Live data from Hacker News

John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

twitter.com

41–50 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#41

NFTs are stupid. As soon as this craze is over, they'll be illiquid and absolutely worthless.

They may hang on for years, or decades. You can still trade Beanie Babies and Cabbage Patch dolls on eBay. Three Stooges collectable plates from the Franklin Mint[1] don't seem to be selling well, though.

Lack of liquidity is implicit in non-fungible tokens. You have to find a buyer who wants the exact item you have. That may be hard. It may require paying for advertising, which means the return can go negative.

With a uniform commodity, there's a market with prices. Non-fungible markets don't crash, they stall. You can't sell, but that's not visible on marketplaces, especially if they're designed to hide listings that are not moving. (This is common in real estate; un-saleable property is taken off the market, then re-listed, so it doesn't show as "for sale for 72 weeks".) What we're probably going to see are markets with huge numbers of items that are not selling, but have high asking prices. This will create the illusion of value, because someone will add up the asking prices and claim that's a "market cap". The illusion of volume and liquidity can be created with wash trades.

There are getting to be a quite a number of blockchain based virtual worlds, where you can pay way too much for virtual land. Few people actually log into those virtual worlds and spend time there; they just trade land. "The metagame is the game", some analyst wrote of Decentraland. (Which, despite its name, is totally centralized. You can't run a Decentraland server yourself.)

I used to go to art openings in SF, and sometimes we'd look at some bad piece and ask "will this be around in 10 years or will it have been tossed out?" Years later, I suspect most of it went to a Dumpster long ago.

[1] https://www.ebay.com/itm/Franklin-Mint-The-Three-Stooges-Dec...

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#42
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the replies to you didnt really touch on what they are, a store of value. It's fair to think of them more like savings accounts. You can buy a replica of a piece of art to look at it. You buy the original to store value. You hope it may appreciate as well. It could end up worthless. But until someone says otherwise, it has the value stored in it. It's just like baseball cards. You can make unlimited indistingu…

Why would you store value in something as unstable as an NFT? NFTs are 100% speculation so the price is basically arbitrary.

Is physical art any different?

If anything this is a democratization of the wealthy auction scene. A new tier of field to play.

Alternative assets come in all shapes in sizes. I can store wealth in gold, comics, wine. Why not my name on a ledger listed as owner of nothing in particular other than the price I paid for it? The amount of hate they get on HN should be a clue that everyone is being over analytical and logical, and missing out on analyzing them through human behavior. They arent a robotic math problem, they are behavioral economics.

I can't wait to see an investable etf of sorts that lets people invest in a collection of NFTs like they would bonds. Youll have "curators"/"fund managers" assembling and storing a vast array of art, allowing people to diversify and own fractional shares of a bunch of art.

Does it sound stupid? Absolutely? Which is why it's just crazy enough to work.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#44
post #17

Brilliant move by John Cleese. The sale is the performance, and the performance aligns perfectly with his genre.

The obvious follow-up is to mint an NFT of the promo announcement/performance and sell that too. Obviously that would require its own performative announcement post...

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#45
post #19
post #7

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…

Accelerating inequality has led to a conundrum for the rich in addition to the obvious consequences for the poor: what do you actually do with that obscene wealth? [0] You can only consume so much luxury, and sitting on dollars results in tax liability and/or gradual depreciation. Gambling it on speculative assets and bragging-rights positional goods (whynotboth.gif) is pretty much the only game in town, especially w…

Yeah. Cryptocurrency and "Web 3.0" is absolutely not all zero-sum, and I'm overall optimistic in the long-term, but much like the existing finance industry, a high percentage is definitely zero-sum or close enough on net.

People compare NFTs to trading cards. But if you already think those things are basically useless zero-sum speculative Greater Fool insert-other-overused-but-apt-buzzwords bullshit, your opinion of NFTs won't be improved much.

NFTs, in their current state and hype wave, are probably a little like the dotcom bubble. It definitely doesn't imply the internet and the world wide web are bubbles, but it implies a major disconnect of some kind. I'm more interested in the future of semi-fungible tokens and novel, creative uses of NFT/SFT smart contracts. Plus just smart contracts in general.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#46
post #34
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accelerating inequality has led to a conundrum for the rich in addition to the obvious consequences for the poor: what do you actually do with that obscene wealth? [0] You can only consume so much luxury, and sitting on dollars results in tax liability and/or gradual depreciation. Gambling it on speculative assets and bragging-rights positional goods (whynotboth.gif) is pretty much the only game in town, especially w…

If I knew anything about Roman history I'm almost certain I could draw a parallel to the fall of Rome here.

Just FYI. There's 'The History of Rome' podcast by Mike Duncan [1]. 'AntennaPod' is a great FLOSS podcast app. Available on Fdroid too [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Rome_(podcast)

[2] https://f-droid.org/en/packages/de.danoeh.antennapod/

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#48
IMO, NFTs are relevant as pop culture artifacts of a tokenized economy. It's less about the art, and more about the artist and buyers as a collective story. Valuations are high due to liquidity, technology and timing as a cultural shift.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#49
post #7

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…

It’s the natural extension of luxury branding where just having LV would raise the price from $100 to $1,000. So may as well strip away all vestiges of reality and just allow the bullshit signaling part to be sold by itself.

Perhaps with people focusing on that, we can get more quality products IRL. I went to an eye exam where the optometrist was wearing arcteryx gear during my exam. Perhaps she was going to jet off to some location where that stuff was needed, or perhaps she just liked it for fashion. But nonetheless, when people start wearing things that need real quality for non-quality reasons eventually brands start wising up and selling at the same price but with worse quality.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#50

The internet is just a fad. Only nerds want a smartphone Bitcoin is a scam NFTs are just stupid Just because I don’t like the aesthetic qualities of NFTs does not mean the whole space is bunk.

Remember when everything would be nanobots?
Post reply on HN