Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I made $50K in three days with NFTs

paulstamatiou.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: I made $50K in three days with NFTs

#61

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

qeternity wrote: post #43
CPLX wrote: post #19

Why do people keep acting like this phenomenon is confusing? Like gee maybe people are really into mini Jpegs now. Or wow I guess if people really like spending buy-a-house money on a Twitter avatar this will be a thriving sector of the economy. I mean people really like gambling. Actually they fucking love it. Like they’ll build an entire city in the middle of an uninhabitable desert just to do it. They’ll give up t…

> NFT’s are a gambling fad, an extension of the more general crypto gambling fad. I agree with you to the fullest, very well summarized. The issue around crypto at the moment is that because it is poorly understood by both the masses and the evngelists (the tech, the economics, and often both) you have a lot of people who don't want to be left out of the "next big thing" and so they've pivoted their careers to convin…

No no, you’ve got it backwards.

So many people think gambling is the preferred investment that they’ll not only use all their own available cash and assets, they’ll surreptitiously make use of the cash and assets of their family and friends.

This comment is meant to be only mildly humorous, unfortunately.

Re: I made $50K in three days with NFTs

#62

Post by codetrotter »

rubyn00bie wrote: post #26

I just think it’s a way for people to show off their wealth. An NFT is pretty much a joke, “here’s the original” doesn’t really mean shit when I can quite literally have an exact and indistinguishable copy of the work. It honestly feels like insanity to me. Like, I can right now go set my avatar to the exact same Ape picture Curry purchased. It’s not even a replica, or recreation, it is literally the same exact image…

> Would the Mona Lisa be valuable if DaVinci could have made 1000s of EXACT copies? I’m gonna say no, but that’s exactly where we are. It’s cute someone says they own something like an NFT, or that it’s the original, but it’s nothing more than an illusion of uniqueness.

Munch made four versions of The Scream.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream#Versions

Paul Cézanne made several variations of many of the same motifs, for example with his drawings and paintings of the skulls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_C%C3%A9zanne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Skulls

https://www.kesslerramirez.com/blog/art-history-101-pyramid-...

And then there is Andy Warhol with his Campbell's Soup Cans and other works of art.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans

Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans were produced by a screen printing process and he made 32 canvases.

There is nothing that physically could have stopped Warhol from printing thousands of Campbell's Soup Cans instead of the 32.

And in the same way, a digital artist can choose to mint any number of NFTs for a work of art or variations of a work of art. If a digital artist chooses to mint a limited number of NFTs on the blockchain and this run of NFTs gains traction then it's a similar situation to the Campbell's Soup Cans in my opinion. In both cases, the artist could choose to print more physical Campbell's Soup Cans after the fact or mint more NFTs after the fact, but the initial run will forever be the "original" run, and they will remain special because of this. Simply because we assign special meaning to that.

Re: I made $50K in three days with NFTs

#63

Post by detaro »

rubyn00bie wrote: post #53
hk-im-ad wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would the Mona Lisa be valuable if DaVinci made one but we could make exact molecular replicas now? I would still say it would be valuable. You can make nearly indistinguishable copies off the Mona Lisa now, but they aren’t worth anything. The pictorial content of the Mona Lisa is only a small part of its value.

You’re sort of missing my point. An artist creating a similar work is not equivalent. If they were atomically identical copies, they would be literally the same. Any idea of “difference” would be completely false. That’s the difference here, these (NFTs) are by all means atomic copies. They aren’t close to the same, they ARE the same. If we could make atomic copies of the Mona Lisa it would surely drop in value… scar…

The "original" Mona Lisa, that's not a copy, would still be valued over the copies, even if the copies were perfect.

Re: I made $50K in three days with NFTs

#64

Post by adnzzzzZ »

barneygale wrote: post #58
adnzzzzZ wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artists directly making money from their art without intermediaries taking huge cuts (and with resales giving them a percentage on top of it) is absolutely not going to kill the future, it's just going to incentivize better creation of art. Scarcity makes economic sense for various kinds of art and there are many fields that have been destroyed by the Internet (i.e. music). It's only natural for the solution to also…

Music is flourishing - it's the music industry that has been destroyed by the Internet.

