NFT projects are just MLMs for tech elites • Hacker News Board

Re: NFT projects are just MLMs for tech elites

#261

Post by vintermann » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 6:43 AM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #153

SrslyJosh wrote: post #3

This would have been more interesting if the author had traced where all the money being plowed into NFTs is coming from. I suspect that most of it does not come from outside of the current ETH (or whatever) ecosystem. I'd bet that most of the volume comes from people who are either treating it as play money, or trying to pump the NFT scam for their own benefit (real or imagined).

Youtube suggested a video to me about what's going on in the collectable video game market. The claim was that there's some collusion between a major auction site and a grader, and some of those players were running a pump and dump. Unless you know who the buyers and sellers are or transaction fees are high (like an auction at Christie's), you have no idea if the sales are real, so it's pretty easy to make it look li…

Yup, Karl Jobst's expose I bet. It was a really good piece of journalism, maybe not something you'd expect from a YouTuber who mostly vlogs about speedrunners.

Re: NFT projects are just MLMs for tech elites

#262

Post by osigurdson » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 6:44 AM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #214

osigurdson wrote: post #95

I watched the link below to try to understand what is going on with NFTs. This helped a bit but I don't quite understand how to apply the token to a physical or digital thing. Does it make sense that for a digital item (like a jpg) it would be a hash of the file, the entire file or something else? Also, how would one use an NFT with a physical item (if that is in fact possible)? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i86Nh-…

Trying to parse your question, for the digital answer first. An NFT is verifiable metadata that can link to any other arbitrary data, such as a PNG, JPG, MP4, or whatever. Following the standards set forth by ERC721, you can add an image, external URLs, names, and various attributes that define the item's traits in relation to a broader collection that it belongs to. It is very common to use IPFS for hashing the cont…

Thanks, this is helpful. I had a look at this link (https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-721#simple-summary) based on your response (specifically the json schema). Is it correct that the actual NFT is three strings: name, description and image? It seems that "image" contains URL that you mention. Is there any limit to the size of the NFT (i.e. could you save the entire jpg base64 encoded in the image field for example)?

At first I was a little confused by the fact that it seems that the purchaser essentially owns a URL and they would have no control over the information that the URL is pointing to. However, the concept of permanent/decentralized storage (Arweave as you mention) starts to clarify things a bit. If you have a digital asset located at a URL that can never be altered and is permanently accessible then it does start to make some sense - though I will have do some reading to understand how this is actually possible.

Thanks again!

Re: NFT projects are just MLMs for tech elites

#263

Post by mattdesl » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 6:45 AM UTC

t_akosuke wrote: post #242

Ok, let's see if I'm following the discussion right. let's say you buy an NFT for using a GIF of the Techno Viking, from the Viking himself, and Reddit verifies it. Now you are the only person on Reddit that can have a Techno Viking GIF signature, yippee! Except I can make a new NFT of the same GIF and nothing in the NFT itself betrays that it wasn't issued by the real Techno Viking, so it's up to him, Reddit and you…

Anybody can own and share the media file (one of the great things about crypto art is that we can all access and view it), but only one wallet owns the token that links back to the original creator’s signature.

To use a print analogue: a print of a photographer’s work likely holds no significant value* unless that artifact is provably signed (or otherwise approved) by the artist. To take it a step further; a convincing photocopy with a fraudulent signature will also hold no value, once it’s determined to not have come from the original creator.

* Here “value” refers to cultural and artistic significance in how it is perceived by an art market. Of course a poor photocopy of a Mona Lisa holds cultural value because of what it signifies, but a museum isn’t about to acquire that artifact from you.

Re: NFT projects are just MLMs for tech elites

#264

Post by jljljl » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 6:45 AM UTC

jcelerier wrote: post #255

Doxin wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're both correct and underestimating how broken NFTs are. If you buy an NFT that gives you nothing except bragging rights that you "own" this NFT. What ownership actually means when devoid of the associated rights is anyones guess. Buying an NFT of a GIF doesn't stop anyone from using that GIF on reddit. No one is going around checking if posted GIFs have a matching NFT out there and enforcing property rights base…

Not that I support NFTs much, but conceptually, how is that different than you buying a Marilyn Monroe from Andy Warhol and him printing the exact same Marilyn Monroe and selling it to someone else ? Hopefully in 2021 everyone would agree that the two are distinct artworks, even if the physical object is exactly the same to the human eye ; that's not what matters when buying art.

The Marilyn Monroes are still limited by the number that Warhol prints, and you have ownership of the print that you bought. Maybe it’s not as valuable as it would be if there was only 1 Monroe print, but you are paying for a physical object made by Warhol.

If I understand correctly, an NFT is like if someone, not necessarily Warhol himself, sold you a note posted on a wall somewhere that said “You own Andy Warhol’s Marilyn Monroe”, without any rights to the underlying work, or any promise that another person might sell another note on another wall that says “Andy Warhol’s Marilyn Monroe”.

Re: NFT projects are just MLMs for tech elites

#265

Post by system2 » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 6:45 AM UTC

kwhitefoot wrote: post #160

I wish that HN would implement an automatic acronym and abbreviation expander! What is an MLM? Ah, multi-level marketing. A euphemism for a pyramid scheme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_marketing .

