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

John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#72

Post by [deleted] »

valuearb wrote: post #67
meowface wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Cryptocurrency and "Web 3.0" is absolutely not all zero-sum, and I'm overall optimistic in the long-term, but much like the existing finance industry, a high percentage is definitely zero-sum or close enough on net. People compare NFTs to trading cards. But if you already think those things are basically useless zero-sum speculative Greater Fool insert-other-overused-but-apt-buzzwords bullshit, your opinion of…

DeFi is actual DeSpec, tools for decentralized speculation on things with no intrinsic value.

[deleted]

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#74

Post by pjc50 »

Theodores wrote: post #62
scambier wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do people really care who pretends to own it They absolutely don't. There's no art collectors or amateurs in this game, only speculators.

Christie's commissioned the Beeple work to sell as an NFT. Why would an auction house do that? There is more to it than speculation. There is a con where something went on. Maybe the auction house commissioned the money to pay for it and had a 69.3 million fee. It saddens me that journalists have chosen not to follow the money and ask the questions.

> Christie's commissioned the Beeple work

Did they? I thought it was his investor "Metakovan" who commissioned it. Following the money is rather hard in an all-pseudonym system.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#76

Post by mnouquet »

quesera wrote: post #55
basch wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is physical art any different? If anything this is a democratization of the wealthy auction scene. A new tier of field to play. Alternative assets come in all shapes in sizes. I can store wealth in gold, comics, wine. Why not my name on a ledger listed as owner of nothing in particular other than the price I paid for it? The amount of hate they get on HN should be a clue that everyone is being over analytical and log…

Physical art is different. (hang with me here, but..) "Investing" in a Picasso is an investment in a long-term store of cultural value that you speculate will appreciate more quickly than the S&P. Probably because you bet that the 1% will see outsized gains compared to the 99%. Maybe you also like the art and want to be the only person in the world who can display it. Also it can be very useful as a tax dodge. "Inves…

> Physical art is different. (hang with me here, but..)

No, it is not. Picasso died dirt poor, he never beneficiated in large sums from his paintings. It just happen he was crazy enough to make a name and now people brag about him.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#79

Post by gerdesj »

toss1 wrote: post #25

Next up will be a set of data on the wing-flapping rate of African swallow and the instructions for the Holy Hand Grenade. All the comments about supposedly "owning" a copy of an item that is trivial to make perfect digital copies... exactly. If, somehow, the NFTs could be made actually non-fungible, and backed by the legal system, the one killer feature would be repeating revenue for the artist with every subsequent…

"wing-flapping rate of African swallow"

Laden or unladen? In a vacuum?

Post reply on HN