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

Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

artnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 262 posts

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#31

Post by dannyw »

srvmshr wrote: post #27

Pardon 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 attribu…

Jack Dorsey sold it; it's not like some random made a jpeg and tried to sell it.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#32

Post by j4yav »

malka wrote: post #9
outside1234 wrote: post #2

The right question to ask is "was it ever real?" I suspect we'll discover it was all wash trades and money laundering in short order.

This comment could be talking about all art.

You’ll be excited then to learn that I’ve both bought art and sold art I’ve made, and it was all actually used for decoration and priced reasonably for that utility - no scam involved!

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#33

Post by manholio »

alberth wrote: post #26

What'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.

A NFT is not a collectible, it's a pure vehicle for financial speculation. The object being collected no longer exists in any meaningful sense.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#35

Post by miracle2k »

ryanbrunner wrote: post #19

I 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 is no general rule for NFTs having value, much like there is an infinite amount of art that struggles to have a primary sale.

BAYC has a liquid market. It does not matter how many wash trades critics imagine there are - list your BAYC at the floor today, and it will sell within a couple of hours at most. Therefore, anyone not selling isn't doing so because they lack the liquidity. They are holding for other reasons.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#36

Post by tablespoon »

malka wrote: post #9
outside1234 wrote: post #2

The right question to ask is "was it ever real?" I suspect we'll discover it was all wash trades and money laundering in short order.

This comment could be talking about all art.

> This comment could be talking about all art.

Here's what I predict we'll find out:

* Some high-value traditional art sales are "wash trades and money laundering."

* Nearly all high-value NFT sales are "wash trades and money laundering."

There's an important different between some and nearly all, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader to work out.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#38

Post by jjoonathan »

AutumnCurtain wrote: post #18
malka wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment could be talking about all art.

I will make a bold prediction and say we won't find out all art is money laundering and wash sales soon.

The high art scene is the evolved form of this. It knows to maintain enough legitimate artistry jammed in the crevices between the tax avoidance, money laundering, fraud, and flexing to cement the whole thing together and weather the occasional public ire. NFTs will be gone next season, but the high art grift will endure.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#39

Post by belter »

“A great man who is vicious will be a great example of vice and a rich man who is not generous will be merely a miserly beggar, for the possessor of wealth is not made happy by possessing it but by spending it, and not by spending it as he pleases but by knowing how to spend it well.”

― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#40

Post by ralusek »

adoxyz wrote: post #10

NFT's are a scam.

They're a scam in the way that anything for which its value is mostly a function of its scarcity; the scarcity is still always just a modifier on the demand for it.

I would be more inclined to call it a scam if the technology was a failure or the purported scarcity of the asset being sold was being misrepresented. Neither of those are true. Instead, what is being traded are extremely scarce assets for which the demand is unimaginably overestimated. In 10 years will anybody actually care that there's a signed entry in a particular blockchain saying that this asset belongs to you? Probably not. I think if technologies like video games hook into a blockchain and let the owners of an NFT artwork for example use it as a character skin or put it up in their virtual house as a painting, maybe they'll have some value amongst people...but the demand is still probably extremely overrated. I'm guessing the value of something like that would be more on the order of TL;DR I don't think scam is the right word. I don't think Beanie Babies or IPOs are scams just because people severely overestimated the future demand for the thing that they're buying.

Post reply on HN