[deleted]
€2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
121–130 of 398 posts
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
As expected, the problem of interacting with the real world comes up again. It doesn't matter how decentralized your blockchain or "DAO" is, ultimately all interactions outside the blockchain will rely on one or more trusted parties that can go rogue or be coerced... at which point you may as well not have a blockchain and just trust these people directly.
Sending some ethereum to a central address sure is easier though, especially when you're collaborating across borders.
I think the equivalent would be Kickstarter, Gofundme, etc. rather than directly sending someone money.
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#123How did it sell for 10x of the expected auction price?
I understand that they thought they were buying the IP, but who was bidding against them?
I guess I'm asking if the seller or another party could see their publicly available bidding strategy and pushed the price up knowing their limits?
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#124Im just wondering how they’ve spent MILLIONS of dollars on this auction and nobody ever told them this wasn’t gonna work.
How is this even possible? Didn’t they tell anyone about their plan before executing it?
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#125My favorite part of this story is that they DAO has actually raised ~$8m, spent $3m on the book (10x the expected auction price), then the "core team" has started paying themselves ~$30k a month[0]. Also, how is this "decentralised" when one person owns over 50% of the voting token? [0] https://snapshot.org/#/dunedao.eth/proposal/0x2038fc240d0e85...
The word you're looking for is Scam.
[deleted]
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#126Also worth to understand and remember, from the linked thread: "digitisation does not = preservation. All they’ve done is replace a long term, resource-light asset with a short term and resource-heavy one that doesn’t work in the way the creator intended."
Can someone explain what he meant by that please.
Digitisation preserves the contents of the book, but not the book itself.
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
8K seems plenty when you can do your "work" from anywhere in the world (and probably have a good reason to not be too easy to find by your scam victims)
... and possibly if the "work" is not like 40-50 hours/week, but more like a couple hours per month ...
Sounds like a board seat.
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know the legal intricacies of this, like to what extent can they sell not the content but the actual physical square piece of the book, under an NFT? For example, a company called MSCHF sold 999 fake Warhol drawings and 1 real[0], all mixed up so no one knows which one is the real one, for 250$ each... can they do this? Is this legal? At least people were aware of it, so I doubt it's fraud. Here's the math of…
Sounds like it was just a raffle. $250 for a 1 in 1,000 chance to win a prize worth ~$8,125. Happens all the time in school fundraisers and other community events. Of course they didn’t need to use a blockchain or cryptocurrency to hold a simple raffle, but here we are. Also in a raffle they usually just tell you when you’ve won. Better odds and potential return dollar for dollar than the lottery, though.
But a raffle doesn't have the copyright infringement.
You can't make a bunch of copies of a Disney movie but with the ending cut off, and have them be the "losing" consolation prizes.
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#129My favorite part of this story is that they DAO has actually raised ~$8m, spent $3m on the book (10x the expected auction price), then the "core team" has started paying themselves ~$30k a month[0]. Also, how is this "decentralised" when one person owns over 50% of the voting token? [0] https://snapshot.org/#/dunedao.eth/proposal/0x2038fc240d0e85...
"Decentralized" means "out of the reach of law enforcement". Or at least that's what these people treat it as.
Hey that's pretty unfair, I was just chastised a couple days ago for implying the killer use case for the blockchain was criminality!
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unbelievably funny and scary at the same time. This is the profile of their "Marketing Lead": https://twitter.com/YOJIMBO_KING/media Qualifications listed for their team include "Bitcoin Class of 2013", not sure if a joke or not? The impression is that this is a bunch of 13 year olds who suddenly got a windfall...
"They worked as Product Manager on StarChant and Project Manager of PegzDAO; consulted with POAP on their communications strategy and Raid Guild DAO on business development. DeFi trader, yield farmer and liquidity provider on DEXs. Bitcoin Class of 2013. " You weren't kidding, this sounds like an application for a World of Warcraft Guild I applied to in 2008 or something. I have no idea what any of this means
It means “I’m in on the con job so let’s play ball”