Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

€2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 398 posts

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#321

Post by Mentlo »

vmception wrote: post #308

I think one thing many people are missing is how much of this space is children, by now. While the past decade has been about adults risking their fiat capital, children are forced to only earn crypto onchain, as they cannot get the bank account or money without bothering their parents. It is less wise to bother their parents. People like you and I who will proselytize about crypto or any particular crypto investment…

I just re-read everything about this particular event through this lens and it is absolutely horrifying how much it fits. It reads as if kids are using crypto in a similar way they would if they were to play a game, with the difference being that through this game they can cash out eventually.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#322

Post by mpeg »

slickdork wrote: post #311
mpeg wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda missing the point of NFTs there, it's a collector's item and I can't spend $2.6m to buy the actual physical book, but I could spend $2.6k to buy an NFT with 1000 editions which was minted by the owner of the physical book. I don't care about Jorodowsky's Dune, but if I was a fan I could then show off my NFT on twitter, or > or just print it out and frame it. FAQS - Can't someone else just download the image and…

So NFT's are just a way to introduce artificial scarcity for what is otherwise a reproducible digital good? A way for people to flex money on things that don't exist? They're like DLC skins in a video game - worth nothing, other than showing off that you spent $x dollars?

Kinda? Most things are reproducible. Limited edition sneakers are reproducible, and yet scarcity makes them worth thousands of dollars.

Is it stupid to pay $10k for some hard to find sneakers? maybe, but people do it because they have the money and they're collectors, or they want to flex. Is it more real because there's a physical item which costs maybe $20 to manufacture?

It's not like your example with the DLC skins, DLC skins are not limited in any way, the game company can create more and more of them. An NFT collection is limited, there will never be more than the amount the contract specifies (unless the contract leaves that open-ended intentionally). The creator can't simply sell new ones, because using a new contract would make the new ones lose all inherent value.

It's exactly the same as how certain sneakers are worth $10k and others that are from the same brand, same designers, same materials are worth $100 – provenance matters, and knowing it was released in an extremely limited way makes something more valuable.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#323

Post by TigeriusKirk »

tetrisgm wrote: post #314

I actually interacted with the person running the DAO. I believe him to be a scam artist. For context: I also set up a group to bid on the book. Our intent was to spend $100,000. He reached out to offer to join forces. I mentioned that the goals of the DAO, the use of proceeds, and the general vision were pretty blurry and might not work. He said he had been in touch with Jodorowsky and Moebius and they're excited to…

Thanks for posting this. It's nice to have a comment from someone with insight into the situation.

Your $100,000 goal wasn't unreasonable based on the estimates. What were your plans for the book if you'd won?

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#325

Post by Workaccount2 »

donkeyd wrote: post #189
sneak wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPFS isn't hosting, it's transport. You can't "put something on ipfs" and expect it to stay there any more than when you "put something on http".

That's odd, since the TP in HTTP stands for transfer protocol, but the FS in IPFS stands for file system. You'd expect to be able to store data on a file system. That's what I use my file system for anyway.

A file system is simply a system for storing files.

The filing cabinet is the storage, the way I organize files in the cabinet is the filing system.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#326

Post by mpeg »

haasted wrote: post #295
mpeg wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost all NFTs are hosted on IPFS. Opensea shows a CACHED version of the image, because pulling them directly from IPFS puts unnecessary strain on the network and is comparatively slow. The contract for the NFT generally just points to an IPFS identifier (a sha256 hash of the content), and it's up to the viewer (a website like opensea) to decide what ipfs gateway to use. Even if the ipfs network died you could still…

The amount of artwork NFTs that has "Metadata: Centralized" in their details appear very high, although it's difficult to get any exact numbers. As far as I can tell, OpenSea doesn't provide an option to filter based on this field.

Some high value collections like BAYC have frozen metadata, so it can never be changed. I do know some other big collections serve images from AWS or their own domains, this happens because it's extremely expensive at current gas prices to do partial reveals or any kind of metadata changes on-chain

It's a problem, it used to be the grand majority of collections were fully decentralised and frozen but nowadays it's a mixed bag – I think it will change once the gas problem is solved, but it's also partly because the audience has changed and newcomers into NFTs don't care so much about their tokens being fully decentralised.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#327

Post by cmdkeen »

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #282
cmdkeen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably even more than that with the "Buyer's Premium" tacked on - the Christie's cost calculator linked reckons that would be another EUR540,000 on top...

The "price realized" includes the buyer's premium. It's a bit of sleight of hand auction houses do in reporting results.

I stand corrected - that's useful to know as I only recently discovered buyer's premium when thinking about dipping my toe into the auction waters

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#328

Post by vmception »

Mentlo wrote: post #321
vmception wrote: post #308

I think one thing many people are missing is how much of this space is children, by now. While the past decade has been about adults risking their fiat capital, children are forced to only earn crypto onchain, as they cannot get the bank account or money without bothering their parents. It is less wise to bother their parents. People like you and I who will proselytize about crypto or any particular crypto investment…

I just re-read everything about this particular event through this lens and it is absolutely horrifying how much it fits. It reads as if kids are using crypto in a similar way they would if they were to play a game, with the difference being that through this game they can cash out eventually.

Right yes, they can accumulate like a game often times by playing games, but just as easily by moonlighting as a community moderator or launching their own projects. many do like the financials sector and use the defi space.

If its any consolation, I don't think this knowledge is known enough yet for unscrupulous marketers to be specifically target children and their money, as opposed to merely selective evolution of which goofy projects attract an audience at all. But yeah this will increasingly be something to watch for and assume, also remember that it will be other children marketing to each other more and more, in comparison to adults taking advantage (which will also happen). Not that there will be any way to tell who is taking advantage of who.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#329

Post by csmpltn »

vmception wrote: post #308

I think one thing many people are missing is how much of this space is children, by now. While the past decade has been about adults risking their fiat capital, children are forced to only earn crypto onchain, as they cannot get the bank account or money without bothering their parents. It is less wise to bother their parents. People like you and I who will proselytize about crypto or any particular crypto investment…

> "children are forced to only earn crypto onchain"

What use do children have for cryptocurrencies? Buying items in World of Warcraft?

> "I know children that have a few hundred $ in their joint bank account but $100k in crypto onchain and just waiting till they turn 18 so they can cash out without telling their parents."

This entire post reads like some weird crypto-bro FOMO propaganda. To "cash out" they'll need a bank account which will accept their shady funds, and they'll have to prove they paid their taxes for it like everybody else. Until then, they can't do anything with it.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#330

Post by ComradePhil »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #279
ComradePhil wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy apparently: https://twitter.com/productnerd/status/1462889815872004101

> https://twitter.com/productnerd/status/1462889815872004101 No. He underestimated the final price by 2M, which means he offered ~660k. I watched the auction, there was one person from Colorado (possibly the DAO creator), and another person from Europe.

Thanks! I completely misunderstood his tweet. I somehow thought he bid 2 million.
Post reply on HN