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

71–80 of 262 posts

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

#71

Post by riyadparvez »

manholio wrote: post #33
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.

The only valid use for NFT I can think of is a pure vehicle for financial speculation. It's better people do wild speculation on NFTs than housing market.

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

#72

Post by tablespoon »

ALittleLight wrote: post #43
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."

Not being familiar with that quote, it's definitely one that is nearly meaningless on its own and requires more explanation to interpret correctly:

https://venturebeat.com/2014/10/09/how-peter-thiel-teaches-s...

> Thiel is also not a fan of defining yourself in relation to something else, like the ‘Uber of dog sitters.’ Claiming to be the Stanford of North Dakota doesn’t mean that the school is good. “The something of somewhere is mostly just the nothing of nowhere.”

As an aside, if vapid quotespiration is your thing, here's the first google result for "The something of somewhere is often the nothing of nowhere": https://quotefancy.com/quote/1583769/Peter-Thiel-The-somethi... (proof: https://web.archive.org/web/20220418155400/https://www.googl...).

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

#74

Post by azinman2 »

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…

I thought the NFT was on the screenshot, rather than the tweet itself. Given Dorsey created that screenshot, it has intrinsic value over an arbitrary person’s screenshot - there’s a supply of exactly 1 of them.

I don’t think exclusivity applies to much art — art is often photographed or video recorded for others to see. It’s easy to find photos of the Mona Lisa, and it’s even feasible to get quite perfect recreations on a canvas. But there’s only one original.

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

#75

Post by toomuchtodo »

colpabar wrote: post #65
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…

This is a genuine question - should anyone take cryptocurrency seriously? To me, the only purpose of it is to make money. It's the stock market, but with less rules, and it's 24/7. People will say that crypto is important because it's decentralized and non-fiat or whatever, with the implication being that it's not controlled by a government. But we have seen time and time again that that isn't true, and if a governme…

If you want to speculate on a digital asset with limited regulation around the market, sure, it is fine for that. For any other purpose, no.

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

#76

Post by fl0wenol »

_fat_santa wrote: post #46

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 hangin…

"[...] a bored ape is pleasant to look at [...]"

Is it really, though? Maybe the word you're looking for is striking or distinctive. Possibly-- competent. But pleasant is not the first word that comes to mind.

BAYC had first-mover advantage, there isn't anything particular about them that wasn't done better by a project that came later. That they are uniquely fugly made them stand out as a novelty.

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

#77

Post by unmole »

_fat_santa wrote: post #46

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 hangin…

> a bored ape is pleasant to look at

Respectfully disagree.

> you can set it as your profile picture

You can do that even without buying the NFT.

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

#78

Post by a_shovel »

I have the feeling saying an NFT can be worth 2.9 million dollars is misleading, since it doesn't really apply to article's audience. An NFT has only ever, and maybe will only ever, be worth that much to at most two people: The person who paid 2.9 million dollars for this specific NFT, and the person who sold it for 2.9 million dollars. And I'm only really sure about the second one.

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

#79

Post by partiallypro »

NFTs tied to physical goods (to help solve counterfeiting or sorting membership) makes sense. NFTs that are purely digital in nature and offer nothing else, seems very silly to me because a digital space has no scarcity. An infinite amount of digital goods can be produced.

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

#80

Post by ineedasername »

0xfeba wrote: post #17

So was it a NFT pointing to a hosted image, or a URL to the actual tweet permalink? The latter being marginally less ephemeral than the former. But neither would encompass any kind of "ownership".

And is what's out there the actual tweet? I'm sure their data is distributed & duplicated across many regions. Does the NFT encompass all of them?

Are any of them even original? It's possible that the first bits & bytes on a server that hosted that tweet are long gone, tossed out after twitter scaled beyond its humble beginnings. The original could be a slagged hard drive, a cooled molten lump of metal & silicon. Actually, that would be much more interesting to own than the NFT.

Post reply on HN