Live data from Hacker News

The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

spectrum.ieee.org

31–40 of 377 posts

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#31
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that always the case? My friend was talking about a rare Magic The Gathering card being worth a silly amount of money... Except the card had only been sold once or twice at that price. Unless you have enough comparable items (e.g. paintings by the Dutch masters) it's really difficult to determine the value of something that's rarely sold.

> Except the card had only been sold once or twice at that price. You see this practice in art and collector car sales. It's rumored that if you see a painting go for an insane amount of money, often these sales are between "friendly" parties for the sole purpose of driving up the value of that art.

see Beeple's 60M NFT sale as a great example

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference between an illiquid market where wealthy collectors are so keen to hang onto things they only change hands at crazy possibly-not-to-be-repeated prices and a fake market where the illusion of deep-pocketed collectors is created by the auctioneer and owner colluding to pretend an item changed hands at a massive amount of money.

The amount of wash trading in the fine art world is certainly not zero.

True, but I don't thing wash trading is integral to convincing people that fine art is something people want...

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#33
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that always the case? My friend was talking about a rare Magic The Gathering card being worth a silly amount of money... Except the card had only been sold once or twice at that price. Unless you have enough comparable items (e.g. paintings by the Dutch masters) it's really difficult to determine the value of something that's rarely sold.

Funny you should mention MtG, since the first big crypto exchange collapse was MtGox. I always thought it was "Mt. Gox", like a mountain of sorts. Turns out it's Magic: The Gathering Online Exchange. Edit: MtG seems like it has some kind of evergreen popularity, and various format changes, changes in the list of banned cards, reprints, and changes in the metagame will mean that prices of individual cards can vary wil…

It did pivot away from its ancestry and at that point it was indeed referred to as "Mount Gox".

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#34
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you have $X million from a hack on wallet A, and you want to launder it. First, you run it through tornado cash (RIP) a few times and move them to wallets B1 to B1000. Then, you mint an "exciting NFT collection" on your public, KYC'd wallet C, list them on a "decentralized exchange", and have wallets B1 to B1000 buy those NFTs. Even better, seeing how fast your NFTs are selling out, a few suckers join in on t…

> Well, now on wallet C you have $(X - gas fees - minting fees) etc., that is totally legal and clean. It's not "legal" at all, because it's still proceeds of crime. Although it may "appear" legal and be very difficult to trace back to the source, it's still not actually legal.

Yes, that's how money laundering works.

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#35
My intuition about CryptoKitties and many other NFTs is that market manipulation has been ridiculously easy and profitable, everything is somewhat more scrutinized nowadays, but I think that the scams and schemes are far from over.

Impersonating both sides of a transaction does not seem too difficult, and not very costly, as long as the fees are kept small.

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that particular thing work? You run the exchange, then have dirty untraceable money traded on the exchange to dirty participant and you take the exchange fees? You'd have to KYC both participants, right?

Imagine you have $X million from a hack on wallet A, and you want to launder it. First, you run it through tornado cash (RIP) a few times and move them to wallets B1 to B1000. Then, you mint an "exciting NFT collection" on your public, KYC'd wallet C, list them on a "decentralized exchange", and have wallets B1 to B1000 buy those NFTs. Even better, seeing how fast your NFTs are selling out, a few suckers join in on t…

Only need to do Tornado cash once, and you can still do that, it still works

Nobody cares that you sold your nft to a virgin address funded solely by the tornado cash relay

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#37
post #3

One thing I don't see addressed in this article is that as far as I know, it's basically impossible to trust the reported price or volume of NFT transactions, because there's no way to distinguish fake wash trades from real ones. So it's hard to draw any conclusions about whether the data reflects an actual peak in user activity, or just a peak in scams.

> there's no way to distinguish fake wash trades from real ones Ah, like that $532M Punk wash trade that was clearly visible on-chain?[1] I guess we'll never know if it was real or fake. [1] https://decrypt.co/84756/no-someone-didnt-really-pay-532-mil...

Please explain your comment for the rest is us. Was that a sarcastic "it really happened because it made it to the chain" or a "we'll never know whether value was exchanged from one person to another because the owner of both wallets could be the same person" - or both, neither or?

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#38
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that always the case? My friend was talking about a rare Magic The Gathering card being worth a silly amount of money... Except the card had only been sold once or twice at that price. Unless you have enough comparable items (e.g. paintings by the Dutch masters) it's really difficult to determine the value of something that's rarely sold.

"value" is kind of a made-up thing, so I'd argue that by selling something for the first time you're setting its value, not determining it

It's important to note that price, the last traded price, and value are all distinct concepts. The last traded price is the only one of these we can measure ahead of time, so we often use it as a metanym for these other concepts. But we don't know the price of something until we make a binding offer on it and it is accepted; that doesn't necessarily mean the next transaction won't be very different, we just have heuristics about how the next price ought to look. But it's the process of negotiating a deal or bidding on an auction that defines the price, not the historical prices. If you go to a grocery store and see that milk costs $5.25, and you remember last week it costs $5.00, you don't say the price is wrong; you understand that this is the offer the store has made you, and that the price has gone up since your last visit.

When the oil futures went negative, it wasn't the case that the value of oil was negative - this was about the structure of the market and the sorts of positions people were caught in when the pandemic hit. We continued to consume oil throughout the pandemic, and so I'd say we continued to value it.

Another example would be, if a rancher has a lot of cow poop, they might pay a farmer to take it away. You could say that the cow poop has a negative price on it. But the farmer is going to make use of it as fertilizer; from the farmer's perspective, this is a commodity that has value.

It's true though that there are a million theories of value and it's impossible to say what something's value is definitively, you can only make a decision about what is value is to you.

But when wash trading is and to impact the perceived value, it does so fraudulently; it supplies information to traders - "there is a lot of interest in this security, and the (last traded) price is rising" - which is a lie. Some people will argue this too is a normal and healthy part of markets, but I don't think they've given enough thought to what sort of equilibrium that game will settle into.

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#39
Yes, all nft collections suffer from supply dilution if the creator wants to keep making money.

The “NFT” aspect distracts most from the obvious:

The physical collections market is hugely profitable, supply is hugely manipulated and unknown, and we just had no transparency into any of this until it went onchain

None of the consumer activity in the NFT collections market is really unique, we just get to see issuer revenue numbers in real time and supply

All the market is saying is “wow I should really be selling stuff to collectors“

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#40

Know zero about NFT market caps, but if I pull up few years on the site below, hardly looks like a collapse: https://nftgo.io/collection/cryptokitties/overview Anyone with more knowledge able to clarify?

Market cap is not really significant, if the sales are down. Most of the market cap is from old sales.

I could create a new coin with a huge market cap very easily: I'm creating 1,000 billion coins, and I'm selling to a friend one coin for $1, then never selling anything again. The market cap is now $ 1,000 billion right?

Post reply on HN