NFT's are a scam.
As has been said, NFT stands for Non-Fungible Token Scam. The S is silent.
Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
21–30 of 262 posts
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#22NFT's are a scam.
No Fuckin' Thanks!
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#23I genuinely don't know since most of my knowledge of NFT stuff comes from people commenting it vs. primary sources, but are there very active markets for NFTs in general beyond initial offerings? Like is there an active, healthy and functioning market for BAYC, or was it more about an initial rush and now a bunch of people have tokens that have value on paper but no market to realistically sell them?
I would safely assume the latter (minus the value bit).
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#24From another article on the same topic https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/apr/14/twitter-n...:
> Man who paid $2.9m for NFT of Jack Dorsey’s first tweet set to lose almost $2.9m
> ‘This is the Mona Lisa of the digital world’, says crypto entrepreneur Sina Estavi who bought the NFT in March 2021
This is a good example of why so many people don't take cryptocurrency seriously. It full of hype men who spout transparent BS like the above quote, though most don't have millions to blow to get into the news like this.
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#25NFTs have made a little more sense to me since reading a comment on here or reddit effectively claiming that crypto is easy to get into, but hard to get your money out of. Especially depending on your age or where you live. As a result there's a lot of money floating around the space that people can't effectively extract, so instead they just speculate wildly on whatever they think will increase their virtual hoard. It's just a big game.
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#26What's the story here? This is normal market dynamics for collectibles where people paying what they perceive the value to be.
I'm sure there are plenty of Beanie Babies (and other Collectibles) that are nearly worthless compared to what someone payed for them previously.
Note: I'm not for or against NFTs. I'm just trying to point out the dynamics of the Collectibles market.
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#27Pardon me. I never understood NFTs and never planned to be on board. But from my nascent understanding of what NFTs comprise, I couldn't understand why first tweet ever is a real NFT.
The tweet is publicly available so there is no exclusivity. Anyone can look far enough & find it. The second being ownership. The tweet was always time stamped & in Jack Dorsey's name. Buying it as NFT will not really change its attribute. Then again, the copyright law also is contradictory to NFT ownership. It was written by Jack Dorsey, so he automatically has its copyright - unless he signs it away as a legal document (just as academics do for their journal papers. Even then, it doesn't change authorship). AFAICT, Jack Dorsey hasn't & a blockchain purchase doesn't really legally transfer copyright.
I am still confused how this will be a NFT. If there is a better explanation, I am glad to learn more about it.
Edit: It seems my understanding was not only nascent but incomplete. It makes more sense with the extra details.
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#28NFTs have made a little more sense to me since reading a comment on here or reddit effectively claiming that crypto is easy to get into, but hard to get your money out of. Especially depending on your age or where you live. As a result there's a lot of money floating around the space that people can't effectively extract, so instead they just speculate wildly on whatever they think will increase their virtual hoard.…
NFTs of jpegs are scams.
NFTs that are linked to real-world assets (through intermediaries that you have to trust, yes — unlike everybody else on the blockchain) like stock, real estate or anything else are not.
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#29NFT's are a scam.
Sure. But bundle them into CDOs, give them the AAA rating, start selling options on them and suddenly that's a legit business. NFTs are missing this thick layer of complexity that obfuscates the nature of the core financial "product".
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#30I genuinely don't know since most of my knowledge of NFT stuff comes from people commenting it vs. primary sources, but are there very active markets for NFTs in general beyond initial offerings? Like is there an active, healthy and functioning market for BAYC, or was it more about an initial rush and now a bunch of people have tokens that have value on paper but no market to realistically sell them?
There’s an active market, but it’s mostly winner takes all and ones that establish a brand/community (helped by the tokens gating access to merchandise or events). Also good when token includes IP.
BAYC/MAYC is the biggest, milady seems to be getting traction (not sure why).
These specific ones are also easy to liquidate for now because of opensea bots willing to sell ~10% below “floor” so they can flip later.
I made this bet with a MAYC a while back to play with and understand what was going on (bet was MAYC price would climb because of BAYC community and future ape token). It worked out, but it can be a bit stressful for sure.
The interesting bit is gated community access/easily verifiable ownership of membership. The art is a meme-ish way to signal this status, but the ability to verify easily is the new capability (urbit uses it well imo - costs can be low, but verification and non-zero cost make spam no longer economical)
The Jack tweet style nft and ones like that seemed like a dumb bet to me. The value is in the community, access, or (maybe) in IP rights for a certain sports clip or something. NFTs of stuff like Jack’s tweet or a meme without IP rights have no real value beyond hype imo.
This topic is also squarely in the class of things the median HN comment is dumb about so it’s rare to find info here, usually just sneering dismissals.