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

41–50 of 262 posts

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

#41

Post by ineedasername »

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.

>What's the story here?... Beanie Babies

Well, the Beanie Baby craze always struck me as ridiculous too. So I guess the story is that someone famous is related to an event that many people consider ridiculous.

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

#43

Post by ALittleLight »

tablespoon wrote: post #24

From 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 tr…

A Peter Thiel quote - "The something of somewhere is often the nothing of nowhere."

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

#44

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

ok123456 wrote: post #13

Just in time for the tax deadline.

That's not how taxes in the US work. If he sold it now he'd only be able to take the loss on his 2022 taxes, and even then he better hope he has a lot of gains or else he'll need to carryover the loss.

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

#45

Post by dleslie »

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…

NFTs do not enforce exclusive access in any way or form; they don't even necessarily convey specific rights of ownership.

When you buy an NFT you purchase a receipt for an entry in a Blockchain that is validated by some distributed code. That receipt may reference a URL, or any other arbitrary text, within some limits. Anything beyond that isn't assured, you'll have to check the license that's conveyed.

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

#46

Post by _fat_santa »

I feel like for NFT's like these, it's all pure hype on potential future value. Take a Bored Ape NFT, a bored ape is pleasant to look at, you can set it as your profile picture or hang up on the wall as digital art. That's why I think that BAYC was so successful, you had the NFT hype combined with actually good looking art.

Now this on the other hand, you won't really want to set it as your profile picture and hanging it up as digital art looks dumb. No one is buying it because they like the NFT, they buy it because they think it will go up in value.

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

#47

Post by basisword »

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?

You can see trading volume on OpenSea (one of the larger NFT marketplaces): https://opensea.io/collection/boredapeyachtclub?tab=activity

How legitimate that trading is is not possible to know (e.g. people trading stuff back and forth to make it look like there is activity).

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

#48

Post by manholio »

dannyw wrote: post #31
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.

> Jack Dorsey sold it

So what? If Jack Dorsey took a dump, preserved in resin and sold it as an abstract representation of his first tweet, how would that be different, more genuine or less genuine than this NFT?

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

#49

Post by jjoonathan »

tablespoon wrote: post #36
malka wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, high art will have proportionately less money laundering -- because it has proportionately more tax avoidance, and that's a much larger industry.

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

#50

Post by lmkg »

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…

It's actually an NFT of a screenshot of the first tweet.

Note that for space reasons, NFTs do not generally "contain" their payload. The actual contents of the blockchain is just a URL of the screenshot. The URL points to a centralized server, and the screenshot is publicly accessible.

But yes, the Tweet itself remains under Twitter's purview, i.e. centralized. An NFT can only contain authority or ownership recognized in the context of the blockchain itself.

Post reply on HN