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

61–70 of 262 posts

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

#61

Post by basisword »

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…

>> The tweet is publicly available so there is no exclusivity. Anyone can look far enough & find it.

This is true of all NFT's. The data is (should) be on the public blockchain.

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

#62

Post by tshaddox »

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…

In this case (as with many NFTs for things like digital paintings or famous old memes) the thing that make the NFT an NFT is the public proclamation by the person of interest (the author, creator, subject, etc.). No one is claiming that only the owner of the NFT can view the tweet or digital image.

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

#64

Post by eli »

greesil wrote: post #55
ALittleLight wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Peter Thiel quote - "The something of somewhere is often the nothing of nowhere."

Hindsight is 20/20, which is why you never see the crystal ball flying at your head until it's too late -- also Peter Thiel, probably.

A lot of people had the foresight to see that an NFT of an old tweet was a bad investment at the time.

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

#65

Post by colpabar »

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 government wants to freeze your crypto assets, they can do so easily.

So in all seriousness, what is the point of crypto, other than a "new stock market"?

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

#66

Post by danielmarkbruce »

dannyw wrote: post #31
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…

Jack Dorsey sold it; it's not like some random made a jpeg and tried to sell it.

I think he's asking what the "it" is.

Usually when you sell something, there are a bunch of legal rights that go along with the sale. What exactly did this guy buy? The right to look at the tweet? The right to restrict others from looking at it? The copyright? Any advertising dollars which flow because of that tweet? What?

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

#67

Post by elil17 »

ralusek wrote: post #40
adoxyz wrote: post #10

NFT's are a scam.

They're a scam in the way that anything for which its value is mostly a function of its scarcity; the scarcity is still always just a modifier on the demand for it. I would be more inclined to call it a scam if the technology was a failure or the purported scarcity of the asset being sold was being misrepresented. Neither of those are true. Instead, what is being traded are extremely scarce assets for which the deman…

Nothing inherently scammy about posting a JPEG and auctioning of some cryptographic link to it. The part that feels scammy is people trying to convince others (often people who are financially illiterate) that NFTs will gain value.

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

#68

Post by giraffe_lady »

ALittleLight wrote: post #43
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…

A Peter Thiel quote - "The something of somewhere is often the nothing of nowhere."

lmao what

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

#69

Post by cj »

golergka wrote: post #28
seanalltogether wrote: post #25

NFTs have made a little more sense to me since reading a comment on here or reddit effectively claiming that crypto is easy to get into, but hard to get your money out of. Especially depending on your age or where you live. As a result there's a lot of money floating around the space that people can't effectively extract, so instead they just speculate wildly on whatever they think will increase their virtual hoard.…

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.

Can the people downvoting this explain why this comment is not valuable?

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

#70

Post by maerF0x0 »

manholio wrote: post #48
dannyw wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jack Dorsey sold it; it's not like some random made a jpeg and tried to sell it.

> Jack Dorsey sold it So what? If Jack Dorsey took a dump, preserved in resin and sold it as an abstract representation of his first tweet, how would that be different, more genuine or less genuine than this NFT?

well for one, you could have exclusive access to that specific dump. Ironically there's more scarcity in what you described than an entirely publicly accessible NFT Pointer to a file with unrestricted access on the open internet.
Post reply on HN