Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by V__ » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

barnbuilder wrote: post #200

V__ wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> easily take assets across borders to leave authoritarian regimes How do you get your assets converted to crypto in the first place, if an authoritarian regime prevent you from having something akin to a bank account? > comparatively cheap remittances for people sending money back to their families in another country According to cryptofees.net, BTC transaction fees average 4% and ETH 1.6%. Even the median fees are…

> According to cryptofees.net, BTC transaction fees average 4% That site hasn't been updated in almost a year. (Check the prices and recent transactions it links to.) Here's a more accurate way to estimate bitcoin's fees. Go to mempool.space and look at the current estimated Low/Medium/High priority fees. That is based on current pending transactions and most of the time, unless you are in a hurry, "Low" is enough to…

Thanks for correcting this. Can you explain the layer-2 network? Is this a separated kind of chain?

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

#202

Post by nradov » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

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…

Why would anyone want to be a member of an organization composed of people stupid enough to waste money on NFTs? That seems like something I'd want to actively avoid. Like I'd pay money to block those losers from my life.

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

#203

Post by gonehome » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 5:42 PM UTC

dmitriid wrote: post #199

gonehome wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not an ad hominem - it’s a critique of the type of discourse. You’ve already made up your mind as evidenced by this reply (what you claim is “reality as it is”) and will just argue in favor of that conclusion. You’re right the difference is in the “probably”, but you’re wrong about what it means. I’m not so certain, but I at least recognize a new capability when it exists. Perhaps unfair for me to dismiss you as…

> and will just argue in favor of that conclusion Because reality doesn't care about your "probably"s. Note how you immediately started calling this discussion "this type of discourse" and "you made up your mind" immediately after I simply listed facts. > but I at least recognize a new capability when it exists There's a difference between "recognizing new capabilities" and "wishful thinking". Unsurprisingly, when fa…

Come on - you didn't "simply list facts" you stated wildly confident and extreme opinions and then you labeled them facts. That you can't or won't recognize this is what I'm talking about.

"Literally no new thing", "I look at reality" (implying I only make stuff up), "wishful thinking", "precisely zero knowledge", "Without fail in 100% of cases this is the case", etc. etc.

There are interesting conversations to have on this topic, but it's hard to have them with someone only willing to engage in this way. It requires some amount of willingness to be uncertain of what you currently believe and you're not. The more you reply, the more you confirm my initial suspicion of bad faith.

I'm not some blind crypto nut (at best I'm cautiously optimistic), but I find it hard to engage with the baseline anti-crypto hostility on HN which makes interesting conversation hard.

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

#204

Post by WFHRenaissance » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #148

WFHRenaissance wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Miladys feel like a necessary anarchic balance to BAYC.

I think that’s a good way to put it, but instead of BAYC I’d say almost all NFT animals

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

#205

Post by golergka » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #163

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.

> NFTs that are linked to real-world assets (through intermediaries that you have to trust That makes the NFT redundant.

The point is interacting with them via smart contracts and other blockchain tools. Done correctly, NFTs are simply an API from real world to the blockchain.

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

#206

Post by silverlake » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #163

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.

> NFTs that are linked to real-world assets (through intermediaries that you have to trust That makes the NFT redundant.

I paid intermediaries $10k to transfer a house title to me. Took a few weeks and many contracts. I agree NFTs are silly, but real world systems need to improve quickly.

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

#207

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 5:50 PM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #74

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…

[deleted]

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

#208

Post by nradov » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

eric_cc wrote: post #191

adventured wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There's no potential scenario where that happens Maybe not in your lifetime. But you’re not practicing long-term thinking here. Global, trustless, decentralized networks allow humanity to fundamentally reorganize. Physical, nation-state borders are ignored by such networks. Cooperation for physical resources still does matter but that may also be lessened by technological leaps in sectors like energy and food produ…

There is no potential scenario where that happens even long term. People have to physically live somewhere. Nation states continue to hold a pretty effective monopoly on violence. They can prevent you from entering, or put you in prison, or seize your assets by force. Global, trustless, decentralized networks can't control government security forces with guns. The value proposition of central governments will continue to grow, not in the sense of people actually liking them but simply because there is no alternative. That is reality and no amount of techo-utopian fantasizing will change it.

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

#209

Post by jjoonathan » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #131

jjoonathan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Also some part of tax avoidance requires real deals. That is keeping valuations of artists works high so that other works already owned have "realistic" market value for tax reasons. Unless entire supply is owned by same group. If not they have to pay money for any pieces that enter to market that they don't own.

Yes. It's a bit of both, of course, but you know those little art galleries in NY that everyone always wonders about? No visitors, but the lights are always on, even in a pandemic? This is their business. They swap art pieces to generate proof-of-value. For a fee, of course.

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

#210

Post by disruptalot » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

testcase_delta wrote: post #158

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…

Sorry I actually meant to link that Opensea page but then forgot.

If you look at the bottom of that page [1], you'll see the events recorded by opensea. Also enable "Listing" in the filter. You'll see that there is a transfer 13 days ago and then it is listed. This is when the auction begins. Since then there was no sale, only bids. You can add the "Bids" filter as well to verify the timeline.

[1] https://opensea.io/assets/matic/0x28009881f0ffe85c90725b8b02...