€2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
1–10 of 398 posts
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#2The non-challan we will make an original series out of it and sell it to a streaming service must be the funniest thing I've read in a long time. cryptobros really are funny if you are not getting scamed by them.
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#3Since it is an auction, besides the winning bidder, there was at least another bidder, which makes two of them and is even more perplexing.
It is not really the "Dune" book, but rather its storyboard, more details and a few photos here:
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211122-doomed-dune-s...
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#4The non-challan we will make an original series out of it and sell it to a streaming service must be the funniest thing I've read in a long time. cryptobros really are funny if you are not getting scamed by them.
sorry I hate to be that guy but its not non-challan, its nonchalant. I was confused for a minute their by what non-challan meant ... i was thinking tthat maybe it is related to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/challan
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#5The non-challan we will make an original series out of it and sell it to a streaming service must be the funniest thing I've read in a long time. cryptobros really are funny if you are not getting scamed by them.
sorry I hate to be that guy but its not non-challan, its nonchalant. I was confused for a minute their by what non-challan meant ... i was thinking tthat maybe it is related to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/challan
I got stuck on that sentence too. I think it is the lack of quotes around the “we will make an original series out of it and sell it to a streaming service”-bit following it that stopped me from seeing 'non-challan' as a mistyped 'nonchalant'.
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#6Who was the seller?
Where did the 2.6 million come from?
How many other bidders were there?
What was the auction model used?
How are they going to recover the investment now? And if they won't how will they deal with the write-off?
So many questions...
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#7Since it is an auction, besides the winning bidder, there was at least another bidder, which makes two of them and is even more perplexing. It is not really the "Dune" book, but rather its storyboard, more details and a few photos here: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211122-doomed-dune-s...
Sounds like a great way to launder money
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#8Since it is an auction, besides the winning bidder, there was at least another bidder, which makes two of them and is even more perplexing. It is not really the "Dune" book, but rather its storyboard, more details and a few photos here: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211122-doomed-dune-s...
> Since it is an auction, besides the winning bidder, there was at least another bidder, which makes two of them and is even more perplexing.
I see nothing perplexing about it because this was not an ordinary auction, but an auction with one member being a public DAO, where the amount of money the DAO will bid is thus public.
Let's say the DAO bids $100, but they have $200 in contributions. Someone can then safely bid $190, knowing that the DAO will raise to $200. It's in the agreement for the DAO more or less, and because it's on the blockchain and organized in a public-ish discord server, their cap is absolutely public.
So, who has the motivation to make these known-bad bids? Anyone who profits off the sale being more, and anyone who just doesn't like crypto-techbros and wants them to lose more money than they would otherwise.
I think the use of DAOs for auctions is quite funny for this reason. A private company that kept the total contribution amount private until just after the auction ended would end up with a much more favorable dynamic than this "the amount we can bid is on the blockchain, you already know our move when you bid".
Disclaimer: I know nothing about this specific auction, and may be missing some key detail. This is simply an observation and speculation from a naive bystander
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#9Since it is an auction, besides the winning bidder, there was at least another bidder, which makes two of them and is even more perplexing. It is not really the "Dune" book, but rather its storyboard, more details and a few photos here: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211122-doomed-dune-s...
1. I think the winning bidder posted that right away. How terrible it must feel to wonder whether there's anyway to stop payment, cancel, back out, anything.
2. And what luck the runner-up must feel. (Who may now perhaps offer the winner 40k for the book.)
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#10I guess, if you think in NFTs all day and truly believe that your JSON receipt is worth anything and gives you legal ownership, stuff like this happens to you in the real world, too.