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

151–160 of 262 posts

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

#151

Post by dmitriid »

gonehome wrote: post #121
dmitriid wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 There's literally nothing new or interesting about memberships .

The new bit is trivial public lookup and membership transfer without relying on a central data store or authority. That is a new capability and allows for new things.

1. "Gated community" is centralized by default.

2. Literally no new thing has come out of this

3. Not to mention use cases where you wouldn't want to advertise your membership in a "gated community"

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

#152

Post by rurp »

riyadparvez wrote: post #71
manholio wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

NFTs aren't even the best option for pure financial speculation, stocks are much better. At least there the money being gambled can be put towards something productive. Plus it's much better for the gambler. Random stocks don't routinely lose 99.999% of their value in a matter of months.

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

#153

Post by poiuiopkj »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #75
colpabar wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except for the ability to easily take assets across borders to leave authoritarian regimes, bringing a form of storing assets to the 2 billion or so unbanked individuals of the world, and comparatively cheap remittances for people sending money back to their families in another country. These are just a few worth mentioning that quite literally change people's lives.

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

#154

Post by adventured »

eric_cc wrote: post #130
adventured wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It's not the stock market at all. Not even close. The stock market is a system that enables the buying and selling of shares in productive business - businesses that provide goods and services, that generate revenue and (ideally) profit. As a shareholder you own a f…

Bitcoin is attempting to BE value better than fiat. There is a possibility that we eventually achieve a bitcoin circular economy. In such a scenario, Bitcoin does not go up or down against fiat because there will be no demand for fiat.

There's no potential scenario where that happens (only scenarios with no potential to occur in reality).

Governments are not going to give up the critical aspects of economic control and self-determination that come from national currencies, generally. They could already do that with gold, and they overwhelmingly have had absolutely no desire to do it (for obvious reasons). If Bitcoin gets a lot larger and a lot more stable you may see an occasional small nation, in the midst of economic crisis, peg itself to Bitcoin; whenever the confidence crisis wanes, they'll promptly unpeg to regain flexibility and control.

The extreme majority of nations will strongly prefer to control their own destiny in terms of currency and retain the vast flexibility and power that comes with that control.

One might as well expect nations to give up militaries in the name of peace. That's a similar fantasy outcome that no doubt many millions of people believe could possibly happen (it can't).

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

#155

Post by cupofpython »

thrdbndndn wrote: post #87
lmkg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 recognize…

SO it's totally possible for the server hosting the image URL to be gone after many years?

yes.

it is also possible to change the contents of what the URL points to without changing what the NFT is.

Almost all NFT's are an index. No one seems to understand that they are not owning a digital item, they are owning a reference address. Nothing about the NFT substantiates the contents of the address. that is OpenSea in a nutshell

However, some NFT's like the bored apes use a multi-variable reference and then those variables act as parameters on an open-source protocol for generating the NFT. In other words, the NFT is not a URL, but a key-value dictionary like {eyes:blue, hair:brown, hat:cap, hatcolor:blue} (i dont know off hand the actual attributes used for bored apes).

This second method is closer to what people think NFT's are in the first place, and is leagues better than the URL to a centralized server but it is still ultimately an index of some kind that relies on being substantiated by something not on the block chain.

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

#157

Post by boopboopbadoop »

daenz wrote: post #133

I knew some very respectable people who were shilling NFTs with all of their might. These were not crypto people with any kind of understanding of the technology or implications, but they were high level people in their fields. It was sad to see so many people get taken in by it, and even more, to transform into the hosts through which this idea spread. It was like watching some kind of mind virus. It was a short per…

Ya, on one hand I understand people trying to monetize their work, and trying to be on the forefront of how that’s done. On the other, it feels a bit dishonest if the seller doesn’t believe in the tech enough that they too would buy in. Kind of reminds me of MLMs.

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

#158

Post by testcase_delta »

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…

Are you sure your account is accurate? According to the Forbes article below, bidding at the end of the auction closed with a high bid of approx. $270. Since the auction closed people have made additional offers, the highest so far is $29k (which is a 99% drop in value).

I think I found the Open Seas page (lots of scam looking clones of the page, so I'm not sure this is the real one), but unfortunately the interface doesn't give much information on what activities around the NFT have occurred. At least to a lay person like myself.

https://opensea.io/assets/matic/0x28009881f0ffe85c90725b8b02...

The difference is a 99% drop in value, or a 99.99% drop in value. I don't follow the NFT scene closely, so apologies if I'm wrong here.

Forbes article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ronshevlin/2022/04/14/jack-dors...

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

#159

Post by throw_m239339 »

simpsond wrote: post #118
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.

> Just like baseball cards.

You can certainly see baseball cards (or stamps, Magics cards, whatever) as worthless. The difference being that when you buy a baseball card, (yes a reproducible good, so its value is anybody's guess), you're not buying a link to a baseball card powered by Ethereum, you're buying a tangible product at the very least.

To me the NFT is so intangible as a product that clearly its market is already set to die, the question is who will be holding the bag and who will make millions.

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

#160

Post by huijzer »

everfree wrote: post #141
adventured wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It's not the stock market at all. Not even close. The stock market is a system that enables the buying and selling of shares in productive business - businesses that provide goods and services, that generate revenue and (ideally) profit. As a shareholder you own a f…

> Stocks are supported by the productive capacity of the business in question, ultimately; crypto doesn't work that way (at least not at present, maybe one will in the future). Ethereum's revenue is the transaction fees it collects for people to use the network. Its expenses are the rewards it pays out to miners and stakers. Its profit is the difference between the collected fees and rewarded fees. This difference be…

But is there also a regulated annual report? Filled with regulated numbers and audited by independent companies?
Post reply on HN