Live data from Hacker News

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

artnews.com

161–170 of 262 posts

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

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

I’m not going to argue with someone that’s just looking to win rather than actually be curious about stuff.

If you’re right you can look back smugly. If you’re wrong you’ll eventually figure it out (or not), won’t matter to me. I think you’re probably wrong.

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

#162

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.

There is functional value to NFT’s. Think beyond JPEG NFT’s. If you’re a software engineer, consider building a decentralized system with unique instances of a model. Unique tokens make a lot of sense to me and certainly there is utility to them. I agree that JPEG NFT’s are ridiculous though.

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

#163

NFTs have made a little more sense to me since reading a comment on here or reddit effectively claiming that crypto is easy to get into, but hard to get your money out of. Especially depending on your age or where you live. As a result there's a lot of money floating around the space that people can't effectively extract, so instead they just speculate wildly on whatever they think will increase their virtual hoard.…

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.

> NFTs that are linked to real-world assets (through intermediaries that you have to trust

That makes the NFT redundant.

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

#164
post #52
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…

All NFTs contain a public URL inside them, as the thing the sellable token points at. You can go look at other peoples NFTs all you like, at any time.. they can’t stop you. NFTs aren’t contracts for the rights, so this is as real an NFT as any other. An NFT is essentially a text file, that only one person can prove they own via the blockchain, where the file has a URL written inside. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm wondering, what entity enforces a uniqueness constraint on the URLs? Presumably it wouldn't be hard to copy the content & host & create a whole new URL, but what prevents you from just minting using the original URL?

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

#165

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. I would say no. It's a technology that serves no practical purpose, since the problems it addresses are ones purely created by certain peculiar ideologies. If you're not indulging in one of those ideologies, there's no point. And, like y…

No practical purpose 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 of the incredibly practical use cases that quite literally change people's lives.

> 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 unbanned individuals of the world, and cheap remittances for people sending money back to their families in another country. These are just a few worth mentioning because they quite literally change people's lives.

I'm not disputing you can still do work on a 486 PC that requires as much power as Argentina; the question is why would you want to when a regular PC works just as well or even better?

Also, most of those use-cases break down in practice at the intersection with the real world. Sure if you've got some Bitcoin and an internet connection (and a big HD to store the blockchain), you can transfer it around to your heart's content. But how (for instance) are you supposed to get Bitcoin for your authoritarian-regime fiat? Wire it to Binance? That defeats the point. Why would you use Bitcoin as a store of value, when there are better, less volatile alternatives like the dollar, the euro, or even gold? When you work through the particulars, there's not that many cases where Bitcoin actually makes sense to use, from a practical perspective.

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

#166

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…

> But we have seen time and time again that that isn't true, and if a government wants to freeze your crypto assets, they can do so easily. We have seen no such thing. The claim is not that the government can't put your wallet on a blacklist in an attempt to ban local companies from serving you. Nor is the claim that the government can't come to your home and arrest you, nor that they can't have your server taken dow…

[deleted]

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

#168
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if a government wants to freeze your crypto assets, they can do so easily. Lol source?

I'm not the OP, but this from the Matt Levine newsletter last week, which I think is what he is getting at: > 1. If you hold your coins at a regulated exchange, sure yeah the authorities can probably get a warrant and seize your Bitcoins. > 2. If you hold your coins in your own wallet but you write down your private key in, like, your phone’s notes app, and it backs up to the cloud, then the authorities can probably…

Ah gotcha. Agree that no one man is going to stop a nation state from using Physical violence to achieve their goal.

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

#169

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…

> The stock market is a system that enables the buying and selling of shares in productive business Ostensibly, yes. But in practice stocks are often pretty disconnected from business realities by algorithmic trading and high-frequency trading. Even manual trades made on a snap basis like a mass sales on a company posting a slightly less than stellar quarter on the back of a proven long-term, solid, growing business:…

> Ostensibly, yes. But in practice stocks are often pretty disconnected from business realities by algorithmic trading and high-frequency trading.

No they're not. Only short-term to a limited extent and only to an extreme in very rare cases.

High frequency trading is a laughable triviality to a long-term investor, entirely meaningless. It only matters if you're trading a lot of volume and they're swiping some of your profit by moving faster. I don't care if they take 0.1% of the present value of my trade if I'm buying a stock to hold for years (or if I'm buying at a steep discount to what I value the company at).

I buy Teladoc at $61.22 and I plan to hold for years - do I care if HFT swipes $0.02 of that trade? No. I don't care if it swipes $0.20 of that trade in fact. If you're doing it right, if you're calculating the margin for error in the purchase correctly in terms of the value you're buying, you can very easily disregard the margin that that $0.20 represents. That is to say, if a stock isn't a good buy at $61.22, it's not a good buy at $61 either. There's no scenario where I'm going to care about HFT.

I also don't base my purchases on what the market (other investors, whether algorithmic or not) thinks a stock is worth. I make my own determination of the worth of the business, its potential, and from there I decide if the current price matches up with the value I think the business represents. As such algorithmic manipulation largely doesn't matter to me, I don't care if they run a stock up or down 5% tomorrow or next week, it doesn't alter my evaluation of what the business is worth; although if they want to crash a good stock by 70% in a few weeks because some people panic and hit the sell button, prompting a cascade of selling, due to something like Covid, then I'm a buyer, I'll happily take advantage of their mistake.

> Most companies can't even explain many of their own stock price moves.

Again, you're talking about shorter-term volatility, spikes, blips, temporary emotional swings up or down.

As a long-term value investor, I don't care much about short-term volatility and will never have to (other than if it happens to provide a rare, freakishly outsized, emotion-based buying or selling opportunity to take advantage of; as with the Covid crash). As an owner, shorter-term concerns, swings, are largely meaningless to me. As they should be to most investors.

Why do I care if a company can explain stray volatile stock price movements? That's not the business I want them to be specializing in. I have no need of their explanations unless it's a critical legal matter. Read their quarterly reports, figure out their business and its long-term trajectory - that's what you're properly buying, not the explanation by public relations on the daily movement of the stock.

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

#170

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…

> The stock market is a system that enables the buying and selling of shares in productive business Ostensibly, yes. But in practice stocks are often pretty disconnected from business realities by algorithmic trading and high-frequency trading. Even manual trades made on a snap basis like a mass sales on a company posting a slightly less than stellar quarter on the back of a proven long-term, solid, growing business:…

> in practice stocks are often pretty disconnected from business realities by algorithmic trading and high-frequency trading

If you are an HFT and you are noticeably impacting the price of a stock, you are losing a ton of money very quickly

> mass sales on a company posting a slightly less than stellar quarter on the back of a proven long-term, solid, growing business: is that company really "worth" 10% less today?

This is a very easy theory to test. If you think it’s true, just buy every stock that’s down 10% on earnings (it’s obviously not true as such a strategy would have been exploited by hedge funds decades ago)

Post reply on HN