Compared to my industry (indie gaming), indie music is in an objectively way worse state.

Re: I made $50K in three days with NFTs

#65

Post by bryanlarsen »

rubyn00bie wrote: post #53
hk-im-ad wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would the Mona Lisa be valuable if DaVinci made one but we could make exact molecular replicas now? I would still say it would be valuable. You can make nearly indistinguishable copies off the Mona Lisa now, but they aren’t worth anything. The pictorial content of the Mona Lisa is only a small part of its value.

You’re sort of missing my point. An artist creating a similar work is not equivalent. If they were atomically identical copies, they would be literally the same. Any idea of “difference” would be completely false. That’s the difference here, these (NFTs) are by all means atomic copies. They aren’t close to the same, they ARE the same. If we could make atomic copies of the Mona Lisa it would surely drop in value… scar…

Read this classic essay: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

The works are identical if bits don't have color (re linked essay above). We know they don't, but in the eyes of the law they definitely do, so an exact copy is still a copy in the eyes of the law.

Re: I made $50K in three days with NFTs

#66

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

ddevault wrote: post #34

How I grifted $50K from my Twitter followers by selling them an imaginary product. This is morally wrong.

It’s only morally wrong for the numpty who gets caught holding the bag.

Everyone else will be celebrated, and can pat themselves on the back, for having the foresight to time the market.

Re: I made $50K in three days with NFTs

#68

Post by LMYahooTFY »

rubyn00bie wrote: post #26

I just think it’s a way for people to show off their wealth. An NFT is pretty much a joke, “here’s the original” doesn’t really mean shit when I can quite literally have an exact and indistinguishable copy of the work. It honestly feels like insanity to me. Like, I can right now go set my avatar to the exact same Ape picture Curry purchased. It’s not even a replica, or recreation, it is literally the same exact image…

>I just think it’s a way for people to show off their wealth

So is the Mona Lisa. So is a manuscript of The Tales of Beedle the Bard.

The notion of NFTs is embedded in the idea of immutability. If unique strings of bits hold no value for you, that's your preference and nothing more.

If you can only be sentimental about oil and canvas, or handwritten ink on leather bound paper, that's your preference and nothing more.

I can destroy the wallet key somehow. I can destroy the book. I can destroy the painting.

It's not an illusion of uniqueness at all, you just seem to be unwilling or unable to comprehend patronage.

Re: I made $50K in three days with NFTs

#69

Post by ykevinator3 »

LMYahooTFY wrote: post #68
rubyn00bie wrote: post #26

I just think it’s a way for people to show off their wealth. An NFT is pretty much a joke, “here’s the original” doesn’t really mean shit when I can quite literally have an exact and indistinguishable copy of the work. It honestly feels like insanity to me. Like, I can right now go set my avatar to the exact same Ape picture Curry purchased. It’s not even a replica, or recreation, it is literally the same exact image…

>I just think it’s a way for people to show off their wealth So is the Mona Lisa. So is a manuscript of The Tales of Beedle the Bard. The notion of NFTs is embedded in the idea of immutability. If unique strings of bits hold no value for you, that's your preference and nothing more. If you can only be sentimental about oil and canvas, or handwritten ink on leather bound paper, that's your preference and nothing more.…

I can make a hundred million replicas of the original for 10 cents, this is not a preference.

Re: I made $50K in three days with NFTs

#70

Post by lovemenot »

(keep reading for a less cynical take)

As sold now, nearly all NFTs will end up being a poor investment. A write-off. Some people hope to get rich quick and will punt on pretty much anything.

Longer term, and several rebrands later there's potential here.

The digital economy as it curently stands is a shit-show. Just attention grabbing for money. A race to the bottom. But it needn't be so.

A digital economy based on assets rather than attention could eventually emerge.

Asset licencing may be sub-1 cent per copy. That'd be fine, when the necessary payment infrastructure is in place. High volume, high efficiency, low cost.

Put your money on the infrastructure. Get rich slow.

Post reply on HN