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

111–120 of 262 posts

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

#111

Post by ejj28 »

_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…

I find it hard to believe that BAYC is successful because of the art, personally I think they're rather ugly and I know that a lot of people would feel the same.

I think a more likely reason for their success is that they're an easily recognizable series that's known to be expensive; people buy them for the clout. NFTs are fundamentally about clout, and one-off NFTs just don't have the same clout value when used as a Twitter profile or whatever, regardless of the art quality.

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

#112

Post by eric_cc »

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…

NFT art pointers != crypto != bitcoin

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

#113

Post by WFHRenaissance »

gonehome wrote: post #30
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’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…

Chiming in RE: Milady. I’m not a “crypto” guy, and I’ve never owned any NFT aside from Milady. FYI: I own a single Milady.

I think Milady is seeing its current success for a few reasons, but I think one core reason why it’s doing so well is that Milady does not exist in a vacuum as some random abstract piece of animal art without being the nexus of several subcultures.

The Milady community in many ways existed prior to the existence of Milady: breakcore music, Serial Experiments Lain fans (and anime fans generally), technolibertarians and cryptoanarchists (Urbit people mainly), image edit artists, e-girls, occultists, internet catholics, fashion bugs, and more have all converged on Milady.

This is due in part to a mutual attraction to the projects supposed philosophical backing (primarily texts from Angelicism01's Substack, Hiroki Azuma’s Database Animals, Remillia Corporation’s members tweets/writings), but also I think its success can largely be attributed to the fact that putting on the mask of a Milady and posting insane shit on Twitter is just a lot of fun.

Having a Milady PFP is an instant ticket into a community of thousands of posters ranging from the schizo-hikikomori to family man VPs of industry. You don’t even need to own a Milady to participate, just change your PFP and you’re welcomed with open arms.

The project has lead to the coining/popularization of several neologisms: hypercitationalism, network spirituality, neo-orientalism, neo-chibi, auctioncore,et cetera. There is a hunger for an artistic/theoretical avant-garde, and Milady is delivering on the promise to innovate concepts and practices.

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

#114

Post by eric_cc »

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 a government wants to freeze your crypto assets, they can do so easily.

Lol source?

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

#116

Post by cupofpython »

adoxyz wrote: post #10

NFT's are a scam.

There are a lot of prolific scam's in the NFT medium*

and not a lot of other current uses for NFT*

NFT's themselves are actually a really neat piece of technology imo. I can imagine some uses for them. My imagination hasn't stumbled onto how those uses produce appreciating assets, though.

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

#117

Post by colinmhayes »

cj wrote: post #69
golergka wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can the people downvoting this explain why this comment is not valuable?

Despite originally being called deeds, I have never seen an NFT used to show ownership of a physical asset. Not really sure how well that would work anyway, since usually courts are the final judge of ownership, and when they figure out they can't order NFTs to be transferred they'll just say they don't actually show ownership.

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

#118

Post by simpsond »

adoxyz wrote: post #10

NFT's are a scam.

Just like baseball cards. That said, there are some interesting use cases where the NFT is paired with off-chain cash flow. See royal.io, where IP rights for music are represented by NFTs and the owner of the NFT receives royalties. I think having a liquid market for that kind of investment is more tractable than a jpeg without real IP rights.

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

#120

Post by ripper1138 »

disruptalot wrote: post #92

The conceptions of what happened is so completely removed from reality and it's disheartening to see commenters blinded by the hate for crypto stuff to the extent that they don't even bother to concern the details Let's look at some facts. The _first_ * Offer* made on this NFT was $280 The current top bid for this $29,000 It is not sold, so to say that its value has actually dropped is just silly. If you imagine this…

Idk, at this point it seems pretty safe to say that the value has dropped.
Post reply on HN