I think MLM is as known as CEO or HDD. Or to anyone over 25 years old age with moderate news exposure.

Re: NFT projects are just MLMs for tech elites

#266

Post by TedDoesntTalk » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 6:45 AM UTC

polemic wrote: post #50

seibelj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an application (videogame, social network, website, etc.) gives the holder of the NFT special rights, then that is the utility of the NFT. It does not matter about legal ownership of a graphic.

But this is the wrong abstraction. The application becomes the central authority for some arbitrary token. Yes, in theory they could use "an NFT" to represent a key to some in-application capability but at best the owner of the NFT has an exclusive right to that capability at the whim of the application owner. The NFT owner can't really claim to own any real "thing" in and of it's own right. The application owner gai…

I think he means application badges and skins, etc. A special hat sold in a Roblox game that was only created once.

Re: NFT projects are just MLMs for tech elites

#267

Post by neuralzen » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 6:45 AM UTC

larsiusprime wrote: post #221

neuralzen wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree PoW is bad, and I'm hopeful for the future of Proof of Stake. Just like using coal and oil to fuel our industries is bad, and we are moving more and more towards renewable energy it is a path of progression. You have to start somewhere and grow, but I think it is somewhat disingenuous to discuss them as if they are static states which are not seeking and progressing to more ethical models.

I will, sincerely, believe it when I see it. Until then criticizing the status quo, which is doing harm right now, is absolutely valid and not disingenuous in the least.

I suppose I see is like noticing that a house is being built, and then criticizing it because no one can live in it, and the builder's tools are loud, and pieces of building material are strewn around. If you don't like houses at all, then it's certainly fair to be critical of them at any state of their development, but if you admit they are useful to exist, albeit in a more developed state than not, it seems like a conflict. - I do appreciate your discussion here, and I hope I'm not coming across as antagonistic by saying your position is disingenuous, I just see it as a process of growth, some of which is not so tenable...like a screaming child vs an adult who creates something that contributes something that is a boon for society in their life. I also admit it remains to be seen, but there is meaningful evidence which supports a net positive outcome.

Re: NFT projects are just MLMs for tech elites

#268

Post by vintermann » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 6:45 AM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #231

gruez wrote: post #27

sorry to be pedantic, but it's literally not multi-level-marketing? Specifically, it's missing the multi-level part. Your upline isn't getting $$$ when you sell a NFT. I suppose you can make the argument that if you then take the money and buy more stuff, then your upline gets paid, but that describes most distributor arrangements. Come to think of it, there isn't really even an upline. It's just a network of artists…

I agree. I kinda dislike when people throw around terms like pyramid scheme and MLM. And specifically calling crypto a ponzi. Yes there has been ponzi schemes done with crypto. But speculative bubble itself is not a ponzi scheme. Pyramid and MLM are related concepts, and usually MLM is pyramid. That doesn't mean all pyramids are MLMs though. Same applies for other types of scams or structures.

Yes, but that may be nitpicking. The salient part is if it is a get rich quick scheme based on convincing people to join.

Re: NFT projects are just MLMs for tech elites

#269

Post by slg » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 6:45 AM UTC

jcelerier wrote: post #255

Doxin wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're both correct and underestimating how broken NFTs are. If you buy an NFT that gives you nothing except bragging rights that you "own" this NFT. What ownership actually means when devoid of the associated rights is anyones guess. Buying an NFT of a GIF doesn't stop anyone from using that GIF on reddit. No one is going around checking if posted GIFs have a matching NFT out there and enforcing property rights base…

Not that I support NFTs much, but conceptually, how is that different than you buying a Marilyn Monroe from Andy Warhol and him printing the exact same Marilyn Monroe and selling it to someone else ? Hopefully in 2021 everyone would agree that the two are distinct artworks, even if the physical object is exactly the same to the human eye ; that's not what matters when buying art.

Having ownership of the physical print is a pretty big differentiator. I guess you could have always bought that same print from someone who created it illegally rather than Warhol himself, but that is where the vague "supporting the artist" reasoning comes in to play.

Since NFTs don't provide that physical object, all that is left is the "supporting the artist" angle. If that is central to NFTs, why is the secondary market such a big aspect of the community? To extend your analogy, that would be like me buying the Warhol print for $10, turning around and selling it for $100, and claiming that $90 in my pocket is supporting Warhol.

Re: NFT projects are just MLMs for tech elites

#270

Post by melomal » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 6:46 AM UTC

This is NFTs 1.0. The current issue is that there's a gap between your NFT and a suitable metaverse.

People love to customize their avatars, it's just what we like to do. NFTs 2.0 will be able to take your purchases and add them into whatever metaverse dominates at that current time.

As much as people like to say why buy things digital I remember reading a HN thread where many, many, many people preferred to live in a digital world VERSUS the real world. Therefore if you live in a metaverse you probably will want to customize and make yourself digital twin unique to your likes, desires etc.

What we are seeing right now is a standard progressive of a new digital product that some take advantage of, others don't see it and some will see the potential.

QR Codes have been around for years, dropped off the map and then came storming back even though they are unsecure, some people hate them, others love them and so on.