111–120 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can live in a house, you can't live in an NFT.
Yes. NFTs are perhaps more akin to people who sell "plots of land" on the moon or Mars.
A piece of cardboard print with graphics on it, no rights to the image, art, athlete or organization.
People talk about misinformation on Facebook, but the British media are guilty of promoting criminals and fraudsters via news stories about their "success". For example, my local newspaper published a number of articles about a "successful" trader who was offering training programmes. Last month he was sentenced to three years in prison for fraud. There are numerous examples of this and even "reality" TV shows promot…
From the article: > Continuing cuts to BBC budgets and deep job cuts, caused by successive licence fee freezes, have been blamed for recent errors in the corporation’s news output, especially in regional English newsrooms. That is the main piece of news as far as I can see. (Maybe it's not news for those who have followed the British media more closely than me.) The BBC does have some internal standards, but is incre…
I also don't feel that the license fee represents value for money anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opensea might be verifying the rights owner has attached their image to an NFT, but that still doesn't mean they have transferred any rights to the holder of the token. Correct me if I'm wrong I've not looked up Opensea's T&C's (have several other's). Also whenever people talk about ownership in regards to copyright, it's a flag that they probably don't know what they are talking about.
For most of these people the NFT is the valuable part. If Twitter verifies your opensea nft and let's you put it on your Twitter profile that is the value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why limit it to crypto? People don't question why the value of houses seems to magically rise globally despite no tangible value being added to the assets in most cases. People don't question why Wall Street traders get rich by trading second derivatives of mortgage backed securities with each other all day. What makes a mortgage any more "real" than an NFT?
This seems like a classic whataboutism. Mortgages being bad or good has absolutely no bearing on the quality of cryptocurrencies or NFTs. If crypto was actually good, you shouldn't need to deflect criticism with "but the existing financial sector also sucks!"
I thoroughly recommend the book Other People's Money by John Kay. In it he reminds us what the actual value of the financial system is and talks about what it has become. Bitcoin was an attempt to get the actual value of cash (just one facets of finance) without paying tax (interest) to the banks.
It's astonishing to me that people will just buy into any success story that involves crypto and NFTs. People don't question why poorly drawn pictures are being bought for thousands of dollars, don't question why there are hundreds of altcoins on the market and some "cryptocurrency experts" are supposedly "offering free tips" on investment. The whole space is rife with scams and embellishments and yet there are so ma…
Every person I've spoken to who's told me they're interested in crypto literally only care about it to make money, and have no interest in learning how it works. They all treat every last crypto-based use as investment like stocks, and not as a normal economic choice (e.g. "I want $3000 worth of bitcoin to buy a car" is not something people are doing, instead it's all "I want $3000 worth of bitcoin because the intern…
See the case of https://www.wired.co.uk/article/nft-fraud-qinni-art.
And now I see comments in this thread hoping that tech companies enforce NFTs. No thank you
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your not buying the rights, that's the most annoying thing about NFTs, that people don't get.
> Your not buying the rights, that's the most annoying thing about NFTs, that people don't get. You are buying the rights, but they're rights that exist in a pseudo-legal system that has no enforcement and isn't recognized by any existing legal authority. Some kind of enforcement could exist one day though. For instance, it's possible that your house in a "metaverse" might only display art for the NFTs that it verifi…
If anything, metaverse should allow you to see all works of art as if they were the real thing, all the time, for "free"*
* assuming the efforts of building and maintaining the infrastructure are properly compensated
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every person I've spoken to who's told me they're interested in crypto literally only care about it to make money, and have no interest in learning how it works. They all treat every last crypto-based use as investment like stocks, and not as a normal economic choice (e.g. "I want $3000 worth of bitcoin to buy a car" is not something people are doing, instead it's all "I want $3000 worth of bitcoin because the intern…
This is largely because there is almost nothing you can do with crypto apart from speculate and gamble. The more I learn about stuff like defi the more I understand just how fractally useless crypto is.
They have no access to Swift.
Western Union (didn't exist until a few years back) has like 20% fees.
Paypal effective total fees 20% as well.
Bitcoin? $0.30 to pay him/her, 0.30 to get the btc to his/her exchange and then cash out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea is it's not beholden to a government (though still somewhat centralized somewhere). Crypto is helping people in Turkey store value. With current inflation and economic conditions in the US and Europe more may need it in the near future.
How can crypto be a store of value when the market price fluctuates so wildly? Bitcoin, etc fell much more in one day recently than the Turkish lira fell over many months. And one is supposedly using Bitcoin to avoid inflation in the lira?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why limit it to crypto? People don't question why the value of houses seems to magically rise globally despite no tangible value being added to the assets in most cases. People don't question why Wall Street traders get rich by trading second derivatives of mortgage backed securities with each other all day. What makes a mortgage any more "real" than an NFT?
People question it all the time. And a house has obvious utility. It's also kind of a share in the city's future. It can be mispriced but it's not entirely based on hype.
These are the questions that need to be asked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your not buying the rights, that's the most annoying thing about NFTs, that people don't get. You are buying the rights, but they're rights that exist in a pseudo-legal system that has no enforcement and isn't recognized by any existing legal authority. Some kind of enforcement could exist one day though. For instance, it's possible that your house in a "metaverse" might only display art for the NFTs that it verifi…
I truly hope we do not let technology be used to create this kind of artificial scarcity If anything, metaverse should allow you to see all works of art as if they were the real thing, all the time, for "free"* * assuming the efforts of building and maintaining the infrastructure are properly compensated
Aren't virtual economies old news by now? Plenty of games and game networks have accomplished this with virtual goods.
The 'metaverse' stuff doesn't scare me personally (where this concept could become widespread). I don't buy for a second that it's going to be a big deal where it will be anything more than a niche glorified game lobby.