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

171–180 of 262 posts

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

#171

Post by charcircuit »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #159
simpsond wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Who cares if an asset is tangible? There's really not that much difference between being able to own and show off a CSGO skin vs a baseball card.

For stocks most people prefer owning an intangible version of it. Very few people want an actual certificate saying they own it.

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

#172

Post by belter »

elforce002 wrote: post #84
connor4312 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, amazing ASCII art! Are you selling an NFT of it?

First bid: $2.9m. Take it or leave it!

Can I pay you with this new Crypto I created in the last 12 minutes?

It's called Y3J5cHRvc3Vja2Vycw==

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

#173

Post by dmitriid »

gonehome wrote: post #161
dmitriid wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Ah. The inevitable ad hominem argument.

> I think you’re probably wrong.

See, the difference between you and me lies in this "probably". You believe, with nothing to back your beliefs.

I look at reality (including the reality that I worked at a company that worked with memberships, ticketing, "gated community access" etc.). And I evaluate it for what it is, not for what I believe it is.

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

#174

Post by recursive »

partiallypro wrote: post #79

NFTs tied to physical goods (to help solve counterfeiting or sorting membership) makes sense. NFTs that are purely digital in nature and offer nothing else, seems very silly to me because a digital space has no scarcity. An infinite amount of digital goods can be produced.

So if you have the NFT, and I have the physical good, how do you get it back? Take me to court? How is this better than a regular contract?

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

#175

Post by ricochet11 »

dvt wrote: post #3

Kevin Rose just raised $60M+ this weekend[1], so unlikely that the NFT market is "crumbling." [1] https://cryptobriefing.com/moonbirds-set-to-bring-in-66m-as-...

Exactly. NFT monthly sales volume is up ~1500% since the Dorsey tweet sale (down 1/3 from January highs though).

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

#176

Post by coryrc »

poiuiopkj wrote: post #150
tablespoon wrote: post #125

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.

And providing significant funding of the North Korean regime to keep crushing people under their boots.

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

#177

Post by sequenceA »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #12
dvt wrote: post #3

Kevin Rose just raised $60M+ this weekend[1], so unlikely that the NFT market is "crumbling." [1] https://cryptobriefing.com/moonbirds-set-to-bring-in-66m-as-...

Yes, at some point too ICO were raising hundreds of millions of dollars. Can you point me to a single ICO were "investors" actually made money on the long run?

I guess this is just the usual hate-posting...

But up until today;

  Ethereum (ico: $0.3, now: $2912)
  Basic Attention Token (ico: ~$0.03, now: $0.74)
  Avalanche (ico: $0.5, now: $74.28)
  Fantom (ico: ~$0.04, now: $1.09)
  Terra (ico: $0.8, now: $84.89)
  Cosmos (ico: $0.10, now: $23.27)
To name a few of the big winners. You said long-term so I assumed you meant someone was bag-holding since the ICO until now... so I omitted that all of these topped out at way higher prices.

Just because a lot of the ICOs were dogshit doesn't mean that all of them were

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

#178

Post by SahAssar »

eric_cc wrote: post #149
SahAssar wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because real world assets already have frameworks governing their ownership, and those frameworks generally do not take NFTs into account. If the NFT actually grants you ownership of something tangible (like stock, IP, real estate, etc.) then to make that legally enforceable you need to also sign a traditional contract which makes the NFT pretty pointless. If I bought your house and in addition to all the legal paper…

But in theory, a decentralized framework consisting of smart contracts and NFT’s could work. In such a framework, the NFT would be providing real utility (unlike scammy JPEG NFT’s)

In such a framework how would you solve repossession? inheritance? seizure?

How would any state authority be able to handle any case where the person supposed to hold the keys either is unwilling or unable to authorize a transaction that should legally go through?

If I lost the keys (as in the keys to my blockchain wallet) to the NFT for my house should that plot of land just be abandoned forever? If a company gets hacked and their keys for all their assets (or stock) gets deleted should that company just close down forever even though nothing tangible actually changed?

You cannot impose the rules of the blockchain on tangible assets. If your counter argument is to give some institutions the power to rewrite or add unauthorized transactions to the blockchain then you have simply reinvented the state, and lost all of the properties of a blockchain that make them interesting/valuable.

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

#179

Post by belter »

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…

These are amateurs, you supposed to buy your own NFT for fks sake...

"Analyzing the Very Bizarre Sale of Melania Trump’s $170,000 NFT"

"The crypto used to purchase the former first lady’s NFT came from the NFT creator themselves, blockchain records reveal."

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vpx8/analyzing-the-very-bi...

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

#180

Post by mirntyfirty »

poiuiopkj wrote: post #150
tablespoon wrote: post #125

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.

This isn’t happening and it’s not the purpose.

“Unbanked” is an imaginary word. If a person is “unbanked”, it’s likely that they are also “uninternetted” and/or “uncomputered.”

Post reply on HN