31–40 of 138 posts
I find their explanation so strange… they are adding it to their “collection of historic commerce artifacts”? Do they run a financial network or a museum? If I were a shareholder, I would not be happy with this move.
Lots of companies seem to spend money on non-business related things, so there seem to be some provisions for that in the usual shareholder agreements? Many art exhibitions seem to be sponsored by financial institutions, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s called brand marketing. Here we are talking about it.
Who is their target market exactly? IME (at least in Europe) you get either Visa or Mastercard depending on what your bank uses, and I don't think there are any differences.
> Curious about NFTs and how to integrate them in your brand strategy?
And then there's a link taking you to a page called:
> NTFs: Engaging Today’s Fans in Crypto and Commerce
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems strange to state in one paragraph both that (a) art can have value simply because it represents a point in art history and that (b) NFTs can't hold value as long as they're digital-only. Because, there's nothing about being digital-only which makes it so that they cannot represent a point in art history.
Would you go to Louvre to see Mona Lisa if you have an atom-by-atom identical copy at home? How much would you pay for the original? What is "original" in this case? Which ship of Theseus is the original one? I don't say, as art, some NFTs are not pretty. I just say they don't represent the same value (for me) as some people think. A CryptoPunk does not have a physical representation, so the one you and I see on our…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only is this a small sum of money for Visa to throw away, this is a small sum of money for an NFT collector to throw away. To me most criticism of NFTs is reminiscent of criticisms of modern art. Very few understand the scope of what "non fungible token" means. There are PLENTY of use-cases for a publicly verifiable token issued by a 3rd party and owned by you, other than art, if you just use a little imagination…
Mind sharing just one?
Well, congratulations to those NFT scammers, it finally paid off. They got their Whale. The entire game of pumping up NFTs to try and pass them off as a useful tool that'll see widespread adoption has finally paid out. This is a small sum of money for Visa to throw away, but this creates a fantastic permission structure for unsophisticated investors to throw away their life savings on a set of worthless e-certificate…
both are "artistic" to a certain degree, completely useless after the purchase and initial exchange.
I find their explanation so strange… they are adding it to their “collection of historic commerce artifacts”? Do they run a financial network or a museum? If I were a shareholder, I would not be happy with this move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m genuinely agnostic on your question, either of those possibilities strike me as roughly equally plausible.
Also, many of those debating and getting their toes wet in crypto are not necessarily predicting it will work, they’re just hedging their bets in case it does. For example I’ve got about 3% of my Investible wealth in crypto. If it tanks to zero I wouldn’t consider myself “wrong”. Crypto skepticism is still a fairly mainstream position, it’s not unique to HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems strange to state in one paragraph both that (a) art can have value simply because it represents a point in art history and that (b) NFTs can't hold value as long as they're digital-only. Because, there's nothing about being digital-only which makes it so that they cannot represent a point in art history.
Would you go to Louvre to see Mona Lisa if you have an atom-by-atom identical copy at home? How much would you pay for the original? What is "original" in this case? Which ship of Theseus is the original one? I don't say, as art, some NFTs are not pretty. I just say they don't represent the same value (for me) as some people think. A CryptoPunk does not have a physical representation, so the one you and I see on our…
I am certain that if there was a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa, the original would retain most of its value. I don't really understand why this is the case, but I do understand that it is the case.
Well, congratulations to those NFT scammers, it finally paid off. They got their Whale. The entire game of pumping up NFTs to try and pass them off as a useful tool that'll see widespread adoption has finally paid out. This is a small sum of money for Visa to throw away, but this creates a fantastic permission structure for unsophisticated investors to throw away their life savings on a set of worthless e-certificate…
Bitcoin crossed 50k (again), US senators are debating cryptocurrency regulation as part of historical legislation, and major global companies like Visa are making moves in the space. Is it possible the HN decade-long dismissal of crypto and blockchain has been totally wrong? Or is HN just a tiny minority of people who are simply smarter and wiser than the US government, Fortune 100 corporations, and hundreds of milli…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only is this a small sum of money for Visa to throw away, this is a small sum of money for an NFT collector to throw away. To me most criticism of NFTs is reminiscent of criticisms of modern art. Very few understand the scope of what "non fungible token" means. There are PLENTY of use-cases for a publicly verifiable token issued by a 3rd party and owned by you, other than art, if you just use a little imagination…
We already have (digital) ownership that can be publically verified.