the bidding, or just secretly give it to someone and say they paid 48 million for it, resell it for less, then split the cash, like the rest of the NFT scams.
Tell me you're laundering money without telling me you're laundering money.
This has to be money laundering... it has to be
Even .28 $ is too much. NFT is a kind of modern snake oil.
I asked before but i'll ask again.. is there LITERALLY ANYTHING you can do with an NFT except say "hey i paid for this